This is the Friends of Mr. Debating Society, six capital, six points of view of the war in Europe with Professor H. J. McHunder in a natural relations Brussels.

The twin capital of NATO, where unanimity is necessary in order to make consistent decision making.

And the EU, where there are doubts in all directions about inflation, about recovery, about industrial policy, about trade with China.

Professor, I want to emphasize that NATO is not only a military organization, it is made up of states that are also in the European Union looking for prosperity and recovery.

Cheafly, they're now talking about China. All of Shots goes to Beijing. Emmanuel Macron goes to Beijing.

Alula de Silva, Brasilia goes to Beijing looking for business for his agricultural base, which is also extremely important to Europe.

So these think this is globalization, it's all in a related. And Beijing is said to be closely allied, I don't know, the English language fails here.

In some fashion, standing next to Vladimir Putin.

So the EU is in what I would say is a quandary. Do we trade with China and oppose Russia? Is that a sensible doctrine? Do we please China by making peace with Russia and therefore expecting business from China? Untangle this for me, Professor. We have a few minutes.

There is always talk to the effect that when facing a security threat, you have to trade off your economy.

You have to balance the imperative of security with the imperative of having a stake for dinner every night or having warm hot water.

But if we look at wars through history, it's really rather clear that the force has trumped any conceivable economic interest, at least, since the Battle of Zama in the end of the Punic Wars, when Carthage, which was a major economic party,

and it was so thoroughly obliterated by the vengeful Romans that today scholars aren't even sure when they're given articles of Carthage, Jenny and Armor, whether they were breastplates or helmets.

We know very, very little about Carthage. In other words, Carthage went into a war and she was absolutely destroyed and expunged.

And certainly, I don't have a memory of post-war Europe, but I have friends who were born shortly after the war.

They say, what were your first text? What did you see when you were a baby? What do you remember? I just remember the Dillock Greenfields and Farmland and everything in a suburban area.

What did they remember? They remember bombed out cities, a lot of them with nothing but cellar holes and wrecked buildings.

And it's something that I have trouble imagining. So I think that in the end, any one of those countries is going to choose security over economic imperatives.

The simple reason that if you don't have political security, your economy is at risk, yet people don't like to think about it that way.

So I would say that for Brussels, it really, for those countries, when it comes right down, but none of them is going to give up their sovereignty or put their sovereignty in even greater jeopardy than it is now, in order to be sure that people are not going to be able to take care of their sovereignty.

And to be sure that their standard of living is somewhat higher.

It puzzles me why they don't take this war, therefore more seriously. I think they're taking it more and more seriously, but they still have this illusion that we have nourished since 1945 that we will take care of them.

...