 Thank you so much, Daniel. Good afternoon, and welcome. I am Celeste Watkins Hayes, the Joan and Sanford Wildein of the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy here at the University of Michigan. And I'm delighted to welcome all of you here this afternoon to the Ford School's annual Vandenberg lecture, which this year features US Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink. I'm happy to see many of you from our campus community here at Wilde Hall. And I know that there are many more tuning in from elsewhere. Welcome. Thank you for being here. We are proud to host this distinguished lecture series named for the great Arthur Vandenberg, who served the state of Michigan and the United States Senate from 1928 to 1951. Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Senator Vandenberg led the Republican Party from a position of staunch isolationism prior to the American involvement in World War II, a position that eventually shifted to a broad embrace of internationalism. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Vandenberg worked to forge bipartisan support for our country's most significant and enduring international policies, including the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and the creation of the United Nations. The Vandenberg Fund was established at the Ford School by a generous gift from the Meyer Foundation. The fund enables the school to host important leaders and experts in international relations, US foreign policy, diplomacy, and trade and more. Hank, I'm so glad you could be with us here today. Today's guest of honor is Ambassador Bridget Brink. Ambassador Brink arrived in Kiev on May 29th, 2022, 2022, just three months after Russia initiated its full-scale war with the country, arguably one of the most important diplomatic assignments in the US government. A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Ambassador Brink served as US Ambassador to the Slovak Republic from August 15, 2019, until her confirmation as Ambassador to Ukraine. She previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs with responsibility for issues related to Eastern Europe and the protracted conflicts in Europe. Originally from East Grand Rapids, Michigan, Ambassador Brink has been with the State Department since 1996. She will kick us off with some remarks and then will be joined in conversation with Ambassador Susan Page, Director of the Ford School's Wiser Diplomacy Center, which is today's event co-sponsor. We welcome audience questions. Please submit them using the QR code on the yellow cards here in the room or via the link on the website for those watching online. So with that, please join me in warmly welcoming Ambassador Bridget Brink. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you, everyone. It's really great to be here. It's really great to be back in my home state of Michigan and to have the chance to be with you. I want to thank you very much, Dean Watkins Hayes, for the really warm introduction and also thanks to the Ford School for welcoming me here today to deliver this year's Vandenberg lecture. I'm so honored to follow in a long line of distinguished colleagues, as well as for the opportunity to come back to my home state. But before I offer my perspective on Ukraine and our efforts there, I want to recognize a couple of additional people at the top. I want to thank Hank Meyer, who I enjoyed meeting earlier today, and the Meyer family for their support of the Vandenberg lecture series. I also want to share that I fondly recall receiving a congratulatory letter from his son, then Representative Meyer, when I was confirmed as ambassador to Ukraine. And a little secret, we went to the same high school. I'm a little bit older, but I think the fact that I received a letter from him wishing me well and encouraging me and wishing me luck on this tough assignment is really reflective of the Vandenberg lecture. And so thank you. I'd also like to thank my fellow ambassador and colleague in today's discussion, Ambassador Susan Page. I read all that she has done, and now have had the chance to be with her this afternoon. I'm a little worried about what kind of question she might ask. No, I'm kidding. But I know how active she has been in responding to many crises around the world, and I really look forward to our conversation today. Reaching back into my past a bit further, I just want to recognize Steve Began, a former Deputy Secretary of State, and my former boss at the State Department for his support of Ukraine and the cause of freedom, and actually for reaching out to me initially about the possibility of joining this lecture series. So it's a real honor for me to be here. And I'm just so touched to follow in the footsteps as I was looking at what I would say today. I saw last year you heard from Ambassador Julie Smith before that Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, Administrator Samantha Power, CIA Director Bill Burns, and Special Representative for Ukraine's Economic Recovery, Penny Pritzker, who are all my current colleagues and people I highly respect and admire. But I happen to be from Grand Rapids and more specifically from East Grand Rapids, which is the proud home of the 38th President of the United States. This fact is emblazoned on every sign into our small city. And growing up, it always filled me with pride that this small but lovely town was the home to a president, and not just any president, but one widely known for his honesty and his decency. He took on the presidency at a particularly divisive time moment in American history in the wake of the resignation of Richard Nixon. And President Ford took decisions, including the pardoning of the former president, which were hard and highly controversial at the time, and which many believe cost him the presidential race of 1976. But with time and space, I think the consensus on that fateful decision is that it was the right one for the country. What I want to talk to you about today is the importance of America using this incredible soft and hard power we have as the leader of the free world, a powerful country whose policy is based on ideals and values to make the decisions that history will judge as the right ones, and to make those momentous decisions put in country ahead of everything and everyone else is what you are all here to consider as you prepare to take up leadership roles in whatever area you choose. And I want to use our time together to talk about those moments and how Ukraine and what we do in response to Russia's brutal full-scale invasion is such a moment that actually is happening right now in the world. Today, we face the greatest threat to European peace and security since World War II. President Biden has been clear about the stakes from day one. If we don't stop, it will endanger the freedom of everyone almost everywhere. Putin will keep going, and would-be aggressors everywhere will be emboldened to try to take what they can by force. Make no mistake, the outcome of Russia's aggression, its full-scale invasion of a country of 40 million people will have enormous repercussions in Europe and around the world. What should we do? It's clear and simple. To me, we need to act. We must act, and we must do it now. There's not a second to lose. We need to do whatever is necessary to ensure that this illegal war, which has cost almost half a trillion dollars in damage, is a strategic defeat for Vladimir Putin. How do we do it? We need to be fast, and we need to work together. Democrats and Republicans to achieve our shared national security interest in our Europe whole, free, and at peace, a long-standing bipartisan policy which has helped us secure the peace and prosperity for the US and Europe for over 75 years. Our Congress's vote on Saturday in response to President Biden's request was proof that we can work together to achieve our common security goals. And here I want to thank Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries for their leadership role that they played at a pivotal moment for Ukraine and the United States. The vote last Saturday was an absolutely necessary achievement to support our national security. And it is now on all of us to maintain this positive momentum and do what is necessary to defeat Russia. The Senate is now voting today and debating on the bill. And the president has said he will sign it immediately as soon as it gets to his desk. I often tell my team in Ukraine that we are working at the speed of war. What does speed mean in this context? You know, it can sometimes take just three minutes after Russia launches a missile before it reaches Kyiv. Three minutes. But we can't be afraid to act. Ukrainians aren't afraid to act. And in a crisis, you have to act. Ambassador Rami Manuel, who's our current US Ambassador in Japan, back when he was Chief of Staff for President Obama and I happened to work in the Obama National Security Council, said once, facing the realities of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, never let a serious crisis go to waste. And there's one thing I want you to take from our conversation today. It's that crisis demands action. And it demands innovation. And as practitioners of public policy who may find themselves in government, you will be called upon to act. And it is essential that you respond. And it is equally essential that you respond based on our values and that you understand that time is a resource. No action is action. Late action is action. And to put a finer point on it, I want to quote Ukraine's President Zelensky. When you attack us, you'll look us in the eyes because you'll see our faces, not our backs. We are facing a decisive moment in Ukraine. Why is Congress's passing of the legislation so critical? Because Ukraine has not had any significant security assistance from us since December. Ukraine is losing territory. It's losing its energy grid. And it's losing its most precious asset, its people. This is a deliberate plan by Russia and Putin to try to wait us out. My team and I spend a lot of time in bunkers, in the basements, as missiles and drones are launched at the capital and the rest of the country. Every day, even now, cities and towns across Ukraine are subject to missile and drone attacks by Russia. I just want everyone to take a moment and imagine that statement transposed on the map of the United States. Missiles and drones being sent by Canada or Mexico to cities across our nation, New York, Washington, DC, Detroit, Grand Rapids. Russia has launched thousands of missiles and drones at Ukrainian cities since the start of the full-scale invasion two years ago, causing half a trillion dollars in damage, killing thousands of civilians, including 500 children, 500 children, and displaced over 18 million people, 10 million of those people remain displaced today. Those numbers all continue to grow. The scenario the government of Ukraine faces comes quickly into focus from President Zelensky to the chief of the local fire and emergency services. Public servants are not lacking in reasons to act. So we need to act. This is why it's so important that Congress pass a supplemental and that every day we fail to give additional assistance, Ukraine is losing lives and it costs territory. And it costs our ability to achieve a vital foreign policy interest of the United States. Why does the outcome of Russia's war and Ukraine matter to us at all? This may be obvious to all of you here in the Ford School, but I know it's not obvious to all Americans. I get it, my family is here in Michigan. They support me unconditionally, but I do hear many questions. Where is this going? When will it end? Can Ukraine win? And here's what I say. What's at stake is not just Ukraine, it's Europe. It's the international system we helped build in the wake of World War II's unimaginable violence and hardship which cost over 50 million lives, including thousands of Americans and over a trillion dollars in damages. Furthermore, the horror of the Holocaust made clear what can happen if we don't act. I firmly believe this statement, which is attributed but with some debate to Edmund Burke. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men or women to do nothing. Russia's war in Ukraine exemplifies Russia's effort to pull apart piece by piece the security structures that have been the foundation of transatlantic stability and prosperity for 75 years. When people ask me if this could be a forever war, my response is that this is a now war. That means giving weapons to Ukraine now so that our sons and our daughters are not called upon to fight the wars our forefathers fought for a Europe whole, free and at peace. Russia is violating the UN Charter and trying to take force a country of 40 million, sending missiles and drones to leave millions, millions of people in the cold and the dark. It is taking over the largest nuclear plant in Europe, the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant to threaten a nuclear accident all to achieve one man's goals. Russia uses disinformation and cyber attacks to disrupt democratic societies including our own in an attempt to do what Russia does best, divide people, destroy things, create chaos. It does not know how to build because it is not a country based on values. Instead, it is based solely in my opinion on one thing, power. We all know Russia won't stop with Ukraine. Emboldened by more territorial conquest, Russia will keep going, keep invading, keep trying to undermine the values and the institutions that make a strong democracy until we have to send our own men and women somewhere with boots on the ground to stop them. As President Biden has said, we can't let the bully win. A Europe whole freeing at peace has meant the most prosperous and stable area in US history. It has been, as I mentioned, a long-standing bipartisan goal. It's a strategic national interest and it must stay that way. Europe is our largest trading partner and our essential strategic security partner. It is with the nations of Europe that we are joining forces to tackle all of the enormous problems of today. The Middle East crisis, global warming, cyber threats, Iran, North Korea. I know my friend, US Ambassador to NATO, Julie Smith, spoke to you last year about the importance of NATO. It's the world's premier security alliance. Our commitment to NATO into Article 5 is ironclad. An attack on one is an attack on all. September 11th, 2001, is the only time NATO has invoked Article 5 and is the perfect example of why we need it. We need our allies and we need our friends. The only way we can prevail in these big global challenges is together with our allies and our partners. That means the unity of the US and Europe and the strength of NATO is vital, vital to our national security and our prosperity. Let's get a little bit into what's happening in Ukraine. On February 24th, 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion. The United States and others responded immediately. And to this, I credit President Biden and the entire national security team with sanctions on Russia, with support to allies on NATO's Eastern flank and with the help to Ukraine to defend itself. Analysts and world leaders uniformly predicted Kiev would fall within days and the Russian invasion would succeed in capturing the country. But that did not happen. Why? Because the Ukrainians stood and fought with our help. President Zelensky's decision to stand fight was a pivotal moment. And our decision to lead the free world in supporting Ukraine's fight for freedom together with 50 partners was a decisive point in history. But this is one act of many, of millions of people in Ukraine and around the world seeing the barbarity in Russia's actions working together to respond to this naked and illegal use of force by a nuclear power. And the history of this attempted change of Europe's borders by force has not been completely written. What happens next will show whether the decision to stand and fight, and our decision to support that fight with others around the world was one that ends in a way that protects the people of Ukraine and the values of the United States and other democratic countries. We are at the equivalent of halftime. The home team is behind, but with grit and determination and that supplemental, the home team can and will win. And it is this stark reality that I want to convey. One day, one day, you all may face this moment, a moment when everything is on the line and you have to make the hard but necessary decision. Gerald Ford faced it. Joe Biden faced it. Mike Johnson faced it. Volodymyr Zelensky faced it. What will you do? In late May, 2022, I took up my role as US ambassador to Ukraine and arrived in Kiev with a small group of courageous colleagues at one of the darkest moments of the war. Our embassy had reopened 11 days before. There were just 10 of us, 10 diplomats using words and action. The Ukrainians were, as some say, bleeding out in Donbass. We had not yet given them sophisticated weapons, but Secretary Blinken's brave and smart decision to put our diplomatic mission back into Kiev, even as the war raged on, meant my team and I could give a first hand view of the situation. And I'm proud to say we really did. We raised our voices internally, worked with others, of course, in the interagency to try to lead and shape the policy discussions. And during that summer, the United States gave Ukraine high mars and it turned the tide of the war at that moment and propelled significant counter-offensive achievements in the fall of 2022, which liberated large swaths of territory and villages in the east and the south. This counter-offensive resulted in Ukraine taking back 50% of the territory Russia had taken since the start of the full-scale invasion. Of course, we know that this war did not start in 2022. It started in 2014. When Ukraine's decision to move closer to the European Union resulted in Russia's attempted annexation of Crimea and its occupation of part of Eastern Ukraine, called the Donbass, two of Ukraine's most strategically and economically important spaces. As I started with my team in the spring of 2022, we had the chance to see how close the Russians came to capturing Kiev, a necessary step to overtake the entire country. My first visit outside the capital was to Hostel, the airfield in northern suburbs of Kiev that was the location of one of the first and historically will be one of the most decisive battles of the war. Seizing this airfield would give Russia control over the sky above the capital and provide a landing zone to stream in additional forces and equipment. It was key to Russia's goal to take the capital and seize the seat of power by killing, capturing or causing the elected president to flee. The Ukrainians knew the stakes too. After a tough fight, Ukrainians lost control of the airfield. But only briefly, the Ukrainian soldiers there did not give up and in fact they were strengthened by waves of volunteers. Ukrainians left their homes, picked up arms and joined their military in fighting for Hostel. The Ukrainians fought on against the odds but with persistence and determination and eventually recaptured the airport. It took action and by doing so had a pivotal impact on the course of the war. Russian transports loaded with troops had to turn around. The miles long convoy, you might remember from the reporting at that time of Russian military was not able to drive to Kiev. It got stuck. And in addition to stopping Russia from taking the airport closest to Kiev, other brave military and civilian people blew up bridges that led to the capital. This was a bold decision to do what it takes to survive. And finally, those who lived in the suburbs of the capital banded together to fight the Russians who were coming in at night by foot. This is a war where Russia has sought to extinguish an entire people for simply seeking to choose their own future. The battle of Mariupol in 2022, a thriving port city on the Sea of Azov lasted three months with a lot of brave people who stayed in fought to try to protect the city. There Russia completely destroyed a city of 400,000 people. Many Ukrainian cities are now globally known for the mass graves Russia left behind, Bucha, Izhum, Liman. Flash forward to today. The war is still going on over two years later and we are at the most decisive moment since the battle for Kiev. In March alone, Russia escalated its attacks on the energy grid, killed 600 civilians around the country and has caused $1 billion in damage. That's one month alone. On April 11th, Russia attacked the thermal power plant that supplies Kiev, the Kiev region with half of its power, continued attacks on Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv, and struck energy and port infrastructure in an attempt to stop Ukraine's exports, which are critical to its economy. Recently, I traveled to the vibrant city of Nipro in the east of Ukraine, where I visited a famous hospital that treats many of the soldiers coming from the front lines. There I met a young soldier named Mikhailov. He had been badly wounded just the day before. I was a little shy to meet him, but the doctor there, who I had met also some years before I knew, said, no, no, he wants to meet you. I told him, we're here with you. And he had a message for me. Thank you. Thank you to President Biden and the people of America for supporting us. I have to say, I choked up, as did everybody with me. Despite his injury, he was nothing but positivity and gratitude. What does this say about Ukraine and Ukrainians? Look at Ukraine's history, and you'll learn more about this unbreakable Ukrainian spirit. As Russia tried to assert its will over the future of the country in 2014, Ukrainians around that nation rose up to say, no, this began the revolution of dignity and a month's long protest, which resulted in the then President, Viktor Yanukovych, fleeing to Moscow. In this protest, over 100 Ukrainian protesters, civilians from across the country, lost their lives when they were shot by Yanukovych's riot police. The actions and lives of these protesters are now enshrined in a memorial on the Medan, the central square in Kiev, where the movement took place. And they are known as the Heavenly 100. Ukrainians don't refer to this time as the Medan protest. It's called the Revolution of Dignity. That's really all you need to know about Ukrainians. They are fighters, and they come together to do so when they see their chosen future at risk. As the Revolution of Dignity spread, Russia then invaded Crimea and occupied Ukraine's Eastern Donbass region in 2014. What followed has been 10 years of slow, grinding war along an Eastern front. Ukraine has lost over 8,000 people even before Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022. But the discussions of territory and borders belie what this is really about. Ukraine's insistence that their future is theirs to decide. And their wish and their aspiration is that their future is a Euro-Atlantic one. The future they are striving for is one where their country and their children will be part of the transatlantic family of nations. That means part of the European Union and part of NATO. Over three-quarters of Ukrainians support joining NATO, and the majority of Ukrainians have favorable opinion toward the United States. When you speak to Ukrainians today, almost no matter what age, they talk, when they talk about the future, they always begin their sentence with after the victory. Ukrainians are positive there will be victory. They cannot and will not accept anything less. Keep in mind, Ukraine is fighting a war on many fronts. Clearly, they are fighting a kinetic war with Russia. Less obvious, but just as important in some ways is Ukraine's war against institutions of its post-Soviet past, most notably corruption, a weak judiciary, and weak regulatory bodies, a lack of real checks and balances on power. All these legacies are areas that Ukraine seeks to change and overcome to move toward its Euro-Atlantic future. Average Ukrainians want clean government and reform. They value independent institutions. They want a system that is transparent, fair, and doesn't just favor the connected few. We are with Ukraine in this. As strong democracies and economies are based on strong institutions and rule of law, it is critical for Ukraine's strategic goals, as well as to attract the private sector investment that Ukraine needs for its recovery. There are three other important lines of effort we are working on with Ukraine. Justice sector reform, decentralization, and anti-corruption. On justice sector reform, we are supporting Ukraine's establishment of independent and justice institutions to empower people to feel that they will have a fair trial as well as to empower businesses to have confidence to invest in Ukraine. We are also supporting independent regulatory bodies and corporate governance that meets international standards, all critical to attracting the private sector. Through USAID, we're supporting Ukraine's decentralization reforms with millions of dollars in assistance to ultimately strengthen local government and institutions so they are more accountable and inclusive. Our programs have provided emergency supplies to cities and towns across the country, as well as hands-on capacity training to local governments. And Ukraine is making incredible strides in good governance by turning to technology. For example, there's now a popular app created by the government with support from us that citizens can use to take care of any civic duty from registering their car to registering to vote. It's called DEA, which means action. This app is also helping people fix their homes that were damaged by missiles and drones in a way that removes any chance for corruption. It's simply remarkable. Ukraine will not stand still and the Ukrainians do not quit or back down. History has shown us this. In an existential war to decide its own future, Ukraine is also rewriting the future, the future of how trade may work, the future of how we will use technology for national defense, the future of our alliances, principle among them, NATO. Ukraine has achieved extraordinary success. With our support and that of Ukraine's allies and partners, Ukraine has not only survived Russia's brutal onslaught and recaptured this 50% of their territory. Ukraine has also eliminated Russia's dominance in the Black Sea and opened the Black Sea Humanitarian Corridor and in just eight months, over 1,400 ships and over 40 million tons of grain and other cargo has been sent to global markets, stabilizing the price of grain and feeding the world. Ukraine's armed forces have integrated new weapons systems like the US Patriot to protect their cities, saving lives and billions of dollars in damage. The 75 billion in overall assistance that we have given so far is just half of what the Europeans have given to Ukraine. Other nations, including Europe, are doing their part. Beyond the battlefield, the United States is taking concrete steps to constrain the Kremlin's ability to continue its war and threaten others. We and our partners have announced the world's most sweeping and severe set of sanctions. Since February 2022, the Departments of State and Treasury have designated over 4,000 entities and individuals in response to the Kremlin's war effort and we continue to add an update to this list. Together with our NATO allies, we have strengthened NATO's Eastern flank, adding troops to Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Slovakia as well as to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Critically, we have welcomed Finland and Sweden as NATO allies, strengthening the alliance with its 31st and 32nd number. President Gerald Ford put it well when he said, a great nation cannot abandon its responsibilities. Responsibilities abandoned today return as more acute crises tomorrow. But a nation and its government in the end are made up of people, everyday people like you and like me. It's about what we decide when the moment comes, when we are called to act. You will face such moments in your own lives and you will have the choice of what to do. What you do in that moment will matter and it could matter in ways even larger and more important than you realize. It could change the world. As you go forward from this wonderful opportunity of learning at one of our country's greatest public universities, I urge you to draw inspiration and encouragement from the events of the world today. The future is not set. It will be set at some point. And how it is set will be up to all of you. Have courage, be guided by your values and most of all, act. This is what will maintain America as the leader of the free world and ensure the opportunities we have enabled at home and abroad persist for our children and beyond. Thank you. I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you so much for those inspiring comments, especially at the end. I love that. Thank you. Act. So I wanna start by kind of leaning into what you said at the beginning that crisis demands action. So let's start with the most recent action taken by the House on Saturday when they finally, after many months of wrangling, passed a massive bill, not only for Ukraine aid, but others as well, but approximately $61 million in aid for Ukraine. Hopefully this will be, as you mentioned, that they are discussing this. The Senate had previously passed a version, but then they had to go back to the drawing board. It looks like this will go through, although nothing is ever guaranteed and be signed into law. But what does this aid package consist of? So thanks very much, Ambassador. And thanks again for everyone who's here. The aid package essentially has three parts. So I haven't seen what's being debated, but I know what it was. So I think it's something along these lines. The first part is security assistance and what that means is weapons. Weapons that we take from our own stocks and that then we pay to US defense manufacturers to replenish our stocks. It does mean that the money, that money actually goes to more than 30 states around the country. And in fact, in Michigan, it goes to tactical vehicles that are made, that go to Ukraine. So that's the first part. That's the largest part of the president's original request, security assistance. So it's no money, it's stuff, it's weapons. The second part is economic assistance, specifically direct budget support. That support goes to help the country continue to survive. So right now in Ukraine, every single, they use the hryvnia. So every single hryvnia goes to pay their military and goes to the war effort to produce their own weapons, pay their military, some aspect of the war effort. That's where every taxpayer dollar in Ukraine goes. So they are relying on us and Europe right now to help them cover that cost. So this direct budget support goes to things like first responders, emergency workers at hospitals, teachers and others who are civil servants who are assisting and supporting the war effort. The third part of the assistance, the smallest part is also actually quite important. It includes assistance that will go to help the Ukrainians keep the electrical energy grid alive, which as I mentioned in my remarks is under incredible attack from Russia. It also includes a portion that helps the Ukrainians grow their economy by focusing on ways to increase exports. Ukrainian economy is heavily dependent on exports, including of grain, which goes to feed the world, but also steel and other products. And that part of our economic assistance is planned to be directed to help that economy grow and to also bring in money to state coffers that would help to decrease the need of direct budget support, which is frankly the most controversial, I'd say politically of all of the aspects of support. So when we think about aid, we often have a hard time explaining to ordinary civilians, ordinary population around the globe, what does this actually mean? And although we're looking at these huge numbers, $60 billion, $90 billion, et cetera, and people at home are thinking, yeah, but I mean, we need money for education, we need money for roads, we need money for healthcare, all of the things that it's true, we do need, obviously they're separate pots of money, but explain why this should be meaningful and important for people to understand through hometown diplomacy. Yeah, so this is an excellent question. Actually, the amount of discretionary spending in our overall budget is minuscule. It's a tiny, tiny amount of the full totality of the US budget. Actually, much of our budget goes to required spending on social programs that have a certain amount of money that have to go to, they have to be funded. And so the amount that goes in foreign policy into the area in which I work is small. And in fact, the amount that is going to Ukraine is, is it a third tuck, a third percentage? A third of a percent of our budget is going to help us enable Ukraine to defeat Russian aggression. This is a very small amount of our entirety of our budget. Just to put it into context, countries like Estonia, 4% of their GDP is actually going to Ukraine to help defeat Russia's aggression. We're number something like 30 in the list according to GDP, relatively small. It's a lot of money, so don't get me wrong. I am from Michigan, billion dollars and multiple billions is a lot of money. But in the grand scheme of how much we're paying relative to others and in the grand scheme of how much we're paying relative to what the benefit is to us is relatively small. So it's a significantly degrade Russia's military which is what the Ukrainians have done despite the very difficult moment that they face right now is costing less than 5% of our defense budget. Because of this war, I think we and Europeans have looked at our own defense industrial base and realized it needs to be revitalized. There's an issue that we're not able to produce weapons including some of our most signature weapons, the Patriots or others, the Haimars that we can't produce them very fast and that we need to really focus on making sure we're prepared. So all this equipment that is going to Ukraine is being replaced by new equipment that is going to enhance our own defense industrial base. So I don't want to undermine or undervalue how much we are doing because it's significant. But I would just want to put it in the context of the level of threat that this reflects and represents in terms of this war, in terms of Russia's effort to extinguish and take over a country of 40 million people in Europe. And if we don't act now, what the costs are later not just in monetary cost to us but potentially the cost in lives. Yeah, and maybe you could speak a little bit to even the fact that the numbers are large but it is parsed out in very specific elements. But the foreign affairs budget is relatively small compared to our overall budget that congressional bodies on appropriations have to pass every year, like less than one to 2% of the overall US budget. I don't know the exact figure of what the foreign affairs budget is, but as I recall, it is less than 1% of the overall budget of the United States. So it's relatively small, the foreign affairs budget. So we are getting a lot in terms of our national security in order to try to enable Ukraine to stop Russia here and now in Ukraine, rather than somewhere else in Europe. And I think nobody believes that Putin would stop. He has articulated his aspirations to reincorporate the Baltic states among other parts of Europe and the Baltics are members of NATO and we are treaty bound to defend the Baltic states as we would any other country that's part of NATO. So if we move on to what's actually happening on the ground, we talk about the Russians bombing with drones and missile strikes on a number of different cities. Do you think that as some of the Russian officials are claiming that the assistance that we continue to provide, not only the United States, but more globally, is pushing the West to engage on the brink of war, nuclear war with Russia? Is that a real risk even though Russia knows that that would also entail its own destruction? So this is an excellent question about a little over a year ago. Putin was making statements that made people concerned that this might be a possibility, that he was considering potentially responding with some kind of nuclear weapon because of the support that Ukraine was receiving from us and others. What I can say is that from the ground, from being in Ukraine, I did not and neither did the Ukrainian government assess that that was a high risk. What by history of experience and working in the region, my view was that Putin is good at scaremongering and saying that he's going to do something or saying he's not gonna do something like invade Ukraine, but then doing it. But on the nuclear threat, when you thought about what would that mean? So he launches a nuclear weapon and he does a tactical nuke in the battlefield and destroys all of his own people, all of the Ukrainians that are there and destroys the territory of whatever that space is. That doesn't seem like that's gonna get him anything. So let's say he does a nuclear weapon on the capital of Kiev. I think that's game over for Putin. I think there's no coming back from that kind of action. So what does he gain? But what does he gain if he makes the threat and uses it to get everybody to pull their punches and to not respond with strength and not to do something in response to the attack? I think he gains a lot. So I'm a parent. Sometimes I think the threat of something is more powerful than the actual doing something. That's what we hope our children believe. So I just, I think that's the logic and I think that's, I believe that's probably what the Ukrainians thought but we're a responsible country. So obviously our system and our leadership takes things like that very seriously and frankly we have prepared. We prepared, we did models, we did drills, we did different things, we brought out experts. Just in case that might happen, what would we do? How could I get people out quickly? How much time would I have depending on what happens? But it's because we're a responsible nation. So when we think about what could happen, how far will this aid likely go? I mean, again, I understand you haven't seen every piece of it and we don't know exactly what it is but is this a game changer? Could this mean that they can end the war with this assistance because we're not the only ones but I know that the EU is also in discussions. I've read the latest statements by just Borrell. Where does this land in the greater scheme of things? And if it took us this long to pass this one set of assistance, will we have the opportunity to provide more if they need it? I know you can't look into completely a crystal ball. Yeah, so I think this aid, first of all, it couldn't have come at a more important time. It really is the most decisive moment in this war that I have seen since I arrived almost two years ago. It is a very critical moment for the Ukrainians and I think it gives them a really good chance to accomplish their goals. Now, our goals have always been a sovereign democratic prosperous Ukraine that has the ability to defend itself and deter future aggression and we're working in various ways to help enable that to be so. This assistance will give them the security assistance to hold the line, hold what they have gained, potentially make some progress as well. I believe and hope that it'll help them ensure that this humanitarian corridor in the Black Sea will continue because it's also critical. It will also help them enable them to repair and stabilize the electrical infrastructure. It will also give them air defense capabilities and we need more even in addition to what this is and we are working from the president on down to try to convince allies and partners to give even more on air defense. But this because we actually produce ourselves a lot of the air defense, the interceptors for the Patriot missiles and other things that are really important to defend the cities, the energy infrastructure and of course on the front lines. So it's a huge shot in the arm and a really important one at a vital time. Will there be more? I don't know, right? We'll have to see but this is very welcome. Yes, so given the state of our politics right now, you're a career member of the Foreign Service. So you're obviously non-partisan but of course we have our own views but I know that one thing that is really important are relationships and these are some of the things that we are always talking to our students about. One, how do you get into the mindset of the Ukrainians where you serve, what they're thinking, including what they're thinking about, if this is so important, we keep talking about the importance of this. This is the first war in Europe since World War II and yet it's been four months, five months since this bill has been languishing and also what is the rationale of President Putin in terms of waging this war? So I'm getting into the mindset and then building those relationships with people that you can trust, both within the country but also you've been serving in the region for years. This has been your career. How do we read that and how do students or professionals go about trying to understand someone's mentality to be able to come up with some rationales and then responses to those actions? Yeah, so of course an important part of diplomacy is understanding the people that you're working with and maybe against and your own system. So you have to understand all of these different things with regard to the Ukrainians. I mean, their culture and identity is very strong and so their fight for freedom is deep, like ours, like America's. I would say that's a really strong similarity that we have with Ukrainians. They're also a highly innovative culture with incredible human capital. It is one of the notable things that I see in Ukraine. Just the whole of the country is innovative and creative in a way, I mean, sometimes it's like with the weapons systems or the fact that they're using drones in ways that we aren't even using that we're actually learning from them or the fact, as I mentioned, this DEA app which on your phone has every single government service you need at the click of your finger. And in so many ways I see the Ukraine that can come out of this war is potentially such a strong and important partner of ours. One that we will also learn from and take much from in a positive way. So the psychology of the Ukrainians, I think, is one that is pretty easy to understand, fiercely independent. And in fact, Ukraine, I'd say the population was somewhat split even maybe before the war. And there is nobody who has forged a stronger independent Ukraine identity than Vladimir Putin intentionally or not. But it is a very strong, there's a historical fighting spirit in the Ukrainians and that is clear, they're gonna keep fighting. In whatever way they can, however they can, with our help or without, but without our help, I think it's be very impossible for them to prevail. On the Russia side, I have to tell you, there is no way I could get into Putin's brain. What I can say is that based on what he has done, it is, there's no doubt in my mind, he is trying to eradicate an entire country. To pretend it doesn't exist, and even worse than that, to actually kill the inhabitants, the men, the women, the children, and among other things, kill, torture, use sexual violence in ways that we have not seen, that frankly, I can only imagine, only happened last in World War II and in a systemic way. The stories of violence and torture and just murder by Russian troops are chilling. And what is most chilling is that these stories are the same wherever I've heard many, many first person witness stories and they're horrific to hear, of how people just living in suburban towns, in suburban Kiev, or in Haresan, or in Kharkiv, have been subjected to just brutal, brutal torture, violence, and murder. And I mean, I'll give you one example. There was, and I've heard this story a couple of times because I've met this person and a couple of our congressional delegations have come out to hear these stories. So Bucha is the suburb of Kiev where terrible atrocities occurred. Over a hundred civilians were killed by the Russians who came in. These were the Russians right out, coming in to try to take Kiev. And one couple was there, one woman had relayed the story of her and her husband who were in their home in Bucha and the Russians came and they dragged her and her husband out of the house they took her husband, stripped him naked, tortured him in the street, killed him, left him there, told the wife to you better leave now with your father, or we're gonna kill you too. And of course she's, you know, inconsolable and it's this horrific experience. She leaves and goes to a neighbor. Her father makes her leave. She's highly distraught and they say to her like, you, why are you, we are here to liberate you and to help you and yet kill her husband. And she hides for a few days and after the Ukrainians are able to liberate Bucha, she's able to leave this hiding place where she is and her husband's still in the street and she goes to get him and she buries him. Now what person can live through that and be okay? I don't know, but this is the kind of horror that I have heard multiple times in various kinds of first person accounts. And this has happened all over the country. So it's something that we should never be okay with. It wasn't okay in the last century as a horror and it's not okay now and we really need to stand up for what's right and it's something that I have seen now over and over again in a systemic way. So maybe my last question before I turn to the audience. On that subject of violations, I mean gross violations of human rights, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court has indicted two Russians for basically child trafficking, child abduction and sending the children away to Russia from Ukraine, which is a war crime in this context. But really not much else. There was a more recent indictment of two generals. But again, they're mostly not crimes related to sexual violence. We've seen this in lots of places in the world, Sudan, but in many places where sexual violence, rape, et cetera is used as a weapon of war. When will people find some justice? Obviously the ICC is a long-term process and perhaps different, but what kind of justice mechanisms, even the ones that you mentioned that you're helping Ukraine strengthen their own justice system, will there be some way to hold, maybe not Russians, but to get some sort of justice for what's happened? Yes, absolutely. We strongly support this and we are working with Ukrainians and other partners to help set up the institutional process that would find justice. You're right that there have been so far, not a lot, but some prosecutions that are moving through various systems. So there's the International Criminal Court, there's the Ukrainian justice system, and then there's what might be possible of another way in which justice could be served. We work closely with the prosecutor general and there are 100,000 cases of war crimes and atrocities and something which we call, we have labeled as crimes against humanity. That's the extent of what's going on there. So this is gonna take a little time. I think that this isn't going to be a fast process, but we're very committed to it and to supporting Ukraine and getting justice for these terrible acts of sexual violence, torture and murder. Are there, just as a follow on, are there any local traditional mechanisms at justice in many places around the world, might not meet some international standard, but they have traditional ways of either truth telling or, again, justice looks differently to different people. Some that might mean reconciliation, including for Ukrainians who might have committed crimes against humanity. Yeah, there isn't such a tradition that I am aware of in Ukraine for that kind of local justice. And I think maybe in this conflict, it might be too soon to be able to talk about reconciliation, but there will be a point where that's gonna be something that is a topic of conversation in terms of how do you bring the country back together after this horrific situation, especially in those areas where occupation has happened and where people have had to live under occupation and how do you distinguish those who could be considered collaborators to those who just need to survive? A lot of tough questions ahead, but first they have to win the war first. So I said this was gonna be my last question, but I'm gonna take the moderators prerogative. So what does it mean to win the war? And does that mean, as you rightly said, this actually started in 2014. We didn't really, I mean, we weren't doing nothing, but we didn't do perhaps what we could have done or could have done more of to perhaps prevent the full-scale invasion in 2022. But to your understanding for Ukrainians, do they expect to reclaim the territory that has already been annexed between 2014 and 2022, or would it be kind of where things are now? So the Ukrainian strategic goal is to reclaim their territorial integrity, which would be the borders from 1991. I do think they're realistic in the prospect and timeframe in which that would be possible, but we've always said that it's up to President Zelensky to decide when, at whatever point, he wants to go into negotiations with Russia and that what we wanted to do is put President Zelensky in the strongest possible position to enter into such negotiations. Great. Well, I will save some time at the very end to ask for your advice, but let's get into the questions. So we have with us two of our incredible people who are going to help us with questions and Sharif and Nayab, so please. Yes, hi. Thank you, Ambassador Brink and Ambassador Page for this really insightful discussion and really moving discussion and really bringing a sense of humanity to the entire affair. I am Sharif Almaki. I'm a second year master's student in the School of Public Policy. My partner here is Nayab Adi. She's the program manager for the Wiser Diplomacy Center. We'll now be representing the Ford School community and sharing some of their questions with you. And as a reminder to our audience, use the QR codes or link provided to submit your questions because we are still constantly monitoring those. Our first question is Ambassador Brink. So we have a lot of policy students or practitioners here that some of them might not necessarily know the intricacies of your role and your work. So can you tell us a little bit about your day-to-day role in supporting Ukraine and how this might differ from what a non-war time posting would look like? Well, if I had 72 hours in the day, I'd fill every second of them. So that's what it looks like. It's, as I say to my team, it's like running a marathon at the speed of a sprint. So every waking moment, from the time I open my eyes to the time I close them, I am working on figuring out how to support them. And because I'm seven hours ahead of Washington, basically you spend a day working with the Ukrainians and then you spend the night working with Washington. So maybe I'll just give you a little bit of what my day looks like. So I wake up at about seven o'clock in the morning and earlier if I can, but usually my nights, I'm not going to bed until well after midnight, but if I wake up at seven a.m., I really try to work out. I know this sounds maybe a bit frivolous, but it really helps me set my mental state in a good way. And I always eat breakfast, so I was a swimmer and I know that like eating on time and stuff is really important. But anyway, I usually go into the office and set my day with my team and Tuck knows as well as my public affairs officer. And we usually talk about what's kind of hot on the news, on the policy side, on the economic side and the assistant side, and then we exchange thoughts and if my team has some suggestions on where to go, I give direction on, let's do this, let's do that. And then during the day, I have meetings with various counterparts in the Ukrainian government and outside of government, often with visitors as well who come and talk to them about what is happening in Ukraine and give them some insight and advice on how they can be helpful. Often I will do calls and things virtually as well as in person. And then starting in the afternoon, we usually start interagency, we call them, calls the ambassador as well aware of that are with a whole of the government that we do in a civets format. So we do it on video and usually I participate on behalf of our embassy at certain levels. And then in the evenings, of course, is when they schedule the most important ones, sometimes aren't until eight or nine at night, and then I participate in those calls. And if I don't have that in the evening, I will do something like dinners with counterparts or contacts in the Ukrainian government. But the role of the ambassador is one of, it's really multifaceted. So it's working with the Ukrainian government. I mean, obviously I'm not Ukrainian. I'm here, I'm in Ukraine to promote US interest. That is my, so my position isn't always gonna be the Ukrainian position. It's gonna be a little different. But I'm also here to both hear the Ukrainians, explain what their thinking is to Washington, and also offer my assessment, judgment, and recommendations. And that's why you need the meetings with the partners in the country, and you also need to have the conversations back in Washington. But in addition to that, that's kind of like the core non-war basic job. In addition to that, this job has required a lot more of other aspects of what an ambassador does, working with Congress. I have more probably Congress people that I know now than I ever did in my whole career. And I'm working very closely with them because they want information, and I give them information or briefings or specific recommendations that they have. And I incorporate that into my thinking about how do we maintain our support as a country because they are elected representatives. So I work a lot also with members of Congress, and even last week was back in Washington to support the supplemental by just giving briefings, the situation on the ground as I saw it, and what the supplemental meant to what was possible for the Ukrainians to achieve. Also, media. So more than any other job, and in this job, I've had to do more media outreach, including outreach like this, but also just media outreach to the American public. Usually Washington says that they only want, and this is normal, only want the Secretary of State and other Washington-based administration officials to be on American media. Ambassadors, you do all the media in the local country. That's usually the case, except in this job, which much to my surprise and sometimes to our chagrin, we are asked to do a lot of Washington-based media. That's fine, but it's hard because when you're based in overseas, like you do to be effective in the media, you have to know what's the current thought and context, and so it requires you to keep up with that in a way that when you're overseas, it's a little bit harder. But the other thing is the time difference. It's seven hours difference. So to do media sometimes in America requires really late nights in Ukraine. But luckily, a lot of American media outlets are in come to Ukraine, so I've had a lot of, I've had the chance to do interviews with some of our really preeminent media people, Christiane Amanpour, I shouldn't name them because I can't name them all, but many. And so that has been also something that's just different for a wartime ambassador. And then the third thing I'd say is different is the quality and capability of my team, which what is required of all of us is so much more and so much harder and bigger than in just a normal embassy environment. And this is something that I've been very blessed and lucky to have. It's just really a phenomenal group of people because again, there's nothing in government that you do alone, you do it together. And anything that I have done has like layers of people behind who have helped me get to whatever point that is here today, doing whatever it is. It's a lot of work by a lot of people and that really comes clear in the wartime environment. And it becomes clear that our system, despite all of my sometimes frustrations with bureaucracy or our system in general, our system is actually a really good one. And it has good people who are capable public servants and hopefully some of you might choose to take on this profession, but who are deeply committed to our country, to our values, to achieving results and who are really intellectually and otherwise capable of doing so. And that is a real strength of Austin, the United States. Let me follow on to that. Sorry. With respect to this being such an international crisis and the interaction of European countries, we have an ambassador to the European Union. We have an ambassador to NATO. How much do you engage with them given that they're different roles but they're all working together? So I will see them later this week at a conference that our general who heads the European Command, General Christopher Cavoli, who's also a secular. I will see them this week. I see them all the time. And lucky for me, they're great. So Julie Smith and Ambassador Mark Gidenstein, they're fantastic and they're not only just very good at what they do, but they're really supportive. So it's kind of this network of support. And this is another thing I love about America. I talked a little bit about this when I talked to students. We believe in win-win. We do, we believe in it and we act in that. Of course, you have challenges sometimes in some cases but we believe there's a win-win. And in this role, I'm really lucky to have not only of course the support of the president for which I'm very grateful and honored to have and the Secretary of State, but really my colleagues, my staff and it takes all of us to do it. But all of the colleagues, because Ukraine is such an important issue for those of us who work in the European space in particular. We have a bureau in the State Department, it's the European Bureau and all of them constantly send me whether they're the political appointees or people like me, a career ambassador, constantly send me little notes of encouragement. Keep going, you know, you're doing great or how can I help you? If you need a place to get away, you can come and stay in my nice little outhouse. I mean, it's like- It looks like my residence in Cuba. Yeah, yeah. But I mean, it's really, this is one of the really wonderful things that you see in these very, very tough environments and that I have personally seen that in these cases, we as Americans, we really shine bright. I think we really show our best. I mean, I kind of felt that way on Saturday when the house passed. I knew it was like, I didn't know which way it was gonna go or how it was gonna go, but we did the right thing. And that's why I feel so proud. And of course, we have political debate. We have all kinds of various issues in terms of our domestic politics. But to me, this over and over again, America delivers. I, for a long time, as we were waiting for this money to come, people would say to me, and like, I did one, I did one, I do a lot of events in Ukraine. I did an event. I'd gone to the ladies' room and a young woman, maybe in her 20s, said to me, my ambassador, are you gonna abandon us? Because my parents are asking me and I've told them if America stops supporting us, we need to leave. And I told her, we are not gonna abandon you. And as the days and weeks went by, I thought, oh my goodness, I hope I'm not lying, because I will hate it if I'm lying. But I felt that America would not. We would not. We would answer the call of freedom. We would answer what is in our national security interest that we would land in the right place. And I'm proud that we did. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you, Ambassador. Our next question is, do you consider diplomatic efforts from conflicting sides and the allies taken after Russia's full-scale invasion as sufficient or insufficient? Is there a place for diplomacy at this point? Well, first of all, I think there's always a place for diplomacy. You're here. So yes, and yes, is it sufficient? Well, clearly we have to keep going. I think we have to continue what we're doing and continue to support the Ukrainians, at least to hold what they have, potentially take more of their territory, but ultimately to survive as a country and to survive as a country that's independent and that has an economy, I think, and is able to defend itself and deter future aggression. I think we're well on the way to doing that with the supplemental. We also are in the process of doing a bilateral security assurance guarantee. This will be something that is similar to an Israeli-type guarantee. It's something we announced last summer at the Vilnius NATO Summit, and 30 other countries are negotiating these also with Ukraine. That will be a very solid web of security assurance for the country until it gets into NATO, until it enters NATO. So this conflict feels a little bit unique in terms of the role of private actors and private corporations. And so I'm thinking about things like Elon Musk and Starlink. I'm thinking about things like dual-use drones now being used on the battlefield. And now private actors seem to be holding a role that state actors traditionally have held in terms of their effect directly on the battlefield. So what should we be looking out for when it comes to the role of these private actors in diplomacy and in warfare going forward? That's an interesting observation, and I would agree. And I'm sometimes a bit surprised by how much I talk and meet with private actors who are working in Ukraine in this capacity. It's been very helpful in many ways to have the private sector in these areas to be very engaged. And I don't know if it's a precursor for what's to come. There's some challenges to it because a private actor is not a part of government processes and that can lead to some misunderstandings sometimes with the interlocutors, with let's say the Ukrainians. But overall, I think it's been positive and helpful and many private people will say to me, and a few, I probably shouldn't name them, I guess, but a few who we work with will say to me, Madam Ambassador, I've got this amount of money. Tell me how we can use it in the right way. And I turn to my, how can I compliment what you're doing? And I turn to my assistance person, I say, are there areas, gaps that we can't fill? Can you talk to this person and see? And in that way, we kind of have been able to work together. And that, I think, has been very productive on many occasions where I've seen us be able to kind of join forces where the government can do some things and then private entities can do others and sometimes they can do it faster. Although we're pretty good and pretty fast but private money is faster. So that leads me to ask, what are the restrictions on that because the Elon Musk's, they don't necessarily have US government interests and that can skew things in any particular, not even necessarily a conflict, but in a country. Yeah, so they have interest in their private companies and maybe they're also philanthropic interests, right? So not that they're only like material interests but that can create challenges because their interest is in maybe the getting information to help build their own company and using that to build themselves. So that's something they work out with the Ukrainians. In the areas where we work, I mean, private companies don't necessarily have any restrictions at all. We do as government, there are certain things that we can't fund. So in general, we work with private companies that want to work with us and I certainly kind of collaborate with them as possible so that we're maximizing our overall effect US companies I'm talking about. Great, thank you. Considering the time, this would be the last question from the audience. We've had a variety of questions about specific capabilities, weapon system, training opportunities, fighter jets and other resources that the US has but has not deployed to Ukraine. Why have we held back on sharing these resources and what more do you believe the West can do to assist Ukraine in this war with Russia? And maybe I could add to that since we are in Michigan, if there's anything in particular that we sitting here could be doing along that front. So we have now provided almost every capability that the Ukrainians have asked for. What we have tried to do is adapt the capabilities we provide to the wartime needs, which have changed over time. And so whether it's Patriot systems, that was a huge thing that we did in the fall, winter of 2022. High Mars, which I mentioned in my speech we did a little bit earlier, really change the dynamic on the battlefield. Training and support to F-16s, which other countries are providing artillery. We provide the lion's share of artillery. That's what's being used a lot on the front lines in the East, among other things. So I know that there's a lot of push to provide specific weapons capabilities. Our focus has been on what's the goal they wanna achieve and how do we help them achieve that goal and what capabilities can we provide. And that's what we have done. And so I believe we've done it in the best possible way, being mindful of how do we give them what they need to achieve the goal they wanna achieve. Well, these are great questions from our wonderful audience. Before I thank our sponsors and everyone else who is here, I want to take this opportunity, obviously to thank you. But students are here. Obviously we have more than just students. But what would your advice be to them? A number of people are mid-career. They've come back to get a master's degree or they're undergraduates or the professionals already working, they're out in the world and they're in the community. What is kind of your guiding advice for going forward? You said act. And I think just those inspiring words are helpful. But what about other things, that specific things that they might wanna focus on or that they could do? Or like entering the foreign service, for instance, or going to law school and entering the foreign service, for instance. So thank you very much for that. So I'm a big proponent of the US foreign service. I'm a product of it. I started when I was 27 and I'm still here. And I'm really proud of the service and the chance to represent my country, represent America. Really, I believe this to my soul, the greatest country in the world. And I hope that I and my team represented in the best possible way. We certainly try to do that. And I think that if this is something that appeals to you and you're interested in, I strongly encourage you to apply. And if you don't get in the first time because you have to take a written test and oral test, and thankfully I took it a long time ago and I'm not being asked to take it again. But keep trying. There's no slight or any problem in doing it multiple times. Because the question on our process, you just have to come in, you have to get in. So if you take it one time or 10 times, first of all, no one's gonna know. Second of all, no one's gonna care. And third of all, in my experience, what makes for a good foreign service officer is really hard to test. It's two things. Being able to get along with people, that's really important because in government you gotta work with a lot of different people. You just have to be able to get along with people. But also importantly, is you have to be able to get things done. And if you can do both those things, get along with people and get things done, you will be very successful. So that's just a very hard thing to test in any way. And it's a great, and failure. So this is something I talked about the students that the other thing about, if you don't get in the first time and this is what you wanna do, like keep trying. Because the other lesson in government is persistence is necessary. It's very important to be persistent in any bureaucracy because bureaucracies are slow to move and change. And if you wanna try to make that change, you have to persistently do it. And be satisfied, maybe not satisfied. And be okay with the fact that change is often incremental, which is frustrating. And I know because I've teenage boys that people don't necessarily, and I didn't when I was a young person, either like incremental change because it felt too slow. But what I see is that incremental change that brings others with you is the most solid foundation for lasting change. And that probably sounds like someone with a lot of life experience and not someone with a little life experience, but who wants things fast. But my experience is that that is the way to create lasting change that people can all buy into. And what's really the lesson from government is that you gotta get people with you. You gotta bring people with you. And if you do, you can have a power and an influence that is far outsized to you as the individual. But that takes time, it takes energy, it takes compassion, it takes being able to work with others and work through problems in a way that where possible is win-win. And that takes patience and persistence. I wanna thank Hank Meyer for being here and the Meyer Foundation. Ambassador Brink has been such an honor to talk with you and to listen to your words. We wish you all of the best in continuing to try to push forward a good resolution to this war in Ukraine. Thank you all so much for coming.