I'm John Vatchel with my colleague Gregory Copley.

The meeting of the big three from NATO, Mr. Starrmer for the UK, Mr. McCrone for France,

and Hermerts for Germany, meeting at number 10 Downing with Mr. Zelensky of Ukraine. To do what? To support Ukraine?

To pay for it? To volunteer to take over the defenses of Europe and Ukraine? None of the above,

as far as I can see. The struggle, Gregory, at least the facile reports that I'm getting out of London is,

the big tussle is about 300, up to 300 billion of frozen Russian assets and how we're going

to spend it on Ukraine. Gregory, Europe has money. They turn it into generous welfare checks

and lifetime employment and retirement at 57, but they have

money. In addition to that, they're 450 million consumers in Europe. They want defense on the cheap.

They want the U.S. to pay for it. They want Ukraine to borrow it. When did this start, Gregory? Is it

something new with Macron, Merertz and Stamer?

Has it always been there?

Well, we're looking at a couple of different phenomena.

Stama, Mertz and Macron are all fighting immediate wars of survival.

So they'll basically do anything to distract their own populations from the plights

which their countries are fighting at the moment.

So that's one thing.

However, this whole policy, if you like, of collective defense began with the United States, partly to corral

Germany after World War II into an alliance where it was intentionally suppressed and kept

as a small defense contributor, largely because of the fear of a resurgence of German expansionism,

as much as an attempt to act as a bulwark against the Warsaw Treaty Organization.

So this whole paternalism of the United States after World War II,

...