This is the Friends of History Debating Society. I am Germanicus's best friend, John

Bachelor, and Germanicus is Michael Blahos. And we are by the Thames, it's Londonium, it's 91 AD a pleasant summary evening and

we're looking at the point of view of Moscow in the 21st century towards what remains of the

tattered front line of Ukraine. Now we go to the Ukrainian capital Kief and Mr. Zelenski who's been making repeated complaints about the

weapons that are being given and the limitations on the weapons that are

being given to his forces. The weapons include

attackums and what can be long-range strike missiles. However, Germanicus I mentioned that over these last days in various remarks, dignitaries such

as the President of United States, the President of France, the Prime Minister of Great Britain,

even in the negative, the Coalition in Germany, have all made remarks about NATO in some fashion either intervening or not intervening in Ukraine.

It goes back and forth.

We're not going to do it or we might have to look at this.

But they're using the word trainers or advisors or contractors to talk about

intervention. Intervention, what does Selensky want? Intervention would meet in wider war.

Does that suit him?

It is fascinating to observe, I feel, that what Zilensky wants and what he's determined to get is very different

from what NATO and the US want,

yet what the US wants and what Zellensky wants have a point of strategic convergence.

In other words, the US and NATO do not want and cannot accept at this point

the defeat of Ukraine.

And of course that would be an absolute disaster for the American

president because Ukraine has been his opinage, in other words words his fiefdom since 2009 when he was given the Ukraine

portfolio by President Obama and And since then, Ukraine has enmeshed itself in Biden and his family,

...