Welcome everyone. My name is Glenn Dyson and today I'm joined by Alexander Mercurris and John Meersheimer.

Welcome.

Glad to be here, Glenn. Delighted to be back, Glenn.

So the topic I really want to focus today on this discontin continuous escalation in most of the conflicts,

because I think that in international relation, when we refer to escalation dominance,

this is usually the privilege of the hegemon.

So escalation dominance being this ability to escalate conflicts to a higher level of intensity or violence

to effectively put pressure on adversaries, with the logic that the stakes can continuously be increased

until the other side is compelled to capitulate. And again, escalation dominance, I think, is a vital

instrument for hegemon, but hegemony appears to be over. And with each round of escalation domino is, I think, is a vital instrument for hegemon, but hegemony

appears to be over.

And with each round of escalation now, it appears that there's only a greater loss of control,

as well as the conflicts become even more difficult to resolve, as we see, both from Ukraine

to the Middle East.

But nonetheless, it appears that the only approach is escalation and we get closer and closer to major wars with seemingly no reverse gear.

So I wanted, I was hoping we could start with Ukraine because it appears now that in Ukraine, the front lines are already collapsing.

And this makes the question, do we then escalate or negotiate?

And the French have now threatened to send their troops into Ukraine.

And I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Is this a way of gaining some leverage ahead of negotiations, or is this just escalation, effectively

sending a NATO country to fight the Russians directly?

How have you guys interpreted the statesmen from France and, I guess, lesser extent, Romania?

...