and president franklin stein meyer said after the annexation of crimea, that lasting security in europe can only exist with and not against russia. in fact, he thought that this was not part of a master plan that putin had. so in that context, i'd like to ask you because he's part of a school of thought that especially at that time believes engaging russia and hoping for change through dialogue and trade was the right approach. in hindsight, what do you make of that approach? was it naive? well, it was naive to a rule out the things that couldn't was saying at those times that run country to that viewpoint. it's not to say that dialogue or trade or any of the outreach to russia was wrong. but we needed to have a very clear ride hardnosed assessment of the kinds of person that vladimir putin was and of his views and to take those into account and figure out what we were going to do with them. so dialogue is also an instrument. it's a vehicle for pushing back on views that are a country to ours and we should have called him out because it was far too much of a assessment that this really