 So in 1945, there was a sense that there was really a new world to build because the past world that had essentially disappeared. I think in 1989, because things went so smoothly, which is a very good thing, we felt that this was just an expansion of the world, of the world of democracy that existed in the western part of Europe before 1989. We thought we confused what was the collapse of an exhausted regime, the Soviet Union and communism. We confused it with the triumph of democracy and that was wrong. And because of that, we begun, we had a kind of retrospective approach to things. The EU, we thought the most important thing was to, Germany was going to be bigger, so the first important thing was to prevent Germany from being dominant. So we did good things, we did the euros, but we didn't think of the European Union in its relationship to the rest of the world. We still saw it as a kind of internal project, which is a big mistake. With Russia, much is made of the enlargement of NATO. Personally, I don't see how the countries that had been under the occupation of Russia could have desired anything less than joining NATO. But it's true that at the same time, this enlargement of NATO, it looked at Russia. No, there was a partnership, there were all sorts of institutions created to try to assuage Russia. But at the end of the day, NATO was never going to be seen as a friendly organization from Russia. There was the political issue, the back and forth. Who's coming into NATO? Should Poland come into NATO? Should Ukraine come into NATO? And there were people pushing for this, very hard. I will confess that at the time, I felt a little ambivalent, not ambivalent, that's not right. I felt that we should be very cautious and not just stampede into something because it was something that felt good to us and we wanted to help our friends in the east. But we needed to be sensitive to history. So we have all kinds of things through history that have helped us to come together, but we still have divisive things underneath. We also have a very, very short memory, in my opinion. Very short memory for the tragedies that you gave us an example of this morning, of what happens in wars. And as someone who has spent, I think, too much time involved in conflicts around this world, it is not something that we should wish to have repeated. And yet, we seem to just go at it again and again. And we are not, in my opinion, learning the basic lessons that we should have learned from the past. We should know that human nature is gonna do what it does and you have to work at it. It isn't gonna be just go away. So if we recognize that these tendencies are still inside of us, how do we bring out the better tendencies? I mean, we have an amazing capacity for goodness in the world and we see that every day. But there's this constant battle, if you would, between the good and the evil. That hasn't gone away and we continue, in my opinion, to make this mistake of getting into conflict. That, at the end of the day, is ugly all the way through. But we forget about it very quickly and we seem to just move on and we find ourselves not learning the lessons of history. And I think that's one of the most important things we should take away and try to get our young people to understand. I believe that most of Europe, they draw lessons from World War I and World War II, which is why war among us in the European Union and NATO is unthinkable. You know, I serve at the European Parliament, from here I'll go to Strasbourg, which started life as Argen Torum, a Roman outpost on the Rhine. It was defending the Latin world against the Germanic world. And you know, after 2000 years of wars, it's still in the same place, the border. And we've drawn the lesson that pooling some aspects of sovereignty is better than warring.