The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Can Trump Broker Peace Between Putin and Ukraine?

Episode Date: March 20, 2025

Talks between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump appear to have yielded, as of this moment at least, a 30-day ceasefire against energy and infrastructure targets in Ukraine. But how close are we to seeing a full cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine? We consider that with: Marci Shore: Professor of History at Yale University; Marta Dyczok: Associate Professor of Political Science at Western University; and Andres Kasekamp: Professor of History and Chair of Estonian Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at U of T. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Renew your 2.0 TVO with more thought-provoking documentaries, insightful current affairs coverage, and fun programs and learning experiences for kids. Regular contributions from people like you help us make a difference in the lives of Ontarians of all ages. Visit tvo.me slash 2025 donate to renew your support or make a first-time donation and continue to discover your 2.0 TVO. Talks between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump appear to have yielded, as of this moment at least, a 30-day ceasefire against energy and infrastructure targets in Ukraine. But how close are we to seeing a full cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine? Let's ask. In New Haven, Connecticut, Marcy Schorr, professor of history at Yale University and the author of The Ukrainian Night, An Intimate History of Revolution.

In London, Ontario, Marta Ditchock, associate professor of political science at Western University and the author of Ukraine, Not The Ukraine. And here in our studio, Andres Kasakop, professor of history and chair of Estonian studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at U of T. And Andres, it's good to have you here and to our friends in Points Beyond. Thanks for joining us on TVO tonight. I want to start with this, I'm going to read an excerpt from the readout of this call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which took place yesterday.

This is from the White House, so it's their release on the statement. And it goes like this. Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people.

This conflict should never have started and should have been ended long ago with sincere and good faith peace efforts. The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. Marcy Schor, why don't you start us off. How much faith should we invest in this statement? Absolutely none.

The only thing I would take seriously about that whole agreement is that there might actually be some hockey game planned between the Americans and the Russians. First of all, I don't take seriously any statement coming out of the White House right now. You know, we're dealing with a pathological narcissist and a pathological liar who can easily change his story the next day. Second of all, these are clearly not people who are interested in peace, particularly Putin is not interested in peace.

And to analyze this as if we're going into some chess tournament and we can understand one another having rational motivations and therefore if you move X and he moves Y, I think that's the wrong model. You're dealing with a pathological narcissist for whom other people's lives mean nothing on one side and you're dealing with a mass murder on the other side who seems to take a sadistic pleasure in killing other people. So I don't think there's anything positive to come out of this. Putin began bombing Ukraine basically immediately afterwards.

You know and the idea of energy infrastructure is incredibly limited and basically means that he doesn't want the Ukrainians sending their drones across the Russian border while he can continue to freely bomb residential buildings, hospitals, and kindergartens in Ukraine. We should just explain your hockey reference was, I guess the last thing to come out of the communique was this notion that Russia and the United States are going to host some kind of hockey tournament in the US without the best hockey playing nation in the world being there. We know who that is. Anyway, that's what that's a reference to. Marta Ditchok, why don't you come on in here and follow up on that and tell us what you thought about that statement. I agree with much of what Marcy said.

I think the important thing is you read President Trump's statement. Yes. Let's look at what President Putin said. It was very, very different. So they had a phone call and they both talked about it in very different ways. Now, Trump has said, I'm going to make peace in Ukraine. So he's got a vested interest in coming up with some sort of a result, whether it's real or not real. Putin is not interested in a peace deal.

He's interested in winning the war. So they're kind of at an impasse because they want different things. So how do you accomplish both? It's not possible. The other thing that I think is really interesting is the points that Putin did agree on. What did he say yes to, allegedly? Energy infrastructure and in the future, watch de-escalation in the Black Sea fleet, right? So that to me suggests those are his two weak spots. Ukraine has started

bombing Russian energy infrastructure. Once the Americans stopped supplying them with arms, that meant the restrictions were off and Ukraine started bombing Russia's energy infrastructure very successfully, which is being under-reported by the way. So this is what Putin said, oh, we don't want that. let's stop that. And the other thing that's been under-reported is how successful Ukraine has been in the Black Sea. Ukraine doesn't have a Navy, and it's been winning the naval war against Russia that has a huge Navy. And again, this is something that Putin said, let's stop the Black Sea. Right? So that to me indicates two weaknesses that he has exposed. But the main thing is that they allegedly agreed. We don't actually know what they agreed on. And a few hours after the phone call, Russia was bombing Ukraine

again. And my friends in Kiev were writing saying, you know, here's videos of explosions right outside my window. So that there is no peace to be had at the moment. Andres, your view of the call. Well, I agree entirely with Martha and Marcy. And it's remarkable that we are basically looking at the readout from the U S White House, whereas the readout from the Kremlin is much, much longer and included that reference to the hockey game between Russia and the Americans.

But the key points there are that the headlines are a bit misleading, that Putin agrees to this 30-day energy infrastructure ceasefire. It leaves out in the Russian readout all of the conditions that Putin is imposing on moving forward with the ceasefire. Important conditions such as total secession of aid to the Ukrainians by all Western countries not just the US. Should the West consent to that? Well it's only President Trump who's speaking with Putin. The Europeans are on a completely different page. Keir Stammer, the UK prime minister, convened a big meeting the other week

with all of the European allies. So did French President Macron. And they are staunchly behind Ukraine. They are not going to give up. They're, in fact, redoubling their efforts to aid Ukraine. So Trump can agree something with Putin, but certainly it's not in his power to determine what the Europeans will do. And the Europeans see Russian aggression as a serious threat to themselves as well.

And they're not going to let the Americans decide this for them. Marcy, what's your view on whether the West should consent to those conditions that Russia has put forward? The conditions are absurd. I don't think we should consent at all. I mean, this is just Trump and Putin sitting down and deciding to divide up the world and divide up the spoils of Ukraine. And I think Marta is right that Trump has some interest in saying,

yes, I've made peace. And Putin has an interest in getting everything he wants, but nobody else has an interest in getting everything he wants. But nobody else has an interest in going along with this. You know, certainly Marta was right about those. Those two points are exactly where Ukraine has strength and Russia has weakness. It's a completely manipulative offer. It's not a real offer. Ukraine is getting, their people are getting slaughtered every single day.

You know, when, when Trump is in the White House and says about Zalesky, this guy has such a hatred for Putin. I mean, he's being so ridiculous. How do you make a deal that way? Well, if somebody is burying your children under rubble every day, you might not feel so friendly towards them, and you might not feel so trustworthy towards them. There is no reason the West should go along with this,

and there is no reason the Europeans have to believe anything Putin says, because they know perfectly well that he has broken every single ceasefire agreement. And if he gets Ukraine, he will just keep going. Marta, how would you characterize Zelensky's response to the outcome of that phone call? Well, I think Zelensky is the leader of the democratic world today. The fact that he has a background in television and entertainment is a huge skill. He's a brilliant communicator and he is able to come up with one liners.

My favorite from yesterday was, we're not going to be on Russia's menu or something like that. That we need to be at the table when a peace deal is being negotiated. We are not going to be sort of told what to do. I think that Zelensky has proven to be a very skilled negotiator who, at the one hand, he stands up for himself. We remember what he did in the White House. On the other hand, he's repeatedly saying, we want peace, we want negotiations, and we're

prepared to talk, and we're prepared to negotiate. So he's doing both things extremely well. The challenge I think he faces is that neither Trump nor Putin want to listen to him. They want to make the decisions and impose them. But I think the bigger issue is Putin and Trump are not on the same page. So everybody wants peace. Ukraine and Zelensky want peace more than anybody. But how to get there is the big question.

And negotiations are really important. So I think I might be in disagreement with my colleagues here. I think it's excellent that negotiations have started because this has to be part of the process. But we'll see who else gets involved because this can't just be Putin and Trump sitting down and deciding how to solve the war. And they keep calling it the Ukraine war. It's not the Ukraine war. It's Russia's war against Ukraine. Words matter. If we call it the Ukraine war, it sounds like Ukraine's doing something, but Ukraine is on the receiving end of Russia's war. So I think the terminology is really important to get right. But also the Europeans, as Andres has said, they have a very different vision of how to end this war. And they're talking

with Zelensky. Trump doesn't seem to want to listen to what the Europeans have to say, and certainly Putin is not interested. Yeah, let me follow up on that if I can with you, Andres, which is how sure are we or how sure are you that Ukraine is going to have a seat at the table when Putin and Trump sit down to figure this all out? Because it seems ambiguous at the moment. Well, Trump and Putin don't want Zelensky there, but the Europeans want them there.

And it's ridiculous how it would be possible to create any sort of sustainable peace without having one of the parties at the table. I think it's very symbolic that Zelensky was actually in Finland yesterday during the call, and he's in Finland still today. And the message from there, it's quite symbolic that the spirit of Helsinki as opposed to the spirit of Yalta. And that's what the Finnish president said. Just explain what that means. Well, at Yalta, at the end of the Second World War, the great powers divided Eastern Europe amongst themselves.

Whereas at Helsinki, that's where the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe met and created the OSCE. And they determined that sovereignty, territorial integrity, respect for international law and human rights would be the way forward. And all of the European countries were represented at the table and Canada was there as well. And so that I think was a very important symbolic answer to what was going on between the two, Trump and Putin, who want to follow that Yalta model of dividing Europe amongst themselves and leaving the others without any agency whatsoever.

In which case, Marcy, how do we ensure, how does the world ensure that this turns out more like Helsinki and less like Yalta? I'm somewhat less optimistic about negotiations than Marta is. sure that this turns out more like Helsinki and less like Yalta? Well, I'm, I'm somewhat less optimistic about negotiations than Marta is. I mean, I think we're in a 1945 kind of situation. I think this only ends when there is a total and complete collapse of Putin's regime. I think we need a stundenhol. I think we need a total reset.

I don't think we could imagine a situation in say 1943, where there was a negotiation between the allies and the third Reich, whereupon the Nazis continue to occupy some part of Europe, including its Jewish population. I think that's what we're looking at, you know, at the moment. I mean, I think in some sense, we have to, we have to remind ourselves that we're looking at evil. We have to remind ourselves that we're looking at evil. We have to remind ourselves how this war gets started. It's an unusual moment historically of moral clarity. You have an army that comes across the border and just starts slaughtering people for no rational reason whatsoever. And we watch it live streamed day after day. Imagine we

had a live stream into the gas chamber. I don't think that's the kind of thing that well you know maybe if we move this over here and maybe if we exchange this or that. I don't think we're in that situation. I think we're in a 1945 situation. I think we need a total reset. I don't think Putin's regime can be negotiated with. Marta let me ask you about one of the central issues of this war, at least what some allege is one of the central issues of this war, and that is Ukrainian membership in NATO. Should the West continue to champion that idea? NATO has been at the center of the discussions around this war since the beginning because

Putin has put that on the agenda. And we remember Putin said, the reason I have to invade Ukraine is because NATO is threatening me, which is totally false. What we're seeing now with the new president in the White House is a change in the transatlantic alliance. And he has said very clearly that, you know, he's changing the policy towards NATO by the US. So everything is in flux, everything is changing. That said, I totally agree with Marcy that this war will be won or lost on the battlefield. This is not something that a peace deal will solve. I totally agree with you, but I think negotiations are, you know, we have to keep talking, but ultimately,

it will be resolved on the battlefield. And this is where support for Ukraine's military effort is key. Now, Ukraine wasn't interested in being a member of NATO really until the full-scale invasion. And NATO wasn't really talking to Ukraine very much. They gave them that membership action plan, but that was just sort of, well, let's talk. The question is, how does Ukraine win the war militarily? And a lot of the European countries are now saying, we need to ramp up our defense production because if Ukraine loses, we're next. So we need to support Ukraine. We can't rely on the United States anymore. France is the country I'm watching because they are the one country that has the capacity to increase their military

production with zero support from the US. So they're in a strong position. So we're seeing a real shift in the military alliances, military capacity, all European countries, Canada, we're increasing our defense spending in a way we never have since World War II. So I think this is all like the parts of the story that are happening, but the bottom line is Ukrainians are being killed every day. And Putin's putting forth this narrative that Trump is repeating that Ukraine is losing, and Ukraine is not losing. But Ukraine needs the help from Western allies. And the other thing we can't ever forget is Russia is getting help from North Korea. This big army, this most powerful army in the world, they need help from North Korea to try to kick Ukrainians out of their territory. So I think it's a

much more complicated picture than in or out because NATO countries have been helping Ukraine, including the US. Just for argument's sake, let me put the argument to Andres, and you tell me what you think of this. If Ukrainian initiation into NATO is a real non-starter for Russia, should the West agree, okay, we will help you Ukraine, but you can't be in NATO, and that takes a major irritant away from Russia and takes away some incentive for them to keep fighting. Discuss. Well, I think that's wishful thinking.

NATO countries have all along said about NATO enlargement that no third country should have a veto, that it's up to the country to voluntarily decide its own fate, and that's being denied Ukraine. On the practical level, Trump has already taken NATO membership off the table. So there's really, I mean, Trump has already made that concession in advance, which seems to be the opposite way to get into a strong negotiating position.

Unless you're a stooge in Moscow. But Joe Biden, in December, 19... In December, 2021, when there was the negotiations between the US and Putin before the war started, then Putin's demands included withdrawing NATO from back to its 1997 borders. In other words, out of the current member states in Eastern Europe, which would have been completely against the will of those nations themselves. So Putin, I think, he realizes that NATO is not a danger.

NATO is not going to attack Russia. But NATO is a hindrance to Russia reabsorbing neighboring countries into its sphere of influence. That's why he doesn't like NATO. Marcy, can I get you to speak to the argument that we've heard, which is we have to stand with Ukraine because if we allow Putin to roll over Ukraine, he'll come for the Baltics after that and he'll go for Poland after that.

And here we go again. True or false? I think that's true. I want to just jump in with three quick points about NATO because I think NATO has become a bit of a fetishized distraction for various reasons. First of all, because Putin starts this war by giving a different fictitious reason for it every day. Well, we have to defend the integrity of the separatist enclaves I incited and created.

Oh, well, there's a Nazi CIA installed government and we have to save our Ukrainian, our Russian speaking Ukrainian brothers. Oh, NATO was plotting an attack and we need to preemptively attack. Oh, we need to restore the lands of Peter the Great. And then actually it's not a Nazi regime, it's a Satanist regime, and so we need to get rid of it. So NATO had always been a phantom reason. Obviously Putin knew there was no chance NATO was plotting any kind of an attack on Russia. I think that whole line of thinking is just a distraction and a red herring.

Two, it's unclear what kind of meaning NATO has now that the United States cannot be trusted. And I think Europeans have to see that with eyes wide open. It is the end of the affair. You cannot trust us at all. This regime is unreliable, untrustworthy, unpredictable and unhinged. And the third part of that question is that the question about is Ukraine going to be a member of NATO? Do they have a chance of being a member of NATO? This is in some sense a kind of distortion and distraction from the essential question of are NATO countries going to send troops now?

What matters is right now. Is somebody going to send troops? Is someone going to arm the Ukrainians enough and do what needs to be done to make sure that Ukraine wins, you know, and they can be NATO countries, they can be non-NATO countries, but the question of membership is secondary to the question of is real support the kind of support that would push things over and allow Russia to be defeated? Is that going to be forthcoming today?

Well, Marta, I'll put the argument to you, which is, you know, I have heard people who are a little softer on Russia in this war say, of course, Russia is not interested in going after the Baltics. Ukraine is special. It's different. It has a part of Russian history in a way that the Baltics or Poland does not. And therefore, we shouldn't worry about potential Russian incursions on other countries if we compromise on Ukraine. What's your view on that?

First of all, I totally agree with Marcy, what she said about Ukraine needs help now in these discussions about membership in the future that is sort of distracting and delay, sort of just turning attention in a direction where we don't need to be turning it. In terms of your question, is Putin likely to attack other countries? Well, I think we need to listen to the countries that are the neighbors, right? We are sitting here in Canada with an ocean away from all of this. The countries that are raising the alarm, who are they? They are the countries that have in the past historically been invaded by Russia many times.

Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, all of these countries, they know what it's like to be invaded by Russia because they have been invaded and occupied. And they are the staunchest supporters of Ukraine because they know what it's like to be invaded and occupied. So we need to listen to them. I mean, history is one of these things, you know, just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it's going to happen

in the future. But we need to look at the history and we need to look at Russia's imperialist mindset. The reason it's occupying Ukraine is trying to restore its imperial greatness. So it wasn't just Ukraine that was part of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet bloc, right? It was a lot of Eastern Europe. So I can't get into Putin's head, but based on everything he said and done, of course he's going to continue. And the further he can go, he will. So if he doesn't get stopped, he will continue. There's no question in my mind.

Andres, let me try a scarier prospect with you, which is to get inside Donald Trump's head. And that is, I did hear him say the other day that he believed in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which is an attack on one is an attack on all. And if there were an attack on another NATO country, he would be there. Do we take him at his word?

No, I don't think we can take him at his word. And that's the problem with the deterrence. The credibility counts, right? So it matters what Putin believes that Trump will do. And I don't think that Putin believes that Trump will be there for the Europeans when they're in trouble and when they're under pressure. So the Europeans themselves are increasing their defense spending and particularly as Marta was saying those who are bordering Russia and who feel

the threat. The polls are spending more than anyone else in NATO as a percentage of their GDP. They're spending 4% already and they're going to boost it to 5%. The Estonian Prime Minister yesterday said that Est they're going to boost it to 5%. The Estonian prime minister yesterday said that Estonia is willing to go up to 5%, which is more than the US spends on its military defense. So they recognize the threat. They recognize they need to be prepared. And we mentioned Finland earlier.

Finland and Sweden joined NATO after Russia launched the invasion. Sweden, who'd been neutral since the Napoleonic wars, realized that NATO is the best defense when you have an aggressive neighbor. And that also puts the light to this idea that NATO expansion is responsible for this current war, or that Russia is really concerned about it,

because Sweden and Finland joined. The Russian response to that has been more or less just a shrug, right? They've removed their troops from the northern regions bordering NATO territory. What should we read into the agreement that Finland and Ukraine just signed in defense of each other? Well, Finland has the experience.

The Finnish Winter War, there's very many parallels from 1939 when the Soviet Russia invaded Finland and Finland was alone without allies. So Finland, which tried very hard in the post-Cold War years until Russia's full-scale invasion to have a very constructive and positive relationship with Russia, found out that that's not the way to go. And Finland and the other Europeans who've experienced Russian aggression, obviously are offering their solidarity with Ukraine because they do have that historical experience which we are lacking in North America.

Yes. Marcy, let me get your take on this. Vladimir Zelensky has said if Ukraine could go into NATO or if we could get this war ended, he would be content to stand down as president if that were required. How should we react to that offer? I reacted well to that offer. I mean, I realized that many people feel that Zelensky has now accumulated too much power. He's a wartime president. He's under an enormous amount of pressure. You know, in a very real sense, the fate of the free world is all on his shoulders. You know, I don't agree with everything he's ever done, but I think in general, he's done an extraordinary job of holding up under

impossibly difficult circumstances. And I think it was a very good offer, you know And I also think it's a moment of self-awareness of saying this ultimately isn't about me This ultimately is about Ukrainians, you know And if that is the best thing for them and if I can secure my country I'm willing to do that now what the chances are that that you know Ukraine will get into NATO I mean is NATO going to let somebody in now? What that means essentially is if they let Ukraine in tomorrow, that means they have to send troops.

Now, they could send troops without letting Ukraine into NATO. So I think we're really back to the essential question of how much are the Europeans going to help? I think nobody can count on America right now. And Marta, let me ask you a different question about Zelensky, namely, well, OK, let me set it up this way. Mark Carney's had a pretty interesting first week as our 24th prime minister. He did not, as previous prime ministers do, have done, make his first foreign stop to

the United States. Instead, he went to see Keir Starmer in the United Kingdom. He went to see Emmanuel Macron in France. He went to see King Charles. He spoke to Zelensky on the phone and he invited Zelensky to come to the G7 summit later this year in Canada. I think it's happening in June. How significant in your view is that invitation to Zelensky?

Oh, I think it's absolutely key because what I'm seeing in a friend of mine, former ambassador, Canadian ambassador to Ukraine, our the Honorable Roman Wasztuk, he pointed this out and I totally agree, we had a workshop on this. Putin, sorry, Trump is using Putin's rhetoric against Canada. So he's taking out of Putin's playbook, this is not a real Canada, it's not a real country, this is an invented border,

this is exactly what Putin says about Ukraine. Trump is saying this about Canada. So Canada, which has always supported Ukraine, is now in a situation where we're in the same boat, except it's not Putin, it's Trump that's threatening us. I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm tempted to ask in the followup, okay, we're going to invite Zelensky. Should we invite Trump to come to this meeting in June?

Well, you know, I don't, I'm in favor of inviting and negotiating. Right? Whether Trump comes, what he says, let's see, but let's extend the invitation because, you know, the more they meet and talk, I think that's a positive way forward. But I think Canada has a really important role to play here. And it's not, I mean, I haven't, most people have noticed Canada is standing with the so-called Coalition of the Willing. That's the so-called coalition of the willing.

That's the initiative that's led by the British prime minister and the French prime minister. It's not just Europeans. It's also Canada and Japan and I think Australia is joining. So it's the democratic countries are all lining up together to support Ukraine. So where does that lead? Remember we used to have the democracies against the autocracies, you know, China, Russia, Iran, democratic countries. So now what we're seeing is we're seeing the US is lining up with Russia. So everything's being turned upside down. And here is an opportunity for Canada to play a larger role in sort of bringing the North American a larger role in sort of bringing the North American component to it. And, you know, maybe even the global South will be brought into this coalition.

I mean, Mexico is also being attacked by Trump. So I think there's room for a bigger coalition if anybody else wants to join. But Canada certainly has a big role to play here. Three minutes to go here. Let me get a minute from each of you on if we are to watch negotiations in the days and weeks ahead, and if they are to be serious negotiations, good faith attempts to end this war, what do we need to see? Andre, start us off. The first thing is that Trump has already given away all the US's leverages, right?

It started pressuring the victim of aggression rather than the power that can actually stop the aggression. So that makes it rather difficult. So Putin's, after his initial plan of taking Ukraine in a few days failed, his plan B of waiting till the West gets tired of this and gives up is playing out pretty well, thanks to the election of Trump. So the one thing that the Russians respect is strength and weakness to them is a provocation. So even also with the Biden administration, their constant fear of escalation and the

sort of drip feed of ammunition and weapons to the Ukrainians. That was encouraging the Russians to keep going. So at the moment, Putin has no incentive to stop that he's just playing Trump. Marcy, what do we need to see? We need to see the Europeans really, really step up. And I realize there are no perfect leaders in the world. There are no messiah figures.

Nobody is going to magically step in and save everybody. But when you're dealing with Putin and Trump, you're dealing with people who are moral nihilist, for whom other people's lives mean absolutely nothing. And in order for there to be any kind of real, stable, vaguely just outcome, you need the Europeans to step up. You need them to give everything possible to the Ukrainians and the drip feed, throw everything at it and the restrictions, bring down the Russian regime. And you need to have the value of human life and human

rights restored. I don't see any other long-term solution or any other negotiated solution possible. Marta, last word to you. Well, the way to get Putin to negotiate is to force him, right? He's not going to give anything away. And the only thing that he recognizes, as my colleagues have said, is strength. So he needs to be pushed to the negotiating table, not invited, but pushed. And this is by what the Europeans are doing, and hopefully

Canada and others will join by saying, we are going to put boots on the ground in Ukraine. We are going to send Ukraine more weapons. We are going to make sure Ukraine wins this war. We are going to allow Ukraine to target your energy infrastructure. We're going to allow Ukraine to do whatever it needs to win. And once you are in a position of weakness, then you'll come to the table and then this will end because that's the only way to talk to dictators is to force them. And this is where, as Marcy said, as Andrea said, the democracies really need to step up. And I think they're doing it. I think the irony is Trump and his craziness have really woken up Europe. I mean, who would have thought a year ago that Europe would be spending all

this money and that the statements we're hearing out of Paris that, you know, France is actually going to send troops to Ukraine. Who would have imagined this? So I'm looking for the silver lining here, but it's peace through strength, which is precisely what Zelensky keeps saying, peace through strength. Understood. I want to thank the three of you for joining us tonight here on TVO and sharing your views. Marta Ditchock, Marcy Shore, Andrzej Kazakamp. Great to have you all on TVO tonight. Many thanks. Thank you.