 I don't know that the US is going to be leaving NATO, but maybe, you know, not kicking in so much anymore. I mean, it's indisputable that, like, like here's a graph of the defense expenditure share of GDP among the NATO countries way over there on the left. You've got the US and recently Greece contributing above the recommended 2% of their share of GDP. Everyone out, you know, most of the other countries are well below what NATO says they should be kicking in for their own self-defense. It increases monopoly money anyway, so it's not like it's actually... Yeah, unfortunately, the Greek contribution is going to be not going to, I mean, it's an interesting story. I'd actually like to read about that, but it's not going to make or break it. And then the other ones, it's not to make you, I don't know if you can go back, but the other ones are the UK and the Baltics. This is what I was talking about in terms of like what kind of coal is going to be. Yeah, so like Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, these are the uber anti-Russia hawks in the UK. So like that's basically it. And then once you get into the under, like, okay, Croatia, Balkans were always ambiguous a little bit on Russia, depending, assuming you're in Bosnia, you know, France, they're always going either way, you get the point. Yep, exactly. And then this is showing, this is just another way to visualize it, the share of the Alliance defense expenditure on the right there, the US 70%. So I mean, there's, you know, if this were to change, what do you think that would mean for the world? Like how would, what would be some of the major shifts that you would expect to see? Because I assume it's something you would like to see. If the US amends his relationship or if the US. The US says we're not going to, we're not going to be covering 70% of the bill anymore. Then I think that it won't be as radical as people think. I think that the NATO will be less financed, that other countries will actually step up. I actually do think Trump's sort of, you know, New York mafioso ways on this, like, are actually pretty effective, like at least they're more effective than the status Guanty. And then I think the major contribution of NATO is Article 5. Who will be stepping up? I presume it's not Latvia, right? Who are the people who can step up? Yeah, I mean, we have UK, we have Germany, but like realistically, how will that gap be made up for? Well, I don't know if the gap will be made up for in terms of all the money. My view is that why is NATO important? NATO is important because of Article 5. The US is treaty bound to defend any NATO member from an invasion. Everything else is conversation. My view is NATO could be halved and there wouldn't be a functional distinction. Now, people who don't have that view would say that means Ukraine is doomed, but Ukraine is not a NATO. And so for the NATO parties, it is the US guarantor. That's it. In terms of like who could make up some of the gap in my truncated NATO in terms of the financing, clearly the Germans, clearly the French, clearly the Italians. Are you concerned about, like play it out for me, a Biden re-election and what this means for NATO and what this means for Ukraine funding and or the war effort there versus a Trump election, like play it out for me in the shortest possible version of it. The Biden re-election somehow feels like less fat than the Trump re-election. Yeah, right. I mean, it feels weirder, right? It's like, what are we going to do? But I think if Biden is re-elected, I think it's possible that, as mentioned, the Democrats will take the House. I think the Republicans are going to take the Senate, potentially by a lot, actually. Who knows? They have quite a trade record of not delivering on that. And I think they'll take it as this grand moral indication. And I think that they'll get another eight packers through. But who knows? That also assumes that my armistice doesn't happen and doesn't keep. But then what about the Trump alternate reality? I plead game changer. I mean, I don't think it's like Trump is going to sit down and just give Ukraine away. I think you have seen consistently that Trump is more hawkish than people in the panic mode thought he would be. But I think, I mean, you could look, my basic view is like this stuff is intractable without either a de facto or a de jure recognition that Russia is going to have control of parts of Ukraine. Russia has been in charge of Crimea for a decade. And so much of the discussion of this we are tongue tied on, because we have to pretend like the Ukrainians are going to retake it. And so a president that doesn't really care about those niceties actually could go a long way to to appropriate peace. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our new show, Just Asking Questions. You can watch another clip here or the full episode here. New episodes drop every week. So subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube channel to get notified when that happens or to the Just Asking Questions podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other podcatcher. See you next week.