-- to Prof Sach's lucid, damning truth expose of what has actually happened in Ukraine since 2017. I mean, he couldn't just carry on with his questioning as if nothing had happened, could he? He either had to disagree with Sach's analysis, which would mean providing a different interpretation backed up by political and historical facts and testimony, or, failing that, accept what had just been said as the basis for future commentary. Which route did Morgan take?