 So welcome everyone, thank you for staying with us as we had a few technical difficulties it would not be a Zoom session if there weren't a few challenges as we start off. My name is Greg Bowman, I am the Dean of the Roger Wynch University School of Law. And thank you to this discussion today on a very important topic that is very upsetting and constantly in the news right now which is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. I'm joined with some of my colleagues from the university, two of my colleagues from the law school, Professor John Chung, Professor Wynch Gott, and then from the main university, Dr. Sagan Donovan and Dr. Murksowski. And we all bring different perspectives to the subject of Ukraine and the crisis. And so we hope that this is an informative session and discussion. We will try to leave time for questions at the end and I should also say that the session is scheduled for between four and five. But if there are additional questions, there are panelists who are going to plan to stay around for additional conversation after five o'clock. It's a really important topic and we need to devote the time that we have to it. So I'm going to start by introducing my colleague Professor Chung. Professor Chung has a background in international law. I'll let him give some additional details and provide us with a legal perspective on the crisis in Ukraine. John. Thank you, Greg. And thank you everyone for attending. During our lifetimes, we've seen many armed conflicts around the world, but I believe that the situation in Ukraine is different and more concerning than the others. And in order to explain why I reached that conclusion, I want to place the situation in Ukraine in a larger historical perspective and also in terms of the perspective of international law. And with that, I want to start with the preamble to the United Nations. The preamble to the United Nations Charter, the preamble to the Charter, the United Nations was created in 1945 as the war was winding down and the Charter of the United Nations was published after the war in Europe ended. And so the United Nations was formed in direct response to the end of World War II. And I'd like to read the first word to the preamble which says, We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. So that's a reference to the two World Wars that were experienced in the first half of the 20th century. And it clearly demonstrates that the United Nations, the first and foremost purpose for its existence, was to prevent another war like the first two World Wars. And going on and going to Article II of the Charter, Article II paragraph four says, All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. So in other words, what Russia has done in Ukraine is a clear violation of international law. It is illegal. It is illegal under international law. I don't think there's any serious dispute about what the legal consequences of the situation are. And so I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that we start with the formation of the United Nations at the end of World War II. A few years later, with the formation of the Soviet Union, the iron curtain came down and NATO was formed in the late 40s. And NATO was formed as a response to the emergence of the Soviet Union. And NATO, as you know, is a mutual defense pact which calls for the defense of NATO members if attacked by any party, but it was created to protect the NATO countries in the event of attack by the Soviet Union. And so the, again, the purpose of NATO was to prevent war in Europe. And again, I want to tie that to that preamble in the United Nations, which demonstrates that the UN was formed to prevent war in Europe. And so then NATO emerged with the same aim. Now, in the 50s, the European Union, the seeds of the European Union were planted in the 1950s. What started out as a small trade group developed into what we now know as the European Union. And in the time from the 50s to today, one of the driving purposes of the European Union was to bind Germany so tightly to the rest of Europe through trade and economics that Germany would never have an incentive to start a third world war. And the European was successful in that regard. Germany is a central key member of the European Union and is an active and enthusiastic supporter of the vision of the European Union. So when you take a look at these three organizations, all of them shared the same purpose, the prevention of another land war in Europe. And for over 70 years, those three organizations working independently sometimes together at other times, loosely coordinated at other times, managed to accomplish that. For over 70 years, these three organizations serve and accomplish their purpose, which was the avoidance of another land war in Europe. And despite the Cold War, the Cold War never became hot. It never became kinetic as the term is now used. So this uneasy balance that existed between NATO and the Soviet Union, even under those circumstances, the goal of preventing another war in Europe was kept. And so all these parties, despite their various interests and often competing or hostile interests, managed to maintain some kind of uneasy equilibrium, maintaining peace and stability in the continent of Europe. Now, there was an exception in the 90s with the Balkans, but that is an exception because that actually was not what an international law is called an armed conflict of an international nature. That is a technical legal term, but it actually was not a war, and it actually was not a war of an international nature because it was mostly not a state versus state conflict. It involved irregular troops, paramilitaries, proxies, and so therefore, it doesn't fall within the category of a war between states, which those three organizations were established to prevent. So they still managed to accomplish their goals, despite what happened in the Balkans in the 90s. Now, what has been concerned today is that for over 70 years, we've been able to say there has been a perhaps uneasy, but at least a stability and equilibrium preserving peace in Europe. We can no longer say that the world has changed. We are now experiencing a land war in Europe, and it's because Russia chose to violate the most fundamental principle of international law. The only thing right now is John. I'm not seeing the whole group. I don't know why. And even during all these times of tensions between Russia and the West, Russia at least made a pretense of observing international law and maintained the peace. That is all gone. And my fear is that we are now living in a different world and that the security structure of Europe has been dismantled by the action of Russia. And so that's why I say this conflict I think is different from all other armed conflicts since the end of World War Two. And so my point is, is that this is not just another war. This represents something different and it's possible that the world may have changed for the worse because of it. Thank you, Greg. Thank you, John. It's really interesting. My background is national security law and international trade. And when actors in the international world stop acting like there are rules, even within the rules, there's a great deal of leeway. But even when they stop acting like there are rules, you end up in a really devolving and stable situation. And that's as Professor Chung said, so what we have here. Okay, I think we might have just lost Mark, he'll be back in a few minutes. So why don't we turn to Dr. Donabed from the university and Sargon, you have, you have the virtual podium. Thank you very much, Greg. So I typically would be the one arguing for even more context I suppose as a historian, or someone who works in the Department of History and Cultural Studies. But I'm really going to talk a little bit about sort of the human rights catastrophe that we're seeing. So this situation of displacement and dispossession of persons from the region. This is something that at least in my work, predominantly in work in the the Middle East and with Middle Eastern diaspora communities. We saw all too well, of course, with the Iraq war of 2003, the Syrian civil war with ISIS the advent of the of Daesh or ISIS in 2014, which interestingly was concurrent with the previous invasion of Ukraine in 2014. So the, you know, these, these types of events have been happening where we have massive amounts of people moving from place to place large masses of migrations. As we know, currently in the Ukraine. Today, there have been large attacks that continue to target civilians. Many more Ukrainians are being displaced. Estimated we're at this particular point the United Nations is is is warning that we're going to be at around 5 million people. We're about a 2 million right now, just from Ukraine itself. So this is this is adding to about 31 million worldwide 31 million refugees that we have worldwide right now. Folks are typically concerned any anyone working in this in this arena but folks on the ground of course are very concerned with specific rising humanitarian needs, both inside the country but also at the borders. Probably one of the biggest issues is of those people that are being displaced now. We've probably started to hear a little bit about this in the news and many of you have seen this and of course there is absolutely something that we probably have to talk about it at a different conference, the sort of latent racism that that has exist and some of the existed in many of the reported reportings that have come out of the Ukraine recently. And so that is absolutely a major issue and part of it is is the fact that Ukraine has had many students from a variety of countries has a large student population from India. From countries in Africa, Lebanon, and also at the same time there's a particular focus on or let's say even a fear of folks that have already been you've been displaced once in Ukraine are now being displaced again so folks from Afghanistan and Belarus, who have already dealt with this level of displacement are now doing it a second time or being forced to do it a second time. So there are lots of concerns about that and the general again the sort of the general concern from from everyone is that it's also gender oriented to so there's a there's a major concern for women and children. In particular women and young young girls, because many of the the refugees are women and young girls were leaving Ukraine, and we all in anyone who's worked in the field of migration and refugee studies know that women are the first to be targeted in women and children are the first to be targeted in instances of violence and abuse and particular exploitation. So this is a major issue when moving through these countries from place to place with the issue of of, let's say, African students and Indian students would sort of compounded a lot of a lot of the already difficult situation in Ukraine of these refugees fleeing is that of course going to different Eastern European countries and even Western European countries, they all have different rules and regulations right different laws for people immigrating to those places. Now some of those have been suspended I mean many of them have sort of been pushed aside. There's been arguments in many of these countries to say it doesn't matter who's coming in let them in at this particular time. But there are these discussions these ongoing discussions as to who to let in and what types of because of the the countries that people are from so if you're a student and you're originally from Nigeria or from India, or from Lebanon, and you're going into one of these countries like Poland or Moldova or another country that borders Ukraine. They're having these particular issues at the border so that is an additional piece to all of this that that's happening so there's a there's a constant sort of. There's a constant situation of refugees in general and then there are these these smaller more. Sometimes we think of them as more minute issues but the reality is is that they're just specialized issues that are that each and every. Displaced person is now facing and of course with all of that there's this there's this very, very strong worry as to where will these people be placed. Now we've already seen with the displacement of people and the refugees from the Syrian civil war, there are many of these people that have been in refugee camps camps for 10 years. They've been placed in these camps for 10 years. Regardless of what people think, and again, notwithstanding all of the ridiculous comments about first world countries or third world countries. What's happening in Ukraine right now the elimination of the infrastructure. That probably means that for many families it's going to take quite some time for them to come back. So regardless of what the situation is as to what class people are whether they are, you know, of people of means or not of means that the fact of infrastructure right not not to mention security of course being the biggest one but the infrastructure issue. Whether or not these refugees can be brought back into the country and where are they going to go right if they're the building has been demolished or destroyed that they've lived in for years. Where are you going to put these people. It's a very real situation a very real catastrophe. And it's, it's something that, again, it's sort of taken out of the context for me to go back to the context that I want to hopefully remind folks, this other piece that, again, this isn't something new, in a sense, because I agree with with with john stating that you know this is different in many many ways absolutely. But there were certain things that occurred in 2014 that essentially we started to see sort of an inkling of what could happen what we're possibly seeing today, starting in 2014 and of course even earlier. We've been seeing this happening in a variety of different places in different countries around the world and from historical perspective, noticing places that you know major power, major powers in the world are utilizing as proxies and this is exactly what we've seen in the Middle East, you know, in my study area for at least the past 100 years. So in many ways I see very a lot of similarities as to, you know, Ukraine being used and Mark and I'm sure we'll talk more about this but the Ukraine in many ways being used as as this sort of border between, you know, the great powers in many ways and a lot of times these conflicts play out in areas where there is the ability to have this proxy war, you know, where where you're not necessarily as the major powers are not as threatened and you can allow for some of this to to occur. But regardless of all of that, you know, I always want to again remind folks about this this issue of these injustices, you know, to quote Dr Martin Luther King this injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. You know, why are we concerned we're concerned because it's a very real humanitarian catastrophe. And, and, and for someone again, like myself who studies this from a comparative nature, but also my secondary degree is in animal studies to understand people is also to understand their community and their connections. If you see some of the videos and some of the photographs coming out even though the more horrific ones from New York Times and Wall Street Journal and others. But in particular in the times, you're noticing that a lot of people are fleeing with their companion animals. This is a huge issue so imagine. And it also has its issue within the framework of legality and international law but also country law. So again when you have a refugee family that has two cats and we've seen many pictures of this, and they're walking into another country. Many of those families are being stopped at the border and told you cannot bring these animals in because there's a there's a process. They need to be checked you have your paperwork. I mean imagine requiring of people requiring people to have paperwork when they're fleeing for their lives that they're going to pick up their their veterinary paperwork as they're running out the door or they're hiding in a bomb shelter in the subway. So I think one of the things I'd love to hear more of from from other folks is is the fact that, you know, in these times of crisis we have to sort of think of ways around these hard and fast laws and rules that we have to protect people these very very vulnerable people that need a space to survive and to move out of harm's way. And, you know, there are families who've left. I know this after speaking with a with a couple of folks who have family there, where folks have sort of sent their families across the border into other countries in Eastern Europe, while they have stayed behind because they could not have left their animals. So you're seeing this more and more right that the fact that we're living in and similar to folks not wanting to leave people that have been living with them from other countries right because they cannot get across the borders. So you're seeing this, you know, the the the sort of the positives the very very real human nature I think the very positive parts of human nature come across with the care of people not willing to leave others behind to move into these new situations. Because of the inability to do it because of the way that the countries have been structured to keep certain to have these certain laws for immigration. So I think, you know, in these times of crisis, my my major hope is that we'll we'll start to allow this to to shift a little bit so that these people can find some sort of safety amidst the security crisis that they're living through. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. You said that 31 million refugees right now approximately. Is that what you said, to put that in perspective, that is greater than the population of every single US state with the exception of California, which is 39.6 million. Imagine. 31 million to big number but it's it's bigger than 49 of the 50 states in the United States. It's 10 it's almost 10% of US population. So, and, and, and I want to, I want to second your, your comments about community and about issues of race and gender. I've seen foreign students who are studying in Ukraine and they've had trouble getting out. If they are of a different race or ethnicity sometimes so it's been a challenge. And that's that's on that is also an immigration issue and the countries to which they're there flea. So thank you again. I believe you're up and look forward to hearing what you have to say from the context of international relations and I'll put your maps up on the screen and you can tell me which ones you want to look at as we go through your your remarks. The Ukraine one first. Thank you. I'm going to try to talk about the overall conflict. And I'm going to make five points for starters, and then see where we go from there. The first point I'd like to make is that I think it's clear now that that Putin is seeking the the subjugation of Ukraine. Right. And numerous observers have pointed this out, including the French president of Macron. And so this is much more than about Ukraine's neutrality or, you know, getting them to commit not to join NATO. Secondly, it's thank you. Secondly, we're witnessing. It's just depressing, terrible and unprovoked attacks on Ukrainian people, including many, many innocent civilians. The Russians are making indiscriminate attacks on civilians. There's no military necessity in these cases. So this is a gross violation of international law in 1995 Rome statute established the ICC. These attacks are getting worse. They're getting worse as the days go by. Right. And as the Russians move in closer to key cities. And in particular, we're waiting for even worse attacks, which Putin has done before, such as using particularly horrible weapon called a fuel air explosive or thermobaric weapon, which is a weapon of mass destruction, which horribly takes out a whole city blocks. Right. And Putin ordered these against Rosny and Chechnya as prime minister in 1999 and reportedly more recently in Aleppo. Right. Putin's objective here seems to be to destroy the morale of the Ukrainian people and to and to bring horror to do this. I have to say in this regard that that I just admire as we all do. President Zelensky, but but I think he's their number one target is people have said, and if like, for example, that he's in a neighborhood and they're not quite sure where he is, destroy the whole neighborhood. And I think, you know, that's going to have a huge impact on Ukrainian morale, the rally for a while, but I think that will probably cause them to be demoralized. As videos also as videos of such unspeakable crimes are seen in the West. There's going to be tremendous pressure more than we see now on the US and our NATO allies to take a more direct military action in Ukraine. And obviously, this is very, very dangerous. And it's a very important point, maybe one of the most important to discuss. Third, the heavy supply of weapons to Ukraine by NATO or individual countries or members of NATO also risks Russian attacks on supply lines, which also bring the possibility of a Russian NATO conflict. So these are very frightening things. Fourth, I think from Putin's perspective, and might want to see his speech at the commencement of his attacks on February 21st Ukraine is not a legitimate sovereign state. It is not a legitimate sovereign state. And its current government is described by Putin as corrupt and neo-Nazi. In particular, a government that represses those identifying Ukraine as ethnic Russians. So for him, I think this is a humanitarian intervention, at least that's his public claim. However, the last census in Ukraine, which was in 2001, if you could show the next picture, the next map, I guess, in the last census, which was 2001, that's great. And they tried to do another one last year and they wasn't able to do it. Only 17% of the Ukrainian population identifies as Russian as being Russian ethnically. I think that most people think it's a lot more. Right. And this included the Crimea back then, which is the most Russian people are Russian identified people are in there in the Crimea. In most places in the south northeast and southeast Russian and this included Crimea. In most places, people support as you can see here, I kind of, can I am I allowed to do you see my cursor here, right in this area here, including the Donbass, you know, in the southeast, and then across to Odessa in the southwest, which many people in Putin think of as sort of Russian ethnic areas. The numbers are actually quite low. Right. And, you know, from 10 to 30% identifying as ethnic as ethnic Russians, and the evidence suggests that many, if not most of these people prefer to live in independent Ukraine and not Russia. In 2014, after they went into Crimea, for example, Moscow instigated uprisings in Kharkiv and Odessa, as they had in the Donbass, but those uprising was were put down by the local populations in both Kharkiv and Odessa. Right. And, you know, I'm more than willing at some point, but not tonight I guess to discuss Russian claims to Ukraine. But I think the critical point is not that Russia's historical claims, which I think are somewhat tenuous, but what the people living there now, what the people living there now want today. Fifth point is, is if the Russians are unable to take all of Ukraine, and I think the idea is to incorporate Ukraine to some kind of Russian Union, Russian Federation Union, like, and you'd have Russia, you'd have Belarus and Ukraine as sort of the three Union states. And then they each have their own president, but there would be a higher level of government probably under Putin himself is what's being considered. And my fallback now is reportedly being considered. And if you could give me another next picture or next map and the fallback. This is the Donbass, excuse me, and just to show you the Donbass in the southeast. And also to note that even the areas in the dark, dark area here, you know, are under pro Russian control, but the Donbass extends way beyond them. And these areas have have have resisted, you know, have resisted that control. If we could move a little next to the next one. You know, the fallback position, I think, if they don't completely subjugate Ukraine. And this map was put forward. I saw over the weekend, I monitor some pro Russian sites, some blogs, if you will, and it was suggested that this was their fallback position. And you see that in this is I know it's in Russian and it looks terrible, but but the red areas would be something a place called Novorossiya or new Russia. And the idea was that they would incorporate these into Russia, and that they would leave a rump Ukraine, which would be both the blue and the yellow areas. So this would be their fallback if they're not able to subjugate the entire place. Right. So, so I just think this is this is, this is a war for the subjugation of Ukraine and short of that, for the effective subjugation of Ukraine. Okay, and I think that's my time up. Thank you very much, Dr. Sielowsky. And that brings us to my law faculty colleague, our way to God, Professor God has a personal time to pray and forward her remarks. Thanks, Greg. I did see one of our colleagues hands pop up during Mark's chat. I didn't know if we wanted to address the question now or hold to the end. Why don't we go through your comments and then we can start start with with a logical. Sounds good. All right, so thanks, everyone. Thanks again for being here on the late Wednesday afternoon. I'm going to give you a little bit of my own background and then maybe share a couple of personal accounts that I've been hearing from close family friends who are still back in Ukraine. So, like many, many, many Jews, my family left Ukraine in 1979 when it was under Soviet control. You know, being born in Kiev is very central to my own identity and certainly to my story. You know, we all have those couple of things that we usually share with people that we meet and those are usually mine. My name is Irina and I was born in Kiev. So, watching, you know, as I've said before, watching the entire world lens so focused on Ukraine and particularly on Kiev has been very, very difficult. I am, of course, remember Kiev through a five year old's lens. I remember a one room apartment. I remember it as a beautiful city with a great park we went to and had it pretty much everything a five year old's could hope for. I remember very loud animated people who love to gather and celebrate loudly and a part of that culture we certainly continued here in the US with our very extended circle of fellow immigrants. This conflict between Russia and Ukraine, if you could even call it a conflict, has been really, you know, a lot at the center of my identity, identity confusion in these past years. So growing up, I would tell people I was Russian born, but I also told them I was born in Kiev and I often heard, well, so weren't you Ukrainian? I don't understand. Kiev is, you know, in Ukraine and didn't you speak Ukrainian? Well, no, I actually grew up and still speak Russian. So, you know, the short answer to that is the Ukraine that we left was a very different Ukraine than it is now or, you know, I should say more accurately than it was a couple of weeks ago. In 79 it was still, you know, this has been suggested part of the former Soviet Union so Russian was absolutely the dominant language, especially in the cities. My parents explained to me that Ukrainian was sort of more the provincial language and it was certainly not the language of academia and other prominent professions. And of course, you know, that was that was Russia's influence there. So, accordingly, you would only see Russian spelling of Ukraine, which you don't see as much anymore on maps and in books and the pronunciation was very different of, you know, Kiev back then that it is now. And so when we came to the US, you know, we were actually identified as Russian, which was very much a reflection of the Russian dominance in the Ukraine but, you know, just as a bit of a footnote. I learned recently that that wasn't quite accurate either for us because back then Jews were actually separately identified in legal documents as Jewish which may surprise you to learn that you Jewish was actually a nationality in the former Soviet Union so it was in everyone's passport, and it was a way through which the government implemented a lot of anti-Soviet policies, you know, show the passport they would limit the amount of people who could attend universities and so that, you know, my dad, my dad would say we grew up there knowing our place in society and we took it for granted that it was just the way things were so it really wasn't until 1991 long after we arrived in the US that Ukraine changed, you know, some independence and there there was a real push a cultural push to assert that independence in every way possible and that included putting, you know, the official Ukrainian language front and center after all those years and that's essentially why now you'll see Kievs fell differently pronounced differently and that was, you know, that was a big source of confusion for me growing up and it's all too clear now but I think what's been most striking for me and for my family over the past couple weeks is is really the the amount of propaganda coming from Putin I think as someone previously mentioned, you know, just the way he's been using that he's been using to justify this team and invasion right this whole idea of denotifying the Ukraine, especially as against a president who, who's Jewish, lost uncles in the Holocaust at a grandfather fight, who has said how can I be a Nazi, I am Jewish, and, you know, Putin is essentially cut his people off from from many forms of global communication that we take for granted. So I'm confident there are many out there many Russian people out there who just have no idea of the reality of what their leader is doing, although hopefully many do now. And this is, you know, this is really the type of propaganda my parents grew up with. Sort of this notion of the government justifying oppressive acts with with pure fiction, and it very much feels like Putin is fighting a war now in a way that the actual Nazis did right. So, you know, just to give you a sense we, we don't have any close family left over there. A lot of them came over here after we did, you know, my grandparents are buried in Kiev. My mom has very, you know, close childhood friends there and we see a lot in the news about people fleeing. And I think, you know, we talked about these sort of wartime decisions that people have to make and the reality is that some people including my mother's close friend made a very conscious decision not to leave. And, you know, at this point, it's quite sad but she she is resigned to to stay there she is resigned to whatever fate that falls her, you know, for her to be a refugee at this point and to deal with the uncertainty of what that means seems worse than sort of taking her chances and staying there. You talked about pets before, you know, there's another reality she's kind of channeling her efforts to feeding some of the homeless dogs that are on the streets and the product of a lot of people having to make those really grueling decisions to leave, not just family but pets and we know those of us who have pets those are those are family members so. And the other thing we're hearing a lot is just you know how young the Russian soldiers are and how absolutely horrified their families are, you know, and a lot of them didn't know what they were walking into, and the reality that they were walking into so all of this all of these scenes we're seeing, you know, very eerily familiar of World War two people leaving their homes being separated those hard decisions people are making. And it does all it's hard to justify it's hard to process because it does all seem like it's being done the name of just, you know, as I said before, redrawing some boundaries on the maps and certainly just some ultimate human rights violations. The last thing I wanted to say was just, you know, speak a little bit to the students who are here listening. I've seen such an outpouring of concern and sort of this desire to act over the last couple weeks my students in our classrooms we kind of all collectively started a Google Doc and started brainstorming ideas for different charities we could contribute to and if these, you know, refugees make their way over here they will be more direct ways we can contribute. But I think one thing I wanted to say is, you know, I just want to encourage you all to just be keeping active but really be conscious and reject any, you know, acts of xenophobia you may be seeing, especially towards the Russian people living here in the US and that you know, we all know this tends to happen throughout history with our various citizens from abroad whenever there's some sort of conflict or something that happens and there's been a lot in the news recently about people protesting Russian businesses in New York City and, you know, some of this is very legitimate when we're trying to stand up to Putin and trying to cut off resources but be really cautious and critical when you observe personal attacks on Russians living here and certainly attacks on small businesses in the United States because that can, you know, that can be equally harmful to people living here as well so keep doing what you do, keep advocating and thinking of great ways to contribute and effectuate some help and change here. Thank you. And that's a very important point to make, the difference between a country and what it's doing and individuals who may be from there are affiliated with there but who live here in our fellow residents and citizens. I wanted to say one quick thing and throw up a map to put this in a geographic perspective and then we have a couple of questions that we can turn to. The first is this, let me see here. For those who may need a little bit of refresher on European and Eurasian geography, this is the Soviet Union as it existed when I was a child. There was no country of Estonia, no country of Latvia, no country of Lithuania, there's no country of Ukraine. And there were buffer states, satellite states that were nominally independent but were controlled heavily supervised by the Soviet Union, by Moscow. So Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. And it was really a very Russian thing and I'm generalizing but the idea of having a land buffer between it and some of the Western powers. And of course that also played out quite great graphically and tragically with the invasion of Soviet Union by the German army and World War II and only to be defeated by the weather. So there's this and this is how things looked when the Soviet Union existed and now this is more of how things look from a Russian Federation perspective. Now bear with me here, I may need to, I may need to find a different. Maybe it's this. Nope. This. All right, this is a little small but look at this now. We've got all these separate and independent countries, former satellite states, former parts of the Soviet Union, you have an independent Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, all members of NATO. You have a unified Germany, member of NATO. You have a Europe that is much closer to the doorstep of the Russian Federation. So Ukraine is seen as part of the buffer and there is a lot of national play and being used by Putin and his justifications and a lot of it is fiction. But as Professor Gott said, I've heard reports of folks in Ukraine who have relatives in Russia who do not believe it's a war because of the censorship. No, there's no war going on. There's no war there. I don't know, everything's fine. So that's a, that's a sort of distressing thing to think about. So we have a number of questions here. I'm going to ask them and then open it up to the group. First was was Putin tested in the West by going for Crimea first. I can give a very long complex answer, which is one word, yes, but I welcome the thoughts of my fellow parents. I think Putin sees and the most Russian see Crimea as vital to their interests. And if you take that away and you push them up, they kind of withdraw into the into the heartland of Eurasia. And I think that's one of the main reasons I think Putin, he's been in power 22 years now. And I think he sees he's looking for his historical place in history. And he's someone who's once again like Catherine, the great and Peter trying to put these lands together. Yes. Another question, which which I'll answer, because it was my area of practice when I was in involved practice before becoming a law professor, our economic sanctions going to be enough to deter further action from Russia. And I think the answer is no. We have a limited number of cards that we can play have actually been quite impressed by the way the Western countries have expanded the conception of what a sanction can and should be to cut off Russia's access to the international banking system to actually cut off Russian oil imports into the US, and which actually has a lot of popular political support with within the US to to to really find ways to to expand the scope of already broad sanctions and then you're seeing, you're seeing companies including law firms self sanctioned just pull out even though they don't have to and stop dealing with Russia and that sort of that sort of collective action above and beyond the limits of what sanctions do not allow you to do. I think it will impose a lot of hurt on the Russian economy. I do not think it will stop. I think that there's the there needs to be continued successful military resistance that perhaps combined with some of the cost and political unrest within Russia might stop the bit sanctions alone. No. Another question I saw some reports that Putin announced the ruble will be back on the gold standard. If true, does this threaten to expand the conflict and exert pressure globally. I don't know if anybody has any any thoughts on on that. I think that part of that is a. I don't know this is actually I had not heard this one so this is a great question. The gold standard countries don't align their currencies very much anymore to gold that just that just invites inflation of people if you find more gold. And the dollar has value because we say it has value because the US government backs the value of that piece of currency but there's nothing there's no gold or anything else sitting behind it. This seems to me to be something that might just be a political statement or it might be that maybe that could perhaps provide value to the currency in the absence of having any backing within the the international financial system so that it may it props up the value of the No idea how successful that will be. But I think it'll I think it's a reflection of the feeling of isolation that that that Russia is being placed in because of the sanctions and people and companies ceasing doing business with it seems like an act of desperation. I think what we're trying to do here if we can put economic pain on Putin's inner circle and those are not really all the garks these are people who surround Putin who are basically from the secret police and other kind of strong men. I think that's the contest it's between the morale of the green people, and if we can put pain on his, his inner circle, and that they might make a move against them, because they see their riches and stuff being being lost but brushes and no hurry here time is on Russia side I think. I think I think that's right and it's, it's really unprecedented to have a nation this integrated into the world economy be cut off in this way and have sanctions imposed directly on the leader. It's a it's a really stunning and stunningly quick development there have been a lot of conversation behind the scenes to make that happen. And it really has, as I think Dr. Swalski said, it's it's re emphasized to us and underscore the importance, and also, Professor Chung the importance of NATO, the European Union and our alliance with with the powers of Europe. Can I just mention something really quickly. Absolutely. I, I was thinking about this just recently, something I wanted to go back to with arena's comments earlier. Some of my students had asked this about you know, placing this again in the historical context and asking about something that you had put up and market spoken about as well. Just sort of seeing where the these dividing lines are between people by between, you know, sort of quote unquote Russians and quote unquote Ukrainians. And sort of how people view themselves and what they think of themselves and looking at that sort of ethnic divide. And then looking at emic and attic discussions right the idea that you know this is the, the insider way of saying something yes Ukrainians are saying this, whereas Russians are saying that. Frequently people will say, well, if we if we go back 20 years you know as arena you were saying this issue of, well, people call themselves Russian. And so there was there is this sense of, well, yes, there is that internal understanding as well that was an emic understanding. But I just wanted to bridge bridge some of that and it's something I have to tell my students frequently. All of these emic understandings because we live in a global society are influenced by attic understandings or or in knowledge production or something along those lines when I think of knowledge production. If you're educated in a Soviet school that's pushing Russian ideas as arena was saying, then of course you're going to see things in a very different light right and during those four years of your of your upbringing. You're going to see what you're going to feel and think, and how you're going to act right you're not going to speak Ukrainian going to speak Russian. So, that is a major piece and so does context play a role in all this. Yes, absolutely. And yet there's no, there's no way you can sort of dismember this and take one piece out from the other and say, Oh, well let me look at this in isolation or in vacuum. You know, to go to what folks have been saying and questioning about how is this going to affect things. Well, I mean assumed that as Mark was saying, you know, with thinking about sanctions you and Greg you and Mark have been mentioning. I mean, talking about stopping natural gas, right what's that going to do to Europe, but also what about what about wheat prices. Should we only be concerned about the economic impact, I would say no based on the humanitarian issue. Yet at the same time look at countries that are going to be severely affected by like for instance, I mean places like like, you know, in my area of the world there's only 11 on in Syria that depend on wheat exports. Right. How are they going to get those wheat exports. If everything is sort of closed off from Russia. And interestingly enough, also the Ukraine is a big wheat exporter right so and so this is another piece of that and people tend to think these things only work in isolation. They don't we're playing a very difficult I mean I think everyone's playing a very difficult game and I don't know what to say but I think reminding ourselves that this is that all of these things are interconnected and is very important to recognize. I just apologize for running that little piece there but I just wanted to make sure I said it. It's complicated and complex. It's complicated. So we have a great question about China. How do we see China situation in this war what might we see. There actually have been some fears that the the Sino Russian Alliance that President Nixon feared was was coming into being I think that might be not true but anybody anybody have any thoughts on on on China and how it how it plays into this conflict. I'll just make this observation. China and Russia are not natural allies. I think that as of today they have a coincidence of interests, which is limited to this situation, but they historically have had frosty relationships. And what unifies them right now is the United States they have a common adversary, but it's not a natural alliance. And so, from my point of view, I'm really not concerned that China is going to backstop Russia, or tip the scales in favor of Russia. China has no interest in doing that. Right now they just have a coincidence of interests, and next year it might be different. And so, I think that I don't view it as I don't view it as the emergence of the Russian Chinese Alliance that may have been feared at one point. They have completely different interests. They're at a very interesting piece this morning, I believe it was in the New York Times talking about how this has made China's world influence strategy much more complicated that China thrives in peace and stability, because they can expand their economic influence and grow their GDP, and that perhaps Russia, which is heavily dependent on oil and gas exports, thrives in instability, which drives the prices of those commodities up. So there's not a lot of pleasure in Beijing about the current state of affairs and apparently they were caught as off guard as the West was when Russia invaded Ukraine. That is on the verge of ending term limits in the fall, as Xi is going to become kind of president maybe for life, and there's some talk and you hear in China now, maybe we don't want to do that. Look what happened, Putin needs to have 22 years, and maybe we need to have, and they don't want to get too close here, I think. I think in any kind of alliance situation, Russia will be at the subordinate party, and I don't think the Russians would ever take that. That's very interesting. And what was it 30 years ago, the economies of China and Russia were about the same size, and now China is 20 times the size of Russia in terms of its GDP, which is really stunning. Other questions here. We're running over a little bit over five. I will have to leave in a minute, but we can continue the conversation and I will turn over the helm to one of my good colleagues here. A couple more questions here. What leverage does the UN have, and can Russia be kicked out of the Security Council? I think we're looking at you, John, you used to work at the UN in Geneva. The UN has no leverage, and if Russia is kicked out of the Security Council, which won't happen, then the United Nations will cease to exist, period. Yeah, it's really interesting that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. They don't rotate. And it was deliberately designed that way. It was the Security Council was meant to be occupied by the World War II victors, and as a member of the Security Council, Russia can prevent any action by the UN, which is why the UN will not get involved. Now, the UN will get involved in humanitarian efforts, but in terms of any sanction against Russia, or a UN action against Russia, it's impossible for it to happen. The General Assembly can pass a resolution, and they have done so, but that doesn't have the force of authority that the Security Council does. No, it's at most a symbolic gesture. Right, so let me see here. Do you think that Russia will invade other countries as well, and if so, which ones? Anybody want to be adventurous looking to your crystal ball there? I would not want to be in Moldova in the next couple of weeks. It's sort of a small country down in the southwest, and they're coming across through Odessa, which cuts off four ports. That's their main ports, and that's their food exports and stuff. That really just really hurts. And then if they keep going, they just take Moldova, which is not in NATO, and it's Informa Republic in the Soviet Union. There's about one part of Moldova along the Nista River to the east. There's still Russian troops that remain in there from the days of the Soviet Union. So they would link up with those. I'm also worried about the Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, but there they would be hitting NATO. I don't think they're considered vital to us, but they're in NATO, and Biden has made it very clear not one inch. And I bet they take some comfort in the fact that they were able to get that done before there started to be a great amount of possible pushback from Russia on that. I was worried under Trump that Putin might take a shot at Estonia, and that President Trump wouldn't honor the NATO commitment to Estonia because it's not vital to us. And once the U.S. doesn't honor its commitment to NATO, NATO really loses its strength. I'm surprised they didn't do that actually. Right. So final question before I turn it over to my fellow panelists. If time is on Russia's side, does this mean Putin isn't likely to turn to nuclear weapons as a short force, or is this a realistic concern? I'll say, you know, I think as long as things stay stable and clear, I think it's probably unlikely, but that's the challenge of these situations. Nobody in 1918 thought that we were getting into a world war. And there was no intent by the Allies to get into a world war or a world war II. So it's instability and the interweaving web of security commitments across Europe in 1918 is what led to World War I. Right now, things are a little bit more two-sided or bilateral. We've got NATO and Russia, but there's still this potential. What if there's an incursion into Poland? What if there is an incursion into Estonia? What happens then? And I'll say final comment is part of what I think the West is trying to do quietly without putting it on the front of the papers is figure out ways to give Russia an out so that they can stop and save face and limit the losses or even push them back without making it look like it was just a complete defeat. It's when Putin is cornered that I think there are concerns. But if things can stay internally stable and they can back down and back off, I think that's the outcome that people are hoping for. But that might be, as Dr. Swalski put up on the screen, that might mean a carved up Ukraine, which would be a terrible result, perhaps better than complete annexation. It's going to get very horrible. And when we start seeing, like, whole city blocks reduced to zero, and we haven't seen the video of Mario Paul, we're starting to see some videos. And I just think people are going to put pressure on their governments to take stronger action. You think that will destabilize things and make nuclear weapons more likely? Yeah, if we start doing a no-fly zone over Ukraine and something like that, sure, that puts us right in direct conflict with Russian airplanes and surface-to-air stuff. Which is why the Biden administration and other Western powers have not done so. In fact, just today, the U.S. nixed a plan for Poland to give older MiG fighter jets to the U.S. at Rammstein at the Air Force Base there to give to Russia. The U.S. has tried to play a behind-the-scenes role so that this cannot be characterized by Russia as a U.S.-Russian conflict. But it remains to be seen whether Poland will provide those. And if that, but even there, I think that would be incredibly destabilizing. I just hate to say this, but I just think it's going to get really horrible. Really horrible. And I'm sorry how you read it. Yeah, so once somebody asked about tactical nukes, are those on the table? I don't think they're off the table. Lisa, I have a question for you. Are others on the panel able to see the Q&A? Okay. Yeah. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to go blank and I will let all of you continue to have the conversation. I want to thank everybody for attending. I want to thank my university colleagues, Raina, John, Sargon, and Mark for this conversation. I read a lot about this. I have a background in this and I always learn from these conversations and the perspectives. And so this has been great. So an unfortunate sad topic, but great. So thank you and I will look forward to seeing everyone soon. Absolutely. Thank you, Greg. I do see a question. I don't think we answered about someone asking about the extent of the cutoff of the information to the Russians, whatever happened to shortwave radio and I think I did just see an article a couple of days ago. About the BBC resurrecting shortwave broadcast to reach Russians. So that was like a May, March 7th article, I believe, if you want to Google the BBC. So I guess there's, that's something. What else? Anyone seeing any other questions we haven't answered yet? Rather than the nuke weapons, what about some dirty nuke from the captured power plants? What I would say about nuclear weapons is that it's a red line. If there's really is, it's not going to make a difference whether they're strategic weapons, tactical battlefield weapons or dirty bombs, nuclear weapons are in a class of their own militarily. They're in a class of their own under international law. It is a bright red line. If nuclear weapons are used, the world will change forever and will never go back to where it was. It's simply unthinkable to entertain the concept that it could be happened, that it could happen. We will all be affected and our world as we know it will not be the same. So that's my greatest fear in all this. And I should say there was a clarifying comment here. I'm not talking weapons, I'm talking accidents similar to Chernobyl was the clarifying comment. Well, that's a concern too. I mean, Deliberate accidents. Yes, I have thought about that. Putin is savvy. I mean, he could engineer construct a deliberate release of radiation and have plausible deniability that he's engaged in nuclear warfare. But that's a possibility because I've wondered why are the Russians so obsessed with taking over these nuclear power plants. I don't know why but clearly there's a reason for it. The possibilities, the worst possibilities scare me because it is a way that perhaps Putin may be able to disguise the open use of nuclear weapons under the guise of so-called accidents. And so I don't know, I don't know if that's what they're thinking, but I mean, my guess is that if it pops into my uninformed head, I'm sure it's popped into the strategists running this war on behalf of Russia. Just if I could on the nuclear weapons question, I think on both sides, there's a general feeling that if we were to use nuclear weapons, it would not be a rational process. It would be something that we did because inadvertently, like, and I think from the Cuban missile crisis forward. And so the way we've got to lose control of the situation and it goes up. So, you know, since the Cuban crisis in 62, we put a lot of effort into trying to keep our forces separate because if they come into contact, what can happen? And right now it's about the closest we've been that I can think of in a while. We did set up a de-confliction line and we have experience with that. So, like in Syria and other places, we have our military talks with their military. We have, you know, you remember the hotline, but that's so much more advanced now. And we have professionals, they've been doing that all their lives, trying to sort of be asked questions so we understand what they're doing. They understand what we're doing. So there's no miscalculation. But in this situation, I think it's, there's plenty of places that it could, it could, we could lose control of it. Another question asks, and stop me if we've already answered this one. What happens if India becomes somehow involved? Did we address that one yet? Or engages on the Russian side? Any thoughts on that? India has a long-term historical relationship with Russia in terms of particularly military equipment and they buy a lot of their weapons from Russia. There's no standing ties there, but India has been taking steps towards the United States. And just recently we have this thing called the Quad, which is India, Japan, Australia and the United States. So our security cooperation is more and more. So I'm not sure they would take the, I think they, didn't they abstain? Do you know, John, are they? Yes, they abstained on the vote to sanction Russia. And India has to be careful because India's greatest threat is China. And so the reason why India is sort of friendly towards Russia is because they both have a mutual adversary in China. I mean, India and China have already engaged in deadly skirmishes regarding the border, regarding their border. And so India needs friends with respect to its relationship with China, which draws it towards Russia, but also draws it to the United States. So India has to walk a tight rope here. But India, it would be against India's interest to throw its lot in with Russia because it will lose the United States. Irina, could I ask Mark and John a question too? What do you guys think? Well, I was thinking about 2014 and what brought the parties to the, you know, to the table in 2014. How do you see, you know, what are the distinctions between 2014 and today? I mean, we know they're obviously very, very obvious distinctions I think. But I think a lot of times this is sort of lost on a lot of us as to the fact that, you know, there was an issue in 2014 where Russia was supporting rebel groups. Yet there was, you know, the Minsk Accords or the Minsk Agreements that came out of that. So could you, could you guys see it or really, how did that go well in a sense, right, where there was a de-escalation? Whereas, you know, this is a bit different or is there a possibility of that actually something like that occurring again? If I can. I think they were much different objectives in 2014. And they were pursuing a model of confederation, you know, within Ukraine. They would keep Crimea, but the Donbass would be brought in an autonomous fashion. And in fact they had discussed this idea of Nova or Oversea, you know, coming down and reasserted that in 2014. But then they dropped it and they just dropped it to go into the Minsk process. But that's behind them now. Their objectives are much greater right now. I think a lot has to do with Vladimir Putin. In fact, he's been there 22 years and people I know who follow that closely are saying he's looking basically to get out a bit. He's going down. I think it is historical role as the person like the Catherine, the great and Peter to gather the Russian land. And that's very frightening. Yeah, I think going back to 2014. My view of Crimea was that it seemed like the world just acquiesced in the annexation of Crimea. I mean, there wasn't there wasn't a robust response from the West. You know, the question that leads to the question, well, did that encourage Putin somehow but but certainly it was it was a quiet response from the West. I mean, of course the West objected but but there wasn't much strength to it. It's also interesting the relationship between the US and Russia in the Middle East because when ISIS was active. There were times when the United States and Russia were actually working together. So it was, you know, like, I know a little bit about I think I know more about the Middle East and most people because my work at the UN involved the Middle East. And, and, and, you know, what's interesting about the Middle East is that it is so complicated and so entangled. So you have situations where at times the United States and Russia active or were actively working together, while at the same time, you know, also being adversaries on the ground at the same time. And, you know, I think just, I don't want to switch the focus too much but I think people would be surprised that Israel and Saudi Arabia are actually secret allies. And I think that would surprise a lot of people but that's just the nature of the relationships in the Middle East and, and I think that goes to the complexity of, of, of how the US and Russia were dealing with each other because there were so many moving parts. You know, as you said everything is so interconnected and you can't just isolate one thing from the other because because everything is so interconnected and and and and you know, people are trying to coordinate all these things at the different time. And it's, I think it must be fascinating trying to trying to develop strategy or policy in these sorts of things because because the issues are so complicated. It's fascinating. And those are deeply connected to right John in the sense that Saudi Arabia and UAE, although they are US close close with the United States I mean both of them. Did they not abstain as well in their, if I remember correctly, but I saw a headline today that they refuse to take Biden's phone call. Yes, and Israel and Israel at the same time sent the Prime Minister to speak directly to Putin and, and, and I mean I'm assuming a lot of this also has to do with the deal with Iran right this sort of I mean the deal with Iran is is an inseparable part of what's happening in Ukraine now, because of the oil I mean it is, I mean, an event like this is so. I think I think I think, I think it is impossible for human beings to to fully map out all the consequences of an event of this scale. And, and we have no idea. We probably only have access to maybe 2% of what's actually happening right now, and we're just trying to, you know, come to conclusions based on such limited information to the best that we can but I mean, who knows who knows. It's this whole thing, again, with this whole thing of trying to find finalize the the Iranian nuclear deal. It is it is completely tied to Ukraine now. So, again, it's really interesting that way. I sense that the UAE and Saudi Arabia I've been told that major effort now in the Security Council to declare the, or resolve that the hooties and maybe misprouncing that but in Yemen. Yes, declare them as terrorists. And, and that was the pressure that was put on Saudi Arabia and UAE is on the Security Council right now. And that's why they didn't go along. So, throw that out. A bit of complexity. Yeah, exactly. There's something in the chat about seeing the first stories of Ukrainian soldiers being captured by the Russians and the question is, do you think there will be many POWs similar to what went on in Afghanistan. Well, I, one of the interesting things is that, first of all, I don't know how I don't know if this falls with under the umbrella of propaganda, but a lot of the war is on tiktok. And, and, and I watch hours of tiktok videos each day about the war. And one of the things I've seen is that when the Ukrainians have captured Russian soldiers, they've allowed them to call home. The captured Russians have called their parents and said, I've been captured and this is where I am. And so, obviously those, those videos were released by the Ukrainians to influence public opinion. And I'm not saying, and I'm not trying to downgrade the, the humanitarian appeal of that or the kindness of that. But, you know, Ukraine released those videos because it serves their purpose. But I hope that those are accurate descriptions because it is a kind gesture to allow the POWs to call their parents and say, I've been captured but I'm alive. And, and I hope that it for Ukrainian prisoners of war that the Russians show the same sort of a fair treatment. Again, that's, we're still, we're still in the middle of seeing all that unfold. I think there's a lot more free information in the, in, in Ukraine as well, right? So we're seeing a variety of different things come out of Ukraine, but from various outlets like you're saying, John, like tiktok and other places. I think, again, to go back to what, what pretty much everyone has said, I think the hard part in Russia is that you're, you're now, you've now sort of downgraded to, I mean, what one, one source of information, one outlet, one inlet one outlet, which is vastly distinct. I mean, you don't have, you know, Elon Musk's satellites allowing you to, you know, send out all sorts of information under a variety of different channels, versus, you know, one state run channel or a couple of state run channels. So I'm sure that that plays a, I mean, for me, you know, if I was going to make a distinction, I would say that I feel a little bit more confident that, that there's a little bit more freedom of, of, of information, sort of, if you want to think of an expulsion outside of the country of Ukraine versus Russia, I think at this time. And I could be wrong, but that's, that's simply my feeling at this time. Well, there's still reporters on the ground in Ukraine, as opposed to Russia where a lot of news organizations have withdrawn their reporters. Another question I don't think we had gotten to clear the unlawful invasion of Ukraine has been planned by Putin for years trade economic sanctions have proven to be an effective a ban from swift is not working we see escalating civilian casualties refugee crisis based on historical on wars history of Russia as a global power with China as an ally. What is the next move to end this what is the likelihood of Ukraine agreeing to remain neutral independent state one of several demands that Putin has made. I would just echo what Greg said, which is, I, I think that just from a rational policy making point of view, the Western powers need to give Putin a graceful exit out. He cannot be humiliated. If, if, if what he's offered or if his option is humiliation. I think he'll just escalate this. And so, I don't know what the graceful exit is, but I'm sure the diplomats I mean that's what they do for a living that's what they're expert at. The diplomats are trying to figure out a way that gives Putin some sort of cover to try to end this. The headlines today, and I'm just talking about today who knows they could be completely different tomorrow is that the headlines today seem sort of conciliatory on both sides. And that the rhetoric seem to be softening a bit. But that's just today. I mean, I have no idea what will happen tomorrow. And I believe today I think the foreign minister of Russia and the foreign minister of Ukraine are meeting in Turkey today. So and, and I, I haven't been able to check the news so I don't know if anything of, if anything newsworthy occurred as a result of that. Yeah, I after this is done, I'm going to check the news to see if there is any news out of that meeting today. I think Putin is looking to subjugate Ukraine, and his backup is to sort of take over or see the whole red area and the map I put up and I don't think he's looking for any any way out of this I think he's intent at least right now. I teach negotiations to and there's an, there's an idea that you negotiate for side effects you're not really negotiating to come to an agreement, but you know because you need to do that for public opinion reasons and other kinds of things. Right, I agree with that completely and that's, and perhaps that's what all these, perhaps that's just what these negotiations are. Nothing substantive but a spectacle, I, I, I'm completely open to the to that possibility. They did negotiate some humanitarian corridors out of Mario Paul. There were four corridors, or four temps to do that. And I heard on NPR the deputy mayor of Mario Paul which is down on the Sea of the South, which is taking a terrible beating. And on each of the times that they started to move the Ukrainians move people down those corridors, the Russians shelled them. Yes. Yes. So I mean, you know, what are you going to do. Someone's asking if you have any thoughts about why Russia is choosing a ground war instead of air. Is it a money issue. Well, I, I'm not a military expert, but I follow armed conflicts. I would say as an informed lay person. And if you want, if you want to occupy a country. And as Mark as you say, subjugate you cannot do it from the air. There are two troops on the ground. And so the operation like this cannot be conducted simply as an as an air war. What is the policy of a high altitude blast over home territory rather than attack on another sovereign. It is a weapon of mass destruction. And it's, I believe it is the it is the final weapon that can be used short of nuclear weapons. And so there have been rumors that one has already been used in Ukraine. I don't think the media has been able to verify it. But it's just Russia coming close to the nuclear line without crossing it. And that would be the purpose of using a weapon like that. See what we haven't gotten to a comment. My informed military export says that air is too expensive. What else again, stop me if, if I'm repeating how much of this war is is steeped in larger issues of being ethnically Russian. We answered that one yet due to Kiev being the seat of the old proto-Russian state of the Cuban, Cuban roots must Kiev be recaptured for Putin to achieve his vision of a reunited Slavic people, or to complete the imitation of Catherine or Peter the great. I think the Ukrainians don't want, they want to be independent, I think, so they're not looking to join with that. Mark, I think what I'm wondering if Nick's also asking is, is this also about the issue of maybe this is going back to what you mentioned with with Putin, right, wanting to, whether or not the Ukrainians want this, him wanting to, you know, take the old seat of the Kievan roots that he's mentioning here, right, sort of, sort of going in. So although the Ukrainians don't want it, you know, I think, I think Nick's asking I could be wrong. You know how much of this is Putin wanting to sort of reunite that I think you mentioned that that that's what you see a lot of right is that sort of wanting to leave that historic mark to go back to the sort of this grandness. And remember correctly, the Kievan roots were also, there were also Finns that were connected to the the Kievan roots and, and the Khazars and other, I mean, it was very, you have a Slavic entity, but you also have non Slavic groups as well. So I think, I mean, largely I think this, this seems to happen frequently where, you know, we go back to the grandeur of history and, but tend to forget some of the pieces. But I don't think that matters to Putin, right. I mean, if he's, if he's intent on it, he's intent on it. There's no way to justify it. So we're right at 530. And I think we may let our panelists go and grade some papers or something. Eat some dinner. Oh, no. Lisa right 530 we're going to kind of call it so. Yeah, so I guess I'll wrap up and say thank you. Okay, everyone for coming. Thank you Lisa for organizing. And thanks everyone for for being here for giving your time to this. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thanks everyone. Thank you.