 Hi, my name is Sandy Bear and I'm here with Kurt Mehta and attorney in Burlington and a colleague of mine on what's happening and many other issues. And we're here today to give a little bit of an update on how we see the situation in Ukraine, which I think is an important issue to discuss because in my opinion, it could end up plunging us into World War three, and that's not a particularly happy So Kurt and I have done our own research. We are scholarly types. However, we are not what you would call experts, although I taught history for a very long time. And Kurt also has studied history is an attorney and has been a news junkie and a political junkie like me for many years. So we're here to give kind of an update on how we feel about the Ukraine Russian situation. And I'm glad that town meeting TV is joining us to record this. Okay, so Kurt, what's going on. Okay, so I mean I thought Sandy we start out by just having you know maybe a single, I guess you can call it a paragraph. So we have a summary on, you know, the parties here, mainly, you know, Russia, the US, and of course, Ukraine, and NATO, and NATO. Yeah, another another integral, you know, part of the discussion. And it has just so that people know that prior to 1991, Ukraine was never an independent country. It was always part of the Russian Empire, and then part of, you know, Russian fuel states if you go really far back in Russian history, we're going back now more than 400 years. There was never a independent Ukraine, until after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. So I just want to let me let me say something about that it's interesting because I remember when it happened. Just when it became Ukraine, the name rather than Ukraine, right. The Ukraine meant they were part of Russia. Correct, correct. But Ukraine, can it became when it became more or less an independent country right. Yeah, and historically and then you know a couple other things I think with that you know people watching participating should know about the after Russia the Ukraine or Ukraine is now you got me saying Ukraine is the largest country in Europe, after Russia. So, in terms of size, the second largest European country, and it's also the poorest country. All of Europe, even you know if you Slavic Europe and Eastern Europe is considered the poorest country and largest and second largest after Russia, assuming that we can stipulate that we consider Russia Europe. That's going to ask you, historic, you know, discussion, because many Americans don't see Russia as another European and Christian country. Look, I mean, during the Nuremberg trials, a number of the Nazi leadership, also considered Russia, a non European state, Asian, right. So there's always been this, you know, you know, Russia, in terms of its own sense of, if you want to call it self esteem has always felt that they were always a part of Europe, yet many European countries, especially Western European countries did not consider them European. I think for a couple reasons just, I know this is a. Yeah, this is all great. However, it is important to realize that Russia has a different alphabet. So it looks strange as does Greek, as does Bulgaria, as to other quote unquote European country. Exactly, but Russia has this unique language, unique alphabet, right. Russia has contained Asian parts, Russia, but what we're talking about is Russia, which is Russian, and not easy in part of Asia really is part of Europe, the Russian people guard themselves, I think is part of Europe, right, they do. Yeah, yeah. So, okay, so that aside, the Ukraine has always been part of Russia up until 1991 after 1991 as we may or may not know the Soviet Union. Collapsed, it broke up. And what the subsequent country, if you want to call it a country but states were referred to as the Commonwealth of Independent States, it was a loose confederation of states that had economic, cultural and political ties. Yeah, yeah, and some cultural and you know I mean the Soviet Union was relatively well integrated in terms of its military and in terms of its economy, in terms of incorporating people from these quote unquote Asian. I live in Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. Yeah, I mean, again, we're going off topic last, this is the last one I'm going to say is a number of reports and diaries that were written towards the end of the Second World War by Germans. And as they saw the Soviet Union, so the Red Army essentially, you know, defeat the Nazi Empire on the ground. Much of the forces that were coming in were Asian. Right. And Mongolians too. Absolutely. Yeah, because they were really. Yeah, but they were Asian and even the, you know, people in the proper Germany were very surprised by that in terms of who was coming in and representing the Red Army. So the Soviet Union was relatively well integrated in terms of, you know, institutions, the sciences, education as well. What we call diversity. What we call diversity. Right. Yeah, yeah, their army was integrated well before ours. Okay, well what about Ukraine during World War II, even if you want to go back that far. So it is actually important to just have a brief discussion about that. There wasn't independence movement in the Ukraine, small, but it was noticeable prior to the Second World War. Part of the reason was what Ukrainians call, what was called the Holomir, Holomir, I'm probably pronouncing that wrong. So excuse me for those who are Ukrainian descent. But that was essentially what they called their, their Holocaust. Millions of Ukrainians died during the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union happened elsewhere also. But Ukraine took a very heavy front if you want to call that in terms of the collectivization process where millions of Ukrainians essentially starved to death, because agricultural quotas that were uniform throughout the Soviet Union were not met. They were considered unrealistic in terms of production. And the Ukraine, Ukraine at that, the Ukraine at that time was considered the bread back. Right. Yeah, right. And the irony was even though they were producing agricultural product or produce, they didn't have access to it. And, and a lot of people millions of people starved. You know the points this out is the historian, and Apple bombs, who wrote a book. I saw her interviewed recently called the Great Famine. Yeah, the Great Famine over collectivization, which is when essentially when the Soviet Union took over private property, private, small farms and made them state farms. Absolutely. Huge. Yeah. And she argues that Ukraine suffered severely, if not mostly because the Ukrainian economy at that time, you know, unfortunately throughout history, you know, poverty is often been linked with agriculture. Right. Right. You know, the industrialized cities, and Ukraine was largely agricultural and still is. And unfortunately, therefore has that title being the poorest country in Europe. But it suffered disproportionately because it was a largely agricultural state in the collectivization process. And that was in the 30s. That was in the 1930s. So Stalin was, you know, our world prior to World War Two. Yeah, we're going about six, seven years before the second World War commenced, and Stalin was faulted for that and was considered a monster in Ukraine. Stalin, you know, had that reputation for the brunt that they suffered from the collectivization process. So there was a disconnect in the Ukraine, even then, with the Russian Empire Soviet Union, and they felt that they were essentially, you know, again, they were disproportionately affected by this and felt that they needed to separate. But there wasn't any movement, the Second World War came in, you know, that was. Because that was a mixed bag, too. That was a mixed bag. Yeah. So, just, you know, want to stipulate that there was this internal feeling in the Ukraine at that time of not feeling other than what the rest of Russia was because of how it suffered in the 1930s during this family. So, we're going to fast forward to a slightly more modern time when the 1991 breakup the Soviet Union took place. Ukraine was essentially considered an independent country became an independent country. I thought it did before that under Khrushchev. No. No. The only thing was, again, under Khrushchev, Ukraine was so well integrated within the Soviet Union. At this point, of course, you know, we're talking about Khrushchev, we're talking about host second world host Stalin, and a portion of Russia, that was called the Crimea, that is called the Crimea, Crimea was redistricted. I mean, I guess in US terms, you call it gerrymandered into the Ukraine. And temporarily for whatever reason, they decided to incorporate the Crimea into Ukraine, because it didn't really matter at that time because these were just internal states within the Soviet Union, one, you know, one monolith. Crimea always mattered, though, to the Soviet Union, didn't it? It always did. I mean, Crimea, you can, you know, in terms of historical times, the culture of Russia, the religion of Russia, the great poets, the great, some of the great cities, like Odessa, Sochi where the Olympics took place a few years back. They're in the Crimea, right? Yeah, yeah. So I mean, the heart of Russia has always been in the Crimea, believe it or not. They have a big base there too, in Sevastopol. In Sevastopol, there's a number of naval bases. So let's just talk about the breakup really quickly before we move to, you know, 2021 and 2020. At the time of the breakup, again, because of the Soviet Union, all these different independent states prior to the breakup were part of one, you know, monolith, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, nuclear weapons were spread out all over the countries. Including in Ukraine, right? And a substantial portion of them were in the Ukraine, because the Ukraine abuts the West. It was the western most, quote, unquote, state or region of the Soviet Union that was close to the West, to, well, except for East Germany. But yeah, East Germany was probably the most furthest to the West. But it was a large land mass within the Soviet Union. The East Germany was not a part of the Soviet Union. It was an independent country. Within the Soviet sphere of influence. Right, which is different. Yeah, which is different. The USSR actually, you know, contained the Ukraine. That was one of the states of many states. So nuclear weapons were in the Ukraine. Like Chernobyl. Correct. Yeah, there was a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. That melted down in 1986. The Ukraine needed money at the end of the breakup. You know, of the Soviet Union. So in 1994, what they agreed to was something called the Budapest memorandum, which agreed to it Ukraine and many other states within the former USSR. And the essentially, you know, the essentially the deal that was worked out was that many of these states would get political and economic support from not just the, not just Russia, but many other countries in Europe in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons. One of the biggest issues, one of the biggest fears in the West and in the East also was that these, these weapons were distributed throughout many of the Soviet states. And the fear of weapons throughout the USSR. And the fear was that, you know, the proliferation, you know, anti-proliferation regime that was in place at the time was very nervous that these weapons are going to get sold because these countries were broke. These states had no money. And you're going to have, you know, bad actors trying to acquire these nuclear weapons or the technology used to build the nuclear weapons. So there was a international effort to try to place a containment on the spread of these nuclear weapons. Okay. I mean the US had them. Of course we did. Yeah. We were the only power that did for a long time. Right. Until the Soviet. Yeah. But I mean the, the concern at the time was that these weapons were going to, you know, just go start proliferating into, you know, whether countries in the Middle East or even other actors that, you know, we considered unstable or even terrorist groups, non-state actors. So the Soviet Union worked out this Budapest memorandum with Ukraine and many other countries. And the Ukraine essentially in 1994 decided to give up its nuclear weapons. The weapons went to Russia. All the weapons of these different states went to Russia. Because Russia was deemed by the international community in a better position to maintain and be responsible. Secure these weapons. Right. Probably that was more or less correct. The same. Right. It made sense. It made sense. It made sense to have them all in one place rather than have them spread out over, you know, the USSR was the largest by far, the largest country in the world. You know, I think. Including China. Including China. I mean, in terms of geography. Not population. I think they, it spans about seven different zones. Yeah. Maybe even more. So over such a land mass, it would have been very difficult to control these weapons. I mean, you know, the Ukraine gave them up what they got back in exchange, aside from, you know, possible economic. Concessions and aid was the Soviet Union. I mean, I'm sorry, Russia agreed. At that point, Russia agreed that it would never compromise the territorial integrity of the borders of the Ukraine. Okay. It was not a nuclear force or political force. That was the agreement in exchange. It acquired all of Ukraine's nuclear weapons. That was agreement at that point that Ukraine would remain more or less neutral in the Cold War. That's another important thing. Yeah. That agreement was that any state, any state had the right to develop its own alliances. Wow. Including Ukraine. In any other state, whether we're talking about other former like Poland, definitely, but other former Soviet republics like Georgia. Kazakhstan. Okay. So that's important to remember at the time, what took place in the in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union broke up. In terms of the way I view what's going on right now between now between the Soviet Union, I'm sorry, Russian and Ukraine is it comes across really as a really messy divorce. Ever since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine has, Ukraine has always tried to tilt towards the West. Right. Well, part of Ukraine. Part of Ukraine. Right. Largely. Yeah. A good part of Ukraine. Maybe. Because of economics and, and largely it's economics. Well, there are also differences. Yeah. Ukraine is Roman Catholic, or at least part of part of Ukraine is. Yeah. The Western part is mainly Roman Catholic. Right. Different language than Russian. Not very different. No, I know, but it is different. Right. And it is more or less more connected with the Western European countries than the Eastern part of Ukraine, which is Russian speaking. Yeah. It's, I don't think it's connected. I think they want to be connected to Western Europe. Yes, exactly. I don't know if Western Europe wants them that much. Right. Well, here's the thing. So, I mean, you, you mentioned, you know, NATO is one of the parties in this discussion. Right. Exactly. So, very important to understand. The Ukraine, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Exactly. They're a partner. Are they? They're a partner. Right now, they are. Yeah. But it's kind of like, you know, when the United States was a partner to the predecessor of the United Nations in the 1920s, the League of Nations, and it's a partner, not a member. So, it's important to understand there's a difference between partnership and membership when it comes to just, if you're even talking about the internal world of NATO, you know, the essentially the agreement that the states of NATO have, if we buy into it, the whole concept is that an attack on one of the states is an attack on all of that. And it's an alliance, like in World War I. Right. Sure. Absolutely. An attack on one is an attack on the others. Therefore, they would have to intervene. Now, in this case, Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Right. So, we don't technically have. We don't have an alliance. Us, you know, member states of NATO don't technically have a legal obligation to get involved, as we would were, you know, were there an attack on Germany or France or Spain, while, you know, long-standing members of NATO. Okay. I want to go back a bit. So, many Americans don't know what NATO is. NATO is an alliance of Western European powers founded in 1947, after World War II, to secure some kind of collective security in Europe. Correct. Yeah. The North Atlantic Treaty. Okay. So, North Atlantic, and it was composed only then of Germany, France, West Germany, England, France. Correct. That's correct. And any other countries? There may be a few others. And mainly the United States. Okay. So, that alliance was basically anti-Soviet. That's correct. Correct. And the Soviet... It was considered a buffer up against the Warsaw Pact. Right. The Warsaw Pact. But there came a point when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. Correct. That was in 1991. In 1991. And wasn't that as a result of an agreement with the West, that the West would not expand NATO onto Russia's borders? Yeah. It's actually even a little bit more interesting than that, Sandy. There were discussions at the time, even at the top levels, and there was interest on the part of the new Russia of actually acquiring membership in... Right. Right. Right. Right. There were discussions between the Clinton administration and Putin himself. I know. At the time. And there was... There's actually footage. I mean, if folks go on YouTube, or there's a great interview, a four-session interview on showtime of Vladimir Putin a few years ago. He's a clever guy. Yeah. It's four sessions. The interviews conducted by Oliver Stone. I saw those. I'm sorry. I saw them. They're brilliant. This never happens on 60 Minutes. Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. But yeah. So, in that documentary, they actually show a scene of in a public space Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Vladimir Putin talking about NATO. And Putin actually expressed himself and said that, and perhaps we can even gain NATO membership. And Clinton physically brushed him aside. What do you mean? And said, well, we'll see about that. As in, let's have a discussion later. But right. To all people watching it and processing it now would say, don't bend on. Don't hold your breath. Yeah, don't hold your breath. Right. Okay. So, the NATO alliance, would you agree, was aimed at the Soviet Union? Absolutely. I mean, its formation was specifically to prosecute a containment policy against the Soviet Union. So that the Soviet Union would not expand any further. Any further than where it was at the borders of the hot stand. Right. But NATO also, I believe made some kind of an agreement with the Russians that they would not expand either into the more or less sphere of influence of Russia. Right. And that is broken. Yeah. So what's interesting in terms of that discussion or that line of thinking is that in the last week, the, and I'm probably getting the title wrong, but basically the Secretary General of NATO, his name is Jens Stoltenberg. He gave us, I think so. Yeah. I think so, the name sounds, but yeah, knows. But he made a comment and he's quoted quite a bit in stating that essentially that NATO would not honor or recognize any Russian sphere of influence or any Russian claims to territory outside of what we consider the borders of Russia itself. So they didn't have, and at any state around it, including the Ukraine, had a right to seek any alliance with any organization, whether it's NATO or the European Union, or any other security. But he's not a political leader. But he's a very important person in terms of dictating NATO policy, the world. And he's a spokesperson for NATO. So for a person at that high level to basically state and tell the Russia, Putin, that you have no sphere of influence, you have no right to a sphere of influence, and that countries around you that you previously may have considered a buffer zone, you can't make that claim anymore. Okay. So how does that relate then to the crisis right now? Okay, so let's move to 2021, 2022. So in April of 2021, there was a joint military exercise that the members of NATO were going to conduct and started to conduct. And this was planned several months before. It was the largest military exercise in decades in all of Europe. This was NATO. Correct. The name of the exercise in folks at home playing along can Google it. It was called Defender 21. This is not a conspiracy or something I found on some crazy website. This was NATO policy. This was a named operation. Okay. And it involved several of the NATO member states, including the United States, including Britain, including France, and Ukraine, and Ukraine, seven of the exercises, the military exercises were going to be conducted on Ukrainian soil as a partner of NATO. Military? Yeah, military exercises. And the Defender 21 program, military joint military exercise, the objective of that was to basically practice for a fictional war against Russia. Fictional. Yeah, but fictional at the time. That's what the purpose was. And that was at what date? That was in April 2021. Okay. Yeah. Again, something that was planned months and months before that in terms of coming together. And operations began starting. The joint military drills did actually start starting April. The United States sent seven very large warships into the Black Sea. Again, not as a hostile act. Russia was told that this was happening. It wasn't a big secret for anything. But it was a... How do you feel if there are all these Russian warships in the Caribbean? Well, we remember that in 1960s. We remember that about the Cuban Missile Press. Correct. Yeah. So we can guard that as terribly friendly. No, no. It wasn't considered an act of love at the time. So this was a military exercise that took place just last year. And what it resulted in is the Russians actually had a response. I mean, a verbal response, not a military one. And they stated that, you know, listen, I mean, we... I know this is fictional, but we're the bad guy in this fictional drama that you're creating and these military exercises. And we consider this a hostile act that you're essentially prepared for a potential war against us. And that ratcheted up. Right. This crisis. This crisis. So the Russians then began to station, you know, there have been claims of up to 70,000 to even up to 100,000 troops. Right. Along the Russian border. Right. And that... That's the Russian border. The border on the side of Russian. Exactly. Which, again, I mean, you know, if we talk about territorial sovereignty and integrity, you know, you can do what you're supposed to be able to do whatever you want to do within your own country as long as you're not harming people, you know, and creating, you know, even the rights abuses. So that, you know, so they're stationing troops along their own border. And that's you saying, man, that's something I don't think most Americans know is that it was in response to this war games that the United States and other native powers were conducting in a Russian sphere of influence. I mean, we don't recognize. Another thing I'm trying to say is that we probably never have recognized a sphere of influence on the part of Russia anywhere. Now, again, I mean, you know, Putin has always been a... If you watch that showtime interview, you know, his view of the break of the Soviet Union, it's really interesting. You know, he talks about it historically from the standpoint that he definitely agreed with the Gorbachev administration that reforms had to be made because the Russian economy was not doing well. And, you know, losses that had gone, that go back all the way to Second World War, but also including, you know, financial losses in Afghanistan at the time really damaged the Russian economy so then had to be restructured. Where Putin descents from with Gorbachev was that he believes that the state did not necessarily have to break up. Neither did Gorbachev, I don't think. Well, I don't know. Yeah, probably not. And then his views of the subsequently to Boris Yeltsin were a little bit more nuanced because he didn't work with Yeltsin for a period of time in the 1990s. But the belief on his part was that, you know, that the Soviet Union did not have to be broken up geographically speaking, that that was an affront to the self-esteem of the people, the cultural integrity of, you know, the region, this massive large region. And the reason I'm bringing this up is because these frustrations are listed in his demands that he made to the West a couple of weeks ago on how to de-escalate this crisis, which is, which is to withdraw, rescind this offer to the Ukraine of joining NATO and also similarly to do the same with regard to the Baltic states, Lithuania, Estonia, and Lafayette. They're not in NATO? They're not in NATO yet. So he, by making this list of demands, he is essentially, you know, critics will say that he's essentially trying to recreate that sphere of influence that the Soviet Union had without the actual territorial integrity, meaning, you know, the conquest, you know, and physically incorporating these states. Okay. Thank you, Kurt. Okay. So, and so the position of the United States, essentially, I think is what you're arguing, the United States appears to me to be saying that Ukraine's got the right to join NATO. And if they, and if Ukraine wants to join NATO, we're going to allow that to happen. We're going to allow, as long as the preconditions that are required for membership in NATO are met, we don't care where the country is. But that's going to really annoy Putin and Russia. And are you saying that there is at least some semblance of reason that Putin has, rather than being called the name of Thug and so forth, as many Americans have done? I mean, in other words, is Putin seeing all of this from a realistic Russian viewpoint using? I think Putin is, I mean, if you want to talk about the individual, I think looking out for Russian interest, given the fact and his own history, you know, where he grew up, the time that he grew up in, and seeing his country basically picked apart and taken apart and then humiliated in the process and then going through a very economic recession after the breakup of the Soviet Union. I think he looks at the states that made up the Soviet Union, if not a part of Russia, at least a post-Second World War buffer zone that was created. Okay, but that's in the East. Okay, but if you think about it, both Gorbachev and Putin allowed those states, Kazakhstan and so forth, to become independent without a shot being fired. Yeah, Gorbachev and Yeltsin, I don't know how much of a world Putin had. Well, if you think about it, that is fairly remarkable that they let them go. Sure. As they let East Germany go, as they let Poland go, as they let Hungary go. Right, they did. They allowed the dissolution of the Soviet and therefore really the Russian Empire. They allowed for that. Right. So I think on Putin's side, you know, there's a little bit, you know, there's a little bit of nostalgia as there is in much of Russia. Much of Russia. Yeah, hey look, we were a big player, the Second Magus or maybe the biggest, and now, you know, we're being treated as a sideshow act in the international community. And now, I mean, it's, there's a national self-esteem that every country has, every country. Okay, but look, I took a class many years ago in international relations and during the Cold War. Yeah. And what they, what that Professor pointed out, there's always been two historic goals of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Yeah. The first historic goal is to create warm water ports. Yeah. And that's in Crimea. Right. Right. The second is to create buffer states between Russia and the West. Now the West, including Napoleon. And specifically, it was largely Eastern Europe. Yeah. But it was largely due to the damage that was done. Right. To the Russian people and to the Russian state, the Soviet state by the Germans during the war that were devastating. Exactly. But let me point out before that, how about Napoleon? You can go back another century. Okay. So the Russians have always acted in a lot of ways defensively. That's correct. With these, with this buffer state, Poland is a buffer. What they used to think of, not anymore, Poland is a NATO. Absolutely. Okay. So that whole area was buffer states. Right. No, they might be right or that might be wrong. But I mean, one can question whether or not, you know, an independent state has the right to say what we want to be with, you know, I know we're buffers and I know, you know, in the history of these regions, you know, that Russia, Mother Russia has been attacked by the Germans and by the French before them. And even partly even by the British, which is a different discussion from the southern end. But that's their problem. You know, we want our own independence. No, no, I know that. I know that. And of course, every, I guess, I don't, I mean, that's of course true, I guess. Yeah. However, the Russians see it differently. They say this is defensive. That's what I think is missing in the American mentality. The mentality, the narrative that we largely get from the press, you know, we don't talk about. And partly part of this is because of how posed off the Soviet Union is. Well, not Soviet Union was in that it wasn't really relayed in historical circles and made public in historical circles until the late 1980s about how much damage the Soviet Union Russia sustained during the Second World War. Okay, I want to close maybe by, you know, by a couple of other thoughts. One, I've noticed from the press and from every almost every American I've ever talked to, they forget the Second World War in the first place. And they forget that the Russians paid the highest price for the defeat of the Nazis. Absolutely. And that we were allies twice. Twice in the 20th century, the United States depended on Russia to be the Germans depended on them. And they paid with their bodies. The United States paid the highest guess material price. I mean, we aided the Soviet Union. It's important to remember, I mean, you know, it's an unfathomable number, but 27 million Russians died during the Second World War in its fight against. And they were the ones who entered Berlin in 1945, and basically held to the liberation of Germany. Yeah, I mean, when the during the battle of Berlin, Truman essentially did not want US soldiers in Berlin because he thought it was going to be a bloodbath. And it was. And it was. I mean, I think in a course of about three days, 70,000 Russian soldiers. Yeah. So he was afraid of friendly fire in terms of Russians and Americans shooting one another unknowingly, not intentionally. So, you know, basically he made the same calculation that the Soviets later made with regard to the US prosecuting the war in Japan, so that it was just not let the US handle that part of it. And Truman said, let the Soviets handle Berlin. I know, but even in the American defeat of Japan, the casualties were mainly Japanese. Well, of course. But I'm talking about in terms of allies. Right, right, right, right, right. Or maybe you could argue that our ally in that in that theater where the Chinese and they, of course, true, you know, suffered. In other words, America's emerged on top. Yeah, World War Two. Yeah, they were really the only victors. We were the only victor. Really? What do you think about it? The Soviets had beaten the Nazis, but I can't imagine price. They suffered. I just think that that should be remembered twice, though. World War One as well. Yeah. So, I mean, the interesting thing here is, you know, what you can surmise is that we have our Monroe Doctrine, whether we, you know, whether he's considered a good guy now or not, or just, you know, an old slave holder from that time. But the Russians are not allowed to have their version of the Monroe Doctrine, which was called the Brezhnev Doctrine. That, you know, having a sphere of influence, that's unacceptable. Well, that's the double standard. Right, exactly. But most Americans don't know much about the Monroe Doctrine either, which was 1823 when President Monroe said the United States is going to establish a sphere of influence throughout the hemisphere. Right. From North and South America, and that no foreign power is going to be able to break into that sphere. Right. But that's, you know, maybe not the average person on the street, but, you know, those within the foreign policy circles of the United States, the institutions of foreign policy have basically looked at that as the, you know, the black and white law. Right, and not, you know, black letter law. Okay, so before we close, and maybe we should think about wrapping up, what's going to happen? I think there's going to be a de-escalation. Yeah, me too. I did too. Yeah. It's too, it's too fiery. Yeah, I mean, again, whenever you have, you know, nuclear power states, the stakes are too high. We don't have really, we don't have a legal obligation to defend Ukraine. This is largely a, you know, competition of bluster and largely, you know, men trying to, you know, talk tough with one another, you know, talking about Biden, talking about Putin, but, you know, no one wants to go into a nuclear war. I don't think, I know it. You know, in a situation where neither party really gains that much. Nobody gains anything. Yeah, whether, yeah, whether the Russians took Ukraine or whether we lost Ukraine, we lost Ukraine. There isn't that much. We didn't lose Ukraine. No, in the event that, let's say, hypothetically, Russia, you know, invaded. Yeah. Well, I mean, Ukraine was not a, and is not a member state of NATO. We don't have a legal obligation to defend it. Right. Right. Although I repeatedly, the press is always talking about Ukraine as an ally. I thought the other night, we're not allies with Ukraine. No, we're not. Right. That's important to like them. Sure. Yeah. But, but it's, you know, but in these kind of circles, and these, you know, when you have the stakes of this eye, it's important to recognize they're not a legal ally, and they are not, we don't have a legal obligation. And it's important to remember, too, that we don't really, Russia is really not our enemy, not that I can see. Yeah. Right. But the foreign policy establishment in the United States since 1946 has been geared towards believing that it indeed is, regardless of the, you know, sacrifices of both countries in the Second World War. But that's the, that's the way the policy has been geared. And that's the way the thinking is, and any deviation from that is, you know, swiftly deemed unpatriotic. Absolutely. Yes. All right. Well, thank you very much, Kurt. Maybe we'll see you again in a couple of weeks. And thank you, town meeting TV. Sure. See you soon. Yeah.