governments in its force and its clarity. i'm thinking of the economic force that has hit the russian economy. i'm also thinking of some striking decisions in western europe about the military side. but to answer your question... yes, all right, well, we'll get to the levels of support, both economic and in terms of military assistance. but the bottom line to your answer is that the responsibility to protect is a dead letter, it means nothing. mostly because russia is a permanent member of the security council, and all responsibility to protect interventions would have to go through the un. and of course, russia has a veto power, so that whole doctrine needs to be junked, doesn't it? well, no, ithink a better way of looking at it would be that the nations should live up to the doctrine. i've talked over the last five years about the growing age of impunity in international affairs, which is a direct rebuttal of the responsibility to protect and frankly, a direct rebuttal of the un charter that was adopted after the second world war.