This is the Friends of History Debating Society. I am Gaius, John Bachelor.

Jemannicus is here, Michael Vlayos. We've been discussing Kief, but it's no longer a large

enough story given the fragility of the Ukrainian forces needing 500,000

recruits when needing ammunition when when needing a great deal of endurance to survive what is coming, which is a Russian

offensive, they'll pick their spots. However, we turned to NATO because over these last days

while DCI Burns has been saying they're going to make the Russians are going

to make large advances. We've been listening to the president of

France, repeat himself several times, that the possibility is that we will need

NATO troops in Ukraine.

At the same time, Vladimir Putin repeating himself,

if there are Ukrainian troops deployed in Ukraine, then,

and fill in the blank of escalation.

We also have reason to believe at this point that the Europeans have become focused on resupplying their own military, remilitarizing the

parts of Europe that are not now be militarized, and spending a great deal of money to build their

industrial base for the long term. All of that suggests that the Europeans

are rattling into shape to realize that the loss of Ukraine

means that they're going to have to defend themselves until and if NATO finds a way to resolve the conflict.

One way to resolve the conflict is active warfare.

It won't start with a big bang.

It'll start with the deployment. Where and when? I don't know. Germanicus, I can't see the future.

If you and I were talking in 1938 right now, we would say, well, the Germans might move and then we'd

somewhere on the map we'd point to Czechoslovakia we'd say what comes after

...