 Good morning and welcome to the Geopolitical Outlook session here at the 2022 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting here in Davos, Switzerland. I'm Reklusek. I'm with the World Economic Forum. For years now, analysts and leaders have been concerned about increased competition and fractures in the tissue of international relations, as we've known them particularly since the 1990s. They have been concerned about the growing divergence, the strategic divergence among the great powers. They have been concerned about the resulting multipolarity and then the attendant lack of progress in some of the key global issues that we have, climate change, trade, technology, governance, health. And many have also been warning about the risk this increasingly fragile system poses not only on the geopolitical front, but also across economies and societies. If anyone needed any persuading, Russia's invasion of Ukraine three months ago on this day is a testament that we've entered a more geopolitical world. It is also a vivid testament that we're facing a very systemic challenge because we're facing a geopolitical crisis which is having these cascading effects across energy systems, food systems, and also within the global economy. We've been talking about it here now at the annual meeting and I think it's best summed up by the head of the IMF who said it here yesterday that the war in Ukraine has darkened the outlook for the global economy and could result in recession for more vulnerable countries. So to help us understand this fast-evolving geopolitical landscape, but also hopefully get us a sense of where we are headed and also how can we get things done in this more competitive landscape. I'm joined here by truly a gas panel of leaders so let me introduce them in the way they're seated here. Andrzej Duda, President of Poland, warm welcome, Pekka Havisto, Foreign Minister of Finland, a warm welcome, His Highness Prince Faisal bin Farhanas, Saud, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Hina Rabani Khar, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, welcome, Gregory Meeks, Congressman from New York and Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, welcome, and Jose Manuel Albares, Foreign Minister of Spain, last but not least. If I could turn to you, Mr. President first, you were in Ukraine in Kiev on Sunday. You delivered an in-person address to Ukraine's parliament. It was the first time a foreign head of state has done so since Russia's invasion, and you forcefully pushed back against the idea of Ukraine making any concessions to Russia. And Europe and the West has so far been very united. Are you optimistic? Are you persuaded we can remain united on that front going forward? And long-term security picture in Europe, are we headed to a new Cold War? Over to you. Thank you very much, distinguished participants, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. I'm very optimistic because I'm here again after two years of pandemics, so I'm in general optimistic. Thank you very much for this kind invitation and this possibility to be here and to participate in this panel, to have this opportunity to share with you my point of view, my opinions concerning situation in Ukraine now, in our part of the world, in our part of Europe, and my opinion how it could influence the situation for the future. So now please take your earphones and electronic devices because it will be much easier for me to tell it in my mother tongue in Polish. I have excellent interpreter, Madame Annetta Wiesniewska-Sowdykiewicz in the cabin, so she will translate it perfectly. So thank you for coming and thank you for this possibility to be here, to say this few words. Ladies and gentlemen, yes indeed, I came back to Kiev exactly in these small hours yesterday morning, and I had that great opportunity and great pleasure that I met Mr. President Volodymyr Zewinski. I can say that we are friends and neighbors. So I had this great pleasure to be invited there together with the President of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, Verhovna Rada, to speak in front of the Supreme Council. I consider it a great honor on behalf of the Republic of Poland in this very complex situation for Ukraine in which Ukraine was thrust three months ago as a result of Russia's aggression, aggression which two years ago was unthinkable, which was expected in the last months, but still, ladies and gentlemen, I have to share with you that despite different information from, as all of us know, intelligence services, which we had received and which I had an opportunity to get acquainted with, as President of the Republic of Poland still, given all that information, I had not expected that aggression would happen on such a big scale. Because I expected, I knew that Russia's aggression would happen, that was clear. President Putin had no longer any alternative because he had amassed big numbers of troops at the border with Ukraine. And because of that, he was forced to solve that situation somehow. Also due to prestigious reason for himself, it was clear it was a propaganda and that is why that aggression had to happen. But speaking honestly, I expected that the scale of that aggression would be much smaller. And of the top of my mind, I thought that the attack would be launched only on Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Then I thought that perhaps Putin would like to establish a land corridor to Crimea. And then in the third scenario, I thought that perhaps that would be an attack launched on Odessa and Kiev. Odessa and Kiev, although it was hard for me to believe that that would have been possible for Putin to decide to launch such a far-reaching and serious large-scale military operation. And of course, I believed there was such a possibility for two reasons. First of all, Kiev is a historical capital of Ruthenia. Kiev is the cradle of Ruthenia. So this is the beginning of Russia as such, because there is the baptism of Ruthenia happening in Kiev. This is how it is seen by the Russians. For that reason, that seizure of Kiev would have equaled to the capturing of the cradle of Russian civilization and Russian culture. And their respect, that is important, and Odessa symbolizes the greatness of Russia. To Russia, Odessa is a great, magnificent pearl of the terrorist time, Russia. It's a window to the world. It's a multicultural city, wonderful, a city dripping with wealth back in the terrorist Russia. It is a synonym of luxuriousness, of modernity. So whenever we say that imperialist tendensions are revived in the head of Vladimir Putin and his team to rebuild it, imperial Russia, then to a large extent, we can say it is not just dreams. It is not just coming back mentally to the times of the Soviet Union, where those people were born, where they were raised, and where they lived as KGB agents, as KGB operatives. But today, they're also thinking along the lines of the great socialist Russia, which was a superpower in the 19th century and in the early 20th century. But I thought that would be the third scenario. And then the fourth scenario stipulated that a full-scale invasion would happen on the entire territory of Ukraine. But I believe that was not possible. Just one simple reason, Ukraine is twice as big as Poland. Poland is 312,000 square kilometers, and Ukraine more than 620,000 square kilometers. So to capture such a country, you need a lot of big troops to occupy the entire Ukraine. And put in a mass to be an estimated 160,000 to 190,000 soldiers. So for that reason, the occupation of the whole of Ukraine was simply impossible. But still it was one thing, which I believe President Putin did not take into account. Namely, he did not take into account that Ukrainians would put up such a fierce resistance. Volodymyr Zelenskiy repeated that to me on a couple of occasions. We met twice before the very invasion. First, I received him in Poland, where we had an informal meeting in the city of Vysva together with his team. We spoke at length. And then one day before the invasion happened, just before the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, we had our last conversation before the war broke out. I visited Kiev to get with President Kitanosno said a couple of hours before the invasion. And every time Volodymyr Zelenskiy told me, Andrzej, if you think that they would just come, that they would conquer Ukraine, just like that, that we would give our land to them, they are deeply mistaken. We have been fighting for eight years. We started in 2014. We have got thousands of battle-tested people. They saw blood. They know how to fight. So they will fight till the last breath. Nobody is going to give away an inch of our territory without fight. And that is what happened. And that is what was happening today. So what I'm absolutely convinced about, Ukrainians are using all their strength to resist and to fight. And they're going to do so. We cannot be hopeful about peace to the extent that Western Europe will force Ukrainians to give away their land to Putin. Ukrainians are not going to make such concessions. They are not going to do that for many reasons, first of all, because they have spilled so much blood. They are not going to make any concessions, also, because they have been fighting and their country has taken bad damages. And they really want to take revenge. They want to recapture their lands. There is such a strong will to do that, that I do not believe that they would agree to such conditions that Russians would take away more land, more Ukrainian land. I simply do not believe that they would make such concessions, also due to political reasons. Today, political elite in Ukraine cannot agree to that. Everyone who would agree to that as a politician in Ukraine would be finished, because this defense is a national decision. The whole nation believes they have to fight. Almost nobody believes that they shouldn't put out a fight. So if any politicians in the West think that they could force Ukrainians to make concessions to Putin, as we heard a short while ago from Mr. Berlusconi, then they are deeply mistaken. And speaking openly, as president of the Republic of Poland, I'm going to give my 100% support to Ukraine. Why? For a very simple reason, not to mention all the other aspects. Ladies and gentlemen, I simply cannot accept, also as a neighbor to Russia, that Russia violates the rules of international law with impunity. I cannot accept Russia murdering people in Ukraine, and I cannot accept that the world just turns a blind eye to that without any consequences vis-a-vis murderers. I cannot agree that Russia should not pay war reparations for all the damage it has inflicted on Ukraine, that it is not forced to simply finance the revitalization and the rebuilding of Ukraine. To me, it is obvious that the ones who have waged war in Ukraine by launching this unprovoked and justified attack on Ukraine, without any reason, please believe me, beyond the shade of a doubt, if we listen to the Russian propaganda theory saying there are Nazis in Ukraine. But, well, of course, this is absolutely nonsense. It is a load of rubbish. That was an invasion resulting purely from imperial ambitions of Russia. There was no other reason for launching that invasion. Nobody was waiting for Russia in Ukraine. Nobody was waiting for Russia to come. People wanted to live in a free, independent server in Ukraine. And so today, the world has to present a very resolute stance. And this war should be ended by Russia giving back to Ukraine the grabbed lands. And it has to pay contributions. And the perpetrators have to be brought to justice. This is my vision of how this war should be brought to an end. So I urge everyone to support Ukraine today. I urge everyone to stand with Ukraine, because justice is on the side of Ukraine. Honesty is on the side of Ukraine. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. And today, Ukraine needs to be supported comprehensively, both in terms of supporting Ukraine in the military perspective. It needs support from the political perspective. And also today, we need to collect funds and money so that Ukraine can be rebuilt today and return to normal functioning. Thank you so much, Mr. President. Thank you so much for this important message. I'll move to Foreign Minister of Finland, Pekahavisto. You recently applied together with Sweden to become members of NATO. You have a long border with Russia. So how does the tragic war on Ukraine look from the vintage point of Finland? And also, what do you expect from the NATO membership in terms of increased security for Finland? Thank you for this opportunity of being here and thanking also Poland and President for all the work you have done for Ukraine. And you have been on the front line and been on the front line also on the European Union support to Ukraine. So thank you. Thank you for all that. From our perspective, we really delivered our application together with Sweden one week ago to NATO. Of course, now we test the NATO Open Door policy if it exists. I hope that the result is positive. Majority of the countries, of course, in NATO have responded very positively. But how we see actually the situation, we have really more than 1,300 kilometer common border with Russia. And actually, I would maybe say that we saw five changes in our surrounding and which triggered then our application to NATO. And the first is actually the collapse of the European security architecture. What was agreed in Helsinki in 1975 in the OSCE structures is now disappeared. We couldn't prevent the war in Europe with all those structures that we have been creating. And that's maybe now the first remark. My second remark is the Russian ability to take higher risks. When people ask, why didn't we react 2008 with Georgia? Why didn't we react 2014 with the Crimea occupation? We see a totally different risk-taking ability of Russia, ready to take victims, ready to take losing materials, acting in a very unpredictable way. Russia was also able to gather more than 100,000 soldiers in one spot on the border, saying that this is an exercise. But actually using this military force then ready to attack the capital Kiev, like here was mentioned, actually to trying to do the regime change in a country of 40 million people by military force. Actually, even without using their reserves, yet just the ordinary military. And of course, we also have seen this kind of loose argumentation about the weapons of mass destruction. We are not at least in Finland used to that, that in Europe a country says that tactical nuclear weapons could be used at some stage, even chemical weapons could be used at some stage. This is new and our actually ordinary people from the streets stopped the minister and asked, we have traditionally a very strong military in Finland. What do we do if we are threatened by tactical nuclear weapons? What do we do if we are threatened by chemical weapons? And that's a good question in these circumstances. And finally, what we see actually now in Ukraine is that the rules of warfare are totally lost. Geneva Conventions not respected. We see a use of sexual violence. We see a lot of use of violence against the civilians. We have been witnessing the butchering and so forth. So we are in a totally new situation and we have to wake up for that situation. How do we then see the NATO membership? Of course, we think that it's a group of 30 democratic countries, common values and very strong transatlantic cooperation. And this is what we are looking for this moment. We actually felt a little bit excited that when we knew that when we are putting the application in, there will be this kind of great time that we are not yet members, not yet protected by Article 5. And so what will happen? But we are very thankful that many bigger countries in NATO actually delivered us this kind of not security guarantees because you can give those only in the NATO, but security assurances or however you want to call them that if something bad happens, this support will be given to applicant countries, Sweden and Finland. And now we are looking of course forward of our NATO membership and good cooperation also on the transatlantic spirit. Thank you. If I could just have a quick follow-up question. So on the open door policy, how optimistic you are that you can persuade Turkey to work with you in that framework? Well, of course, we have been asked time to time but have we been too blue eyed that on NATO's open door policy? I have to say that I have been this spring twice in Turkey talking very much with my good colleague, Minister Sabu Sokulu, and basically on those discussions, there were no problems raised and so forth. And now when we see the problems coming, of course, we take this diplomatically, we are sending our delegations to visit Ankara, actually both Sweden and Finland. This will happen tomorrow and so forth. So the dialogue is continuing. We understand that Turkey has some of their own security concerns, vis-à-vis terrorism and so forth. And of course, we think that we have good answers for those because we are also part of the fight against the terrorism. So we think that this issue can be settled. There might be also some issues that are not linked directly to Finland and Sweden more to other NATO members and so forth. But I'm sure that in a good spirit, NATO can solve this issue. If I have been reading correctly in the NATO rules, actually this issue of common views is very strong also that you should find consensus also in the NATO structure and we rely on that. Thank you so much. Your Highness, Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. So we have talked about this increased geostrategic competition, the US, China, Russia. You have a long-standing strong partnership with the United States. You work with Russia within OPEC Plus, for example. Of course, you also have relations with China, G20 country. So what does this more competitive international system mean for a major G20 country like yours to pursue foreign policy objectives? Thank you and thank you for having me in this panel. You know, if we learned anything from COVID is that we need to focus on cooperation and I think we need to continue to look towards avenues to foster that cooperation. Even when there is difference, when there's competition, we need to find mechanisms to talk to each other and the kingdom having a relationship with all of the major players and playing a role in a very important part of the world, we hope that we can facilitate some of the dialogue, especially when we talk in the context of China, the US. You know, China is our most important trading partner. The US is our most important national security partner. In the end, without cooperation, especially on issues, you know, we are facing a significant issue on food security. Part of it is because of the war in Ukraine, but it's not just that. There are other significant factors playing into that very significantly. And here, again, if we don't, as a global community, within the context of the G20, beyond our able to address those challenges, even when we have differences, I think we will be facing significant, significant difficulties, especially in the developing world. And the kingdom is a member of the G20, but we are also a developing country and we feel very strongly that we have a responsibility to help set the agenda, the global agenda, in a way that supports the interests of the developing world. Thank you. I have a follow-up question. You're also a regional actor. And so we're seeing this increased competition just strategically, but if you look at the Middle East, you could say that you are seeing increased diplomatic activity. We've seen visits between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE. We've seen you've had publicized dialogue with your Northern neighbor, Iran. So are you maybe a little more hopeful that in the Middle East, we can see pathways to more dialogue and cooperation? I certainly hope so, and we are working very hard to make that happen. You know, the kingdom has Vision 2030, which is a very broad-ranging vision in renewing our economy, looking towards the future, building prosperity for the people of Saudi Arabia, sustainably in the long term. We can only do that if we have a safe, secure region, a region that is stable, and that can only happen with cooperation with all of our neighbors. So we will continue that path of dialogue, and it reflects what I just said earlier, our strong belief that dialogue as a whole and cooperation globally is necessary, and I think we need to make an example through fostering cooperation in our region as well. Thank you. Moving to Minister Haar, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, similar question. Again, major power Pakistan in a more competitive international system. Again, huge relationship with the United States, very important relationship with China. You're a new government. Maybe you're thinking about your priorities right now on the foreign policy front. How do you navigate this as Pakistan? Thank you. I think it's actually an interesting, not an interesting, but a very difficult place to be in for all of us. It doesn't matter whether you're from Finland, from Poland, from Saudi Arabia, from Pakistan, from the United States of America, everybody's feeling, the world is in an interesting place where everyone is feeling threatened by someone else, and that someone is also feeling threatened by someone, either the same person or someone else. Now, the thing that I ask myself is that when history is written, and when we are told that how did humanity react, and how did leadership react? When both the humanity in the face of the COVID crisis or the pandemic and the hunger crisis that is on our door, when humanity was facing its biggest challenge and when the planet in terms of climate change was facing perhaps the biggest challenge that it has faced at least in my lifetime, what did the leadership of the world do? How did the world react to that? And if the answer is they went to war, not a very good answer. And if the answer is they chose confrontation over collaboration, not a very good answer. And then I think future generations have every right to judge the people sitting on the stage, the people in the audience, and pretty much all of us, right? So for a country like Pakistan, it's, I don't think we should be at a place. And the fact that we are typically asked this question all the time, who do you choose? Shows how far we have fallen as the global community and as the choices that we made over the last 20 years also. And there are many reasons to explain why we are where we are, and that's not a conversation that we can do in like the next five minutes. But it is perhaps important to understand that if we go towards a world where the two largest economies are in a state of confrontation and countries like Pakistan are asked to, given these very simplistic binary choices, are you with us? Are you against us? If you're with them, then you're against us. Difficult, impossible. And now for a country like Pakistan which has already had fiscal space problems to now be threatened on top of that superimposition of the food security crisis which has resulted in, you know, because of this particular conflict. And then every other problem that we have to deal with both on the climate side, coming in from a difficult region, a region where we've had conflict for 20 years, just recently and maybe 40 years before that, where the intervention in Afghanistan did not really go so well and did not give such great results. So you find yourself in this odd position of wanting to get answers from the world but the world ended up asking you questions, right? And I will just say that in this point in time, I think this is an inflection point for the world. I genuinely am not saying this only diplomatically. I mean this is an inflection point for the world. Either we can allow confrontation to guide leadership decisions for the future or we can do what liberal, why are we such, why do most people in this room at least espouse to liberal values? And what do liberal values really mean? They mean room for other opinion to coexist and then collaborate to develop and to each system being able to support the other and develop together, right? To have room for diversity, if not divergence and to be able to accommodate divergence. Now, unfortunately, 20 years back, the world was a far better place. I do not feel very confident when I look at my almost teenager children and feel that I probably lived in a secure world than the one that we are leaving to them. And right now I say we are in inflection point because I think we still have room to be able to come back and to be able to relook as to how we have. And just one thing that I'm going to sort of leave a thought with you as to, because if you look at, because often we're also asked where are the points of alignment between China and the US and the rest of the world. And if you look, if you speak to everyone as we do, nobody's stated position is different than the other. Everybody wants a rule-based order. Everybody wants everyone to comply with rule-based order. Everybody wants no one to offer exceptionalism. But perhaps in the way that we have conducted this whole business of cherry picking on the rule-based order in some of the interventions and perhaps in the way we are conducting the business of using weaponizing economic tools without knowing what their impact is going to be. So we know the impact of intervention. We don't know the impact of sanctions, the way we're using them on the general ordinary people around the world. I mean, those already have impact on Pakistani people. Did we ever think that would be possible in grain prices? So I think we're living in an exceptionally dangerous, if I can say, world where countries like myself, like ours, feel even more threatened than perhaps some countries which feel they have greater proximity to where the threat is emanating. Thank you. If I could just do a quick follow-up. Some people say the world has forgotten about Afghanistan. So of course there's a huge humanitarian crisis now. You're very close to this. What would be your message to the international community in terms of what can be done in this humanitarian catastrophe, of course, without supporting the Taliban regime? So what is it that you would have as a message to the international community? Okay, the message is again pragmatism. We cannot wish the world to be what we wanted to be and then decide to deal with it. We have to deal with the world as it is. The world as it is on our border is not of our liking. We are a country, I want to put this on the record, we are a country where the constitution gives women right to have a place in society which is equal to that of men. We are a country where parliamentary representation to women is perhaps higher than many developed countries. We are a country which supports women's role everywhere. Now we are also a country which has compulsions of geography to deal with a 2,600 kilometer border and whatever emanates from there. Therefore, instead of the world being a propagator and enabler of a humanitarian crisis and an economic implosion in Afghanistan, we would ask the world to just ensure that the ordinary Afghans are not at the receiving end of your moral compulsions and for your moral compulsions not to translate into hunger and strife for ordinary Afghans who had no role to play in when the intervention or no choice to meet as in when the intervention happened for what goals it happened and how the withdrawal happened. So peace and stability requires sometimes making choices which don't go with your moral landscape perhaps, right? But which require for you to be strategic in your outlook and really make choices and be strategic in long-term as this is the goal you want to be. But in that goal, are you willing to let 38 million Afghans go hungry and not have a chance at a real economy? I would advise against it. Thanks a lot, minister. Moving to Congressman Meeks, you are chairing the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You also were recently in Ukraine and also Poland and other countries. So if you could give us the congressional view of the situation in Ukraine and what your body about overall the US is doing on that front and then I'll have a follow-up question. The United States, in my opinion, has a lot of enormous responsibility and members of Congress understand that responsibility and what the question is as the federal panels have said, the camera of history is rolling upon all of us right now and looking to see what we do at this particular time in history. And the United States knows that it is important for us to play a vital role. And I agree with President Duda of Poland when you look at what has taken place in Ukraine. You know, for me, I've not seen anything like this since when I studied it took place in the 40s and the 30s. And so it's a question of whether or not one can cross the sovereign territory of another nation and try to take away its choices. Do you stand up or do you sit back and allow it to happen? I think that what the United States has said that we've got to stand up, but not stand up alone. Bring people together. It can't be the United States saying we're going to do this and not consulting our friends and our allies across the world. And so therefore it's important to have the unity. First with NATO, some people were questioning the strength of NATO and the unity of NATO. In fact, I believe that that's what Putin was doing. He did not believe that NATO would stay together. It did. He could not believe that the EU would stand together. It has. And we've worked together. And I think that we've done it when we looked at even sanctions when it comes to Russia in a collective way. Giving room and making sure that we attempt diplomacy first. There was avenues for him to get out of it. And Putin, he chose not to. So now the United States has responsibility to make sure that we defend and help and give the military equipment to Ukraine so that it can defend itself and work with our NATO allies because we also understand that Putin is not going to stop there. Again, I agree with the president of Poland, President Duda. The Baltics are at stake. Poland's at stake. NATO countries are at stake. We've got an article five responsibility there. And we must stand with that. And that's why I think it's important for us to give to different places. This is why I have as chair of this committee, we visited Poland. I was in Ukraine twice, met about a few weeks before the invasion. And I was part of the delegation that went to meet with President Zelensky recently, about two weeks ago. And we committed and came and we passed a bill in record time for the House. And I know individuals know of some of the domestic disputes that are going on in the United States, but we passed a $40 billion bill for humanitarian causes and military aid to Ukraine. And we've also pledged to back up and have our allies also give to the defense of Ukraine because the threat to democracy is all of us. And the threat to hunger, to what's happening with the blockades at the port of Odessa in the Black Sea. We've got to open that up because it's not then just limited to what's happening in Ukraine. There's threats to the entire world. And we've got to stand up to it. And what's really at stake is our values. To some, that's the question. You know, for me as a member of the House Foreign Affairs as a chair, who are we as humans? And so I think this is what the times are asking for. Can we come together? Can we work together? You're talking about Afghanistan? I've been to Pakistan as a result. I'm going to Finland next week. We're looking, and I'm talking to Saudi Arabia about visiting this. Spain is a great ally. We have allies, but we've got to pull ourselves together. The world today is much smaller than the world was 30 years ago. We're more interdependent than we ever was. If the economy is bad in one part of the world, it's going to affect another part of the world. And nothing was clearer than this pandemic. None of us are safe until all of us are safe. And I hope that's the message that goes across that we must come together as a world. And there's deficiencies that we've had because we know that there's some parts of the world that has not come along with reference to Russia. So we've got to talk to them also so that we get together because that's the only way that I think that we'll be able to survive this place that we call Earth, climate. I mean, there's issues whether you deal with climate energy security, food security, all of us at line, and it affects each in every nation on this planet. Congressman, thank you. If I could just do a follow-up, just to, we have the midterms coming up. You alluded to it that some people are also looking at some domestic issues, but you said also, of course, that that was bipartisan support for the bill. Some say that in terms of the response of the West, this was a unique moment. So are you optimistic that with the midterms, we can see consistency on the foreign policy front from the United States on this front or other fronts? Yeah, I am optimistic. One of the things I do, I've talked about the travel. I try to make sure that when I travel, I travel in a bipartisan delegation. Democrats and Republicans said that we're not divided when it comes to foreign policy and our goals in moving forward. I think that's tremendously important. And I would think that because of all of the issues of which has been articulated by this fantastic panel that once it's done, it's more than just America. It's more than, so it can't be a scenario. And I think that's what this pandemic and this war that Russia has caused shows that it can't be America alone. It's gotta be America talking to the rest of the world and engaging the rest of the world and listening to the rest of the world and working together. That's, in my estimation, leadership. Leadership is none of you by yourself. Leadership is if you can work with others and move forward. And I think that's where we headed. And hopefully that will happen no matter who is in charge after the midterm elections. Thank you. Moving to Minister Albares, Foreign Minister of Spain, you are hosting the upcoming NATO summit in Madrid next month. What are your main priorities? What do you expect from the NATO summit as the host country? There are four things that Spain is aiming in this summit. And of course, I speak on behalf of my country because in NATO, especially facing the Russian aggression to Ukraine, we are always aiming for unity. And what we have to do is to discuss among ourselves. But first, of course, a strong response to Russia because this is a threat that it's to Spain, to the European Union, to the Transatlantic Allies and also to democracy because there are two models that are facing each other in Ukraine. There is a model that is authoritarian that doesn't believe in the rule of law and there is another one that is represented by European Union that believes in diversity and pluralism and democracy. So a strong response from this alliance of democracy that is NATO. The second one, a strategic concept that will head the organization for about a decade. A new strategic concept will be issued. Right now, the main threats come from the East and we acknowledge that. But we want also a strong component from the southern flank because we have also very deep threats from our southern flank. The political and unacceptable use of energy or irregular migration to threaten our sovereignty. There is Russian threats also coming from the south. We have the epicenter of terrorism right now in the Sahel. And the third one, of course, is welcoming to new members, Sweden and Finland, Spain strongly supports their accession to NATO during that summit. And above all that, unity. Unity is our best defense against any threats coming from the east and from the south. Thank you. And if I could just have a follow-up on the Mediterranean realm because you are a Mediterranean stakeholder. And so at the EU level, what would you say to your partners in the Mediterranean that have been working within different frameworks with the EU in terms of reassuring them that the attention will now not completely move to in another direction that we will continue or the EU will continue to work with the Mediterranean partners? Next year, Spain will have the presidency of European Union during the second semester. And we will put also, as during the NATO summit, we will put also a focus on the Mediterranean and beyond in the Sahel because in the Sahel, and therefore spilling over in the Mediterranean, we have a multi-dimensional crisis. We have very poor countries in which governance has been lowering for the last decade. We have military junta more and more in the Sahel with the rising prices of cereal, fertilizers. We are facing a food security crisis in the Sahel that is already a very weakened region in the world. And we have an epicenter of terrorism. We have traditional jihadism in the Sahel, but we have also Daesh that is being weakened in Iraq and Syria, transferring more and more towards the Sahel. So we have to look at it because the future of the Southern Mediterranean and the European Union are united. Great, thank you. We have two minutes left and I'd like to go to the president because you are the only president on the panel here. And it's a very important one because Poland, of course, part of the EU. Now we have Ukraine and some other countries have applied for EU membership, but then also you have countries in the Western Balkans. Some of them have applied for EU membership. So if you could just in two minutes, Mr. President, give us your sense of how you see the EU enlargement, also in the context of some of the new frameworks that have been pronounced by some leaders in Europe in a minute and 45 seconds. Thank you. Two very, very important issues in this matter of the discussion, especially this is what Mr. Minister said a moment ago about Sahel and all the problems of Northern Africa. Ladies and gentlemen, of course, first of all, let me be very clear, Poland is a staunch supporter of Ukraine's membership in the European Union. There is no doubt about that. I initiated a letter signed by nine presidents and sent to the European Commission. The purpose of that letter was giving a very decisive support to Ukraine at granting it a candidate status. Today, this is of fundamental importance for many reasons. First of all, there is a psychological dimension. First and foremost, I firmly believe that the European Union should demonstrate, especially to the people of Ukraine, that it is open today that Ukrainian fight in defense of their homeland, this is also the fight in defense of their firm conviction that they have the right to self-determination, that they have the right to be part of the West. And for every reason, the West should open up to them and say, yes, we do accept you. And this is a very important element. That is why we are going to, obviously, give our very strong support to the aspiration of Ukraine to be granted a candidate status. We're also going to support its future membership of the European Union. In my speech in front of the Ukrainian Parliament, the Hovnaradan, a day before yesterday, I said that I'm going to do my best to make sure that Ukraine is granted a full membership status in the European Union. This is number one and number two. This is a very serious problem, speaking about North Africa, because we're also speaking about food deliveries from Ukraine in this context. If Ukraine is not able to ship out its grain to North Africa, to Egypt and to other countries in North Africa, the crisis will be huge because Ukraine is a huge country. I think it accounts for 80% of Egypt's demand for grain. So Ukraine is the partner of this country and also a partner to a couple of other countries in North Africa. So today, this is of key importance. If there is a starvation crisis in North Africa, if it turns out that there are no shipments, if indeed the scenario that Minister laid out materializes, then indeed Spain and the entire Southern Europe will face a huge migration problem, a gigantic migration problem. It is obvious to us that there will be a gigantic migration pressure, not to mention a huge of a lot of big chaos and unrest in the countries of North Africa and in this part of the world. So today we should focus on making it possible for Ukraine to ship out its grain. President Zawensky, when I visited Kiev together with the Baltic States presidents in mid-April right after Russian troops withdrew from the suburbs of Kiev, said to us that Ukraine sowed its fields, which means that there would be harvest. But the question is, will there be enough hands to collect the harvests? And question number two, how this grain and sunflower seed oil, and Ukraine is the biggest producer of sunflower oil, how this grain, how this sunflower oil seeds can be shipped out to other parts of the world? Today it is clear that ports need to be used for that. The other support today is blocked today. The question is, are we able to unblock it? The question is, can we transport this grain to Polish seaports, to the Lithuania seaport in Klaipeda, to Constanza in Romania? So there are a lot of question marks here today and these are the problems that we have to solve because this is one of the keys to solve the problem of the potential unrest in North Africa. Mr. President, dear ministers, congressmen, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining this important conversation. I think you minister said, we are at an inflection point, a lot of challenges and uncertainties. I hope that when we are here in a year's time, we'll have more solutions and more peace. Thank you so much. Thank you very much.