 So, looking out at the Sydney Opera House from Sydney Harbour Bridge, and great news guys, I was just reading in the New York Times that Ukraine can win the war, but the price may be too high for the West. Yeah, the price may well be a world-ending planet-destroying nuclear war with Russia. And you really think that Russia is just going to give up this fight, so we can usually win many different battles. But sometimes the price is way too high, so it's always a matter of tallying up the price and tallying up the benefits. So Ukraine would need tens of billions of more dollars, more powerful weapons, and it looks like they could drive Russia out of the territory that Russia has seized in 2022. You come then with a much escalated chance of war between NATO and Russia explicitly. Right now the Ukraine and Russia war is just a proxy war with NATO working behind the scenes on behalf of Ukraine. But if it turns from a proxy war into a shooting war, then all bets are off. So how is it in America's interest, Australia's interest, to risk nuclear conflagration in a direct shooting war with Russia so that Ukraine can get back all of its territory? Is it so important that we send a message to Putin that he cannot win, that we risk some major escalation? Don't see the payoff there. The United States has already given Ukraine $50 billion, so it's playing an incredibly dangerous game. So the Biden administration underneath all its rhetoric is engaged in a brutal, brutal calculus. They think that this war is worth it because it will destroy Russia, remove Russia from the ranks of the great powers. But you're taking a significant risk of nuclear escalation. And in the final analysis, how does it benefit England, France, Britain, Australia, the United States, whether or not Russia gets to retain any of the territory that is conquered from Ukraine? Like if we could have peace and removal of the threat of nuclear war, and Ukraine becomes a little smaller, why is that an unacceptable price? I'm willing to pay the price for peace.