Yeah, I mean having written two books about titles, I sort of increasingly come to the conclusion. But perhaps the terminology we use to describe political theory is not very good. We have these terms like liberalism and conservatism, which date back, you know, a couple of 100 years and perhaps don't really do describe things very well, particularly as time has moved on. And so what they meant once is not necessarily what what they mean now, and what they mean in one country is not necessarily what they mean in another country. So the difference between, say, classical liberalism, and what nowadays people often referred to as liberal is, is quite striking. And in many cases, if you look at it in a Russian context, it's even more complicated, because it's wrapped up to a certain degree with concepts of westernization, and anti nationalization as well. So, I mean, in my book on conservatism, I describe conservatism as being a ideology of organic change. So that's to say conservatives, aren't all necessarily opposed to change of all sorts, but they do think change should be gradual, and in accordance with existing national institutions and culture and traditions and values, and so on. Whereas, and that is actually not incompatible with liberalism, you can be a conservative liberal, you can you can believe in liberal values of liberal institutions, but think that this is something you should be moving towards, in a gradual way, and doing so in a manner which is, you know, coherent with existing institutions and values for your country so that you have your own national form of liberalism, as it worked. So liberalism and conservatism are not necessarily direct opposites. You can be a conservative liberal, liberal conservative, liberalism implies adherence to certain key values, and institutions, which are the institutions which can affect put those values into operation. So the key values would be things such as liberty will be the primary one. But some people would also say, you know, equality, for instance, and some others, but not every liberal agrees with that. And then there's the institutions which put that into effect, which is things such as, you know, representative government, free markets, free trade, the rule of law, and so on. Right. If you can believe in all that and be a conservative, so you are not necessarily opposed to one that will, because what is conservative in one country might not be conservative in our country, because different countries have different institutions. So if you live in a liberal society and you are conservative or when you're when you're a liberal, that's what you're trying to preserve. Now in the Russian context, and so this is all muddled up by the big issue of westernization, because these values and institutions associated with liberalism have been associated generally with Western Europe, and then more, more generally, what we call the West, whatever, whatever that should be, therefore, to be a liberal, has often meant to be a westernized, and that is to say, to take the view that Russia should become like the West, whatever that may be. Whereas to be a conservative has been become to say, No, that's taking a foreign model, we should evolve according to, you know, our own culture and values and institutions, which therefore tend to push you into an anti-westernizing camp. Not not necessarily, I mean, that means a result of hard and fast categories. But as a result, we in a Russian context, we don't think liberalism, and conservatism has to suddenly be been a cultural one, rather than so much as a political one. And it's about what sort of culture Russia should be. Should it be westernizing? Should it not is history, as it generally is considered invest in liberal thought, marching inexorably towards you know, the end of history? Or is history involved diverging forms, each going in their own direction? So the conservatives would probably take the latter position and liberals would take the former.