 There are many times, even within the context of the Cold War, where a lot of more hawkish Cold War years were furious at Dwight Eisenhower, at Ronald Reagan for not doing more than strongly worded letters when the Soviet Union, for example, put down uprisings in Budapest, Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and such like and or in Poland Solidarity in 1981. And in each case, the American Republican presidents said, look, we can't get drawn into a broader war here, but we can absolutely denounce it in very strong moral language and issue a strongly worded letter. I think what's happened now is that because sovereignty has been so serially violated after the international response to Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait in 1990, during which the U.S. and Soviet Union like literally stood shoulder to shoulder. Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush stood shoulder to shoulder and said that this is intolerable. They also used the phrase, we're going to enter a new world order. So maybe that wasn't the greatest press conference, but did they get into a black helicopter and fly off? A blackhawk helicopter. But that was, I think, a correct kind of impulse of saying that's the thing that we can't have more of. But then afterwards, the U.S. I think made the tragic mistake of deciding that after we routed Saddam that we felt bad that we didn't go all the way to Baghdad and thus began a series of the U.S. on the right, saying, God, we should have really like taken him out when we had the chance. We started doing no fly zones. We started violating the sovereignty of the lousy dictatorial country of Iraq and creating all these tripwires that if they cross them, we would have to invade them again, which is what eventually led to the 2003 war in Iraq and all of these things. I'm my viewer mistake. One of the questions here is, is should we look the other way when a nation pursues genocide? No, we should not, but that doesn't mean we should intervene militarily. We used genocide as the tripwire excuse to overthrow Mohamed Adafi. Again, a really bad guy in 2011. It was the, not even a genocide, but that we were worried that he might do a genocide sometime pretty soon in one specific city. And that was enough to absolutely destabilize an entire region using American and I think French power. And I think those are mistakes. If you focus more just on the question of sovereignty and then use your diplomacy to try to create collective action agreements among people who still believe in those kind of things, I think that's a better anchor to put foreign policy things in. Where does that leave us with Ukraine? Because we're in a post Cold War era and this is part of the issue is that the framework of not intervening everywhere all the time during the Cold War makes sense because there's a bigger battle. And Matt, you said the violation of an international border is something to take very seriously. So should we be defending Ukraine? Should we be defending Ukraine more? Should we be defending it less? How do we, can we work towards a negotiated settlement there? I would actually, I think that we should definitely not be involved militarily in Ukraine, certainly not with troops. We also don't have an actual defense agreement with them. But we might play a role in settling the conflict at this point on terms that are not going to be ideal for Ukraine, certainly, but might be better in the long run for stability in the region. Well, I, any like sort of Vivek Ramaswamy in idea that the US should sit down with Russia and decide what's best for Ukraine to me is replacements. And Trump has made some noises to that, but he's all over the map as usual. But there's been many cases where countries in Central Europe's fate has been decided at great power negotiations at which they were not invited. And it's a really bad history, one that every single president basically has apologized for up until Trump, he doesn't really do a lot of the apologizing thing. But you know, no more menics, no more Yalta's as they say over and over again. In my view, and this is not a libertarian or not a majority libertarian view. I don't think anyone wants to send US troops to Ukraine. I don't think it's, it's like any person really has suggested that there isn't really any tripwire to make that happen. There's something to suggest that, you know, the Budapest memorandum of 1994 at which Ukraine gives up its nuclear weapons in exchange for feeling like they might not get invaded by Russia anymore. And US and England were signatories to that. That suggests a level of interest and seriousness about how badly Russia has violated that and that we should feel, as people who are primary drivers of that negotiation, feel pretty bad about that. And also for those who don't like to see a lot of nuclear proliferation, that's the last time any country gives up its nukes, you can be damn sure. I personally think it's fine to help arm Ukraine as they are fighting a defensive war against people who are trying to steal their sovereignty. But I think that you have to submit that to the Democratic process in the United States. And you have to convince American voters that it is worthwhile and you should have a standalone vote and series of debates in Congress to do that and do it with clear eyes that you might be funding a cause that maybe was lost from the beginning, or at least in terms of keeping Crimea, let alone Dombas, or Dombas, let alone Crimea. So that's what I think, but not, that's not a dominant majority view to say the least. That was a clip from the Reason Roundtable podcast. To watch more clips, go here. To watch the whole show, go here. And subscribe to the Reason Roundtable wherever you get your podcasts.