 Hi, everyone. We have a packed room that really goes to the heart of the matter, that this is probably one of the most important sessions in Davos. Thank you all for joining us. Welcome to our session, Securing Europe. I'm Francine Lacqua from Bloomberg TV. And however the war unfolds, of course, Russia's invasion has upended European defense policy probably for the longer term. But the war in Ukraine has also united the European Union around this common threat while shattering the security order that helped Europe to prosper in the last couple of decades. Now, in the next 45 minutes, we'll try to address what steps Europe needs to take to develop into a viable security player in this radical change context. From Berlin to London to Baltic capitals like Tallinn, the metrics, of course, of defending Europe are changing. They've been torn up. A large-scale war is no longer unthinkable, and nations are reconsidering what they spend, what they buy, and also how they would need to fight. Now, a reminder that you can ask questions for the session, Q&A through the Slido. I've been reminded that it's slido.com, hashtag securing Europe, or there's also QR code that should show up somewhere where you crash. There you go. That's the QR code on the right, where you can just lock it in and send some questions. Now, before we get to an all-star panel that are sitting here with me, let's go straight to Andrei Yermak. He's the head of the presidential administration of Ukraine, and he's joining us from Kiev. So, sir, thank you so much for joining us and for being here with us today. Mr. Yermak, where are we militarily in this war today, and how would you define victory? Dear Ms. Lakwa, dear panelists, dear guests, thank you for the honor of the opening of this meeting. It's dedicated to one of the most pressing issues in today's world. This panel is focused on securing Europe. I'm here and an official Ukrainian representative. No more doubts, obviously. Ukraine is Europe. Shaming took eight years for Europeans to realize it. In those eight years, the world order shattered. The political map was legally changed. Tens of thousands of the people died, and millions more had to escape. However, escape, despite all the crimes Russia's soldiers committed in Bucza, Mariupol, Chernigov, and dozens of other locations, we keep hearing calls for capitulation for the sake of the peace in Europe. Some of our partners are still suggesting us to give in to aggressors to save lives. Negotiations, also called territorial disputes, are proposed. How can one believe it when Russia show all right intention to destroy Ukraine? How can one hope for wild Russian opinions leaders are calling Ukrainians, us, the wrong Russians? How can one expect it, given the numerous testimonies of the act of genocide against Ukraine's committed by Russian troops? Ukraine does not have any territorial dispute with Russia. Russia has simply occupied and tried to annex Ukrainian territories, illegally, absolutely. More than anyone, we strive a balanced and additional dialogue. However, Russian political culture does not provide for a dialogue like the equal terms. Its basis, its dictation, and languages of the brute force. More than one in one is one in all, the sick peace. But it should be just our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not subject of the compromise. We are dealing with the ideologies and practicize terribly alike the worst distroships and the last century. History teach us that pacifying and aggressors is futile. They always take peacefulness for the witness. They demand more with every next concession. Therefore, there is only one way to prevent the war in Ukraine from escalating into continental and even world war. Help Ukraine win. Now you don't have to wage this war. Just help us to do it. Otherwise, you have to. You have sent your troops to the battles. Helping Ukraine is a way to resolve the construction between their policy and real politics. This is a way to send a clear signal to potential aggressor in the future. Their actions will not go to any punished. So Ukraine immediately go to stop Russia brutal aggression and insures the complete withdrawal of these troops from our lands. Then we must find a reliable way to deter Russian pro-repeating aggression in the future. But the world order is nearly wrecked and shattered. Russia's presence in the United Nations is semi-paralyzed in the Russian presence in the Security Council. The OCE has lost its reason that NATO is only institution capable of the providing a reliable security umbrella to its members. But some of the island nations still allow Russia to wait on Ukraine's accession. So we have to take alternative path. Today, I'm glad here in Davos to announce that together with the former NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, we're establishing an international advisory working group. Its aim is to make some recommendation for a reliable and efficient security guarantees for Ukraine. Leading figures from security, policy, and diplomacy as they are as a scientist, will be invited to join and they contribute. We look forward to involving the friends of Ukraine who can over their experience and their expertise to efficiently implement the initiative. Our goal is to stop history from repeating and prepare the future for the sovereign and free Ukraine. Given the Budapest memorandum experience, we assume that the future agreements should contain security guarantees, not insurance. And this is very important. No third-party security obligations can fully substitute for Ukraine, developing and sustaining its own strong defense capabilities. So the first block of the security guarantees is related to anthinsic Ukraine and ability to resist aggression. To ensure Ukraine's defense capabilities, the guarantor states should provide our armed force with the modern conventional weapons and military equipment. No restrictions nor political-motivated bars. We need weapons to defense, only to defense. We must be able to stand any aggressions. I want to say that since February 24, nearly 700 Ukrainian children have been killed, touched, raped, and wounded by Russian troops. What are we know for sure? So we thought probably much higher. Over 230,000 kids, they're deported to Russia. We must be able to protect our children. They have the right to live in this safe country. And we are to ensure that they're right. As a part of our commitment partners could help us in the fields of intelligence-sharing information, security, cyber security, maritime security. We believe that rapid recovery of defense potential of Ukraine, it's one of the important factors in the preventing the new possible aggression. Russia has badly damaged our economy. And we can't put enough money into defense in the coming years. So we'll need a new financial help for reconstruction purposes, as well as we financing the security and defense. The next block of the security guarantees in sections. They are an effective tools for the stopping Russian aggressions today and deterring in the future. The current sanctions should last at the very least until complete withdrawal of the Russian troops from Ukraine. Their mitigation and lifting should be agreed with the government of Ukraine. We should consider the risk of restoring Russian military technical potential. They also believe that guarantees of the imposition of the preventing sanctions should be also provided in case of real free to our states. And of course, in the event of the aggression, immediate and coordinated sanctions should be provided. The final block of the security guarantees. It's related to political and diplomatic support of Ukraine. Invending Ukraine in the mid-ilateral diplomatic process would improve our integration in the international community. First of all, I mean it's about Ukraine joining the European Union as soon as possible. I need to emphasize, we don't think we so-called alternative formats of the integration are acceptable here. Ukraine also support the establishment of the coalition of the responsible states, like your friends of Ukraine or until war coalition, U-24, which be ready to effectively respond to the violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within 24 hours. This means providing the necessary military and military technical, financial and humanitarian aid as well as imposing sanctions against the aggressor's country. This in 24 hours. When it comes to security guarantees for ourselves, we are not asking. We offer our partners to invest to common security. First, your opinion. But in the future, the system could become the base of new global security architecture. Thank you very much for your time. And now the pleasure I give the floor to Ms. Plakma. Thank you for your attention. Mr. Yermak, thank you. Just a quick, Mr. Yermak, just a very quick follow-up before we go to the panel. So victory, I think you were clear at the beginning, but victory in your eyes is not a full ceasefire. It's Russian troops leaving Ukrainian territory full stop. Is that right? Is that how you would describe victory? You see, we are not aggressive states. We are only defending, restoring our sovereignty and territorial integrity and make our people safe. It's real our immediate priority. Now I think it's, meantime, the aggressor must pay the price of their choice. And of course, we need to make everything that Russia will not be able to attack us again. And of course, for us, it's the victory. It's not just ceasefire. It's our people paid the highest price. It's the life of our people, hundreds of our people. And of course, we are waiting for our victory. And I'm absolutely sure that we will. And this win will be not only victory of Ukraine, it will be victory of all democracy and free will. All right, thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Yermak. I would love to get to our panel straight away. Alexander Dukru, the Prime Minister of Belgium, Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary General of NATO, Kaja Olegren, the Minister of Defense of the Netherlands and Stevo Penderovsky, President of North Macedonia. So thank you all for joining us. Secretary General, let's start with you. How do you see NATO getting involved in this conflict, if at all? Well, NATO has two tasks when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine. The first is to support Ukraine. And I am so impressed by the courage of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian armed forces, and the Ukrainian political leadership. And we all have a responsibility to support them in their fight, to help them to uphold the right for self-defense. And actually, NATO Allies have supported Ukraine for many years since 2014, helped to train the thousands of Ukrainian troops in the special United States and at the Kingdom. Canada and also Turkey has provided us with critical equipment. And after invasion, all the NATO Allies stepped up, and many other partners also started to provide support. That's our first responsibility, is to support Ukraine, because this matters also for our security. But the second responsibility and our core task is, of course, to protect all NATO Allies. So it is important to prevent this conflict from escalating to a full-scale war between Russia and NATO. Then we'll see even more death, more destruction, more damage than what we see today in Ukraine. So this dual task of support, but not do anything that can escalate the conflict, is the challenge for NATO. And we do that partly by making it clear that we support Ukraine, but NATO will not be part of the conflict. We will not send NATO troops into Ukraine. Second, we have, of course, increased our military presence in the Eastern part of the Alliance. Now we have 40,000 troops on the NATO command. We have more naval and air capabilities, especially in the Eastern part of the Alliance. And we have more than 100,000 troops on high alert. This is to send a very clear message to Moscow and leave no room for miscalculation or misunderstanding. An attack on one NATO ally will trigger the full response from the whole Alliance. This is the Terrence. The purpose is not to provoke conflict, but it's to prevent conflict per surface. So this is the way we conduct our dual task. Support Ukraine, of course, also supporting the sanctions on Russia, but then at the same time stepping up the Terrence on the fence to ensure no escalation of the conflict. But, Security General, so when you look at what kind of security arrangements are needed to secure peace in Ukraine, what do those look like in the next six months? Well, I welcome the fact that allies are discussing with Ukraine how to help them ensure their security. I also welcome, of course, that NATO allies and NATO is also providing support. And the strongest way of providing support is actually to do what they're asking for, and that is to deliver weapons. And that's exactly what allies are doing at an unprecedented level. And then the issue of NATO membership is further down the road. The important thing now is to support Ukraine in their heroic fight for their freedom, which is also important for our security. Prime Minister, what do you see as the most important thing in terms of a common defense strategy in Europe right now? Well, I think European countries are waking up from a certain degree of naiveness that we've had the last decades, thinking that full-scale war on the European continent would never come back, and especially not this type of war. And the good thing is that as European countries, we're not alone. I mean, in a moment like this, if you are alone, or you're scared to death, or you're joining NATO, which is what we're seeing with Finland and Sweden these days. So it's good that this is a collective thing. Of course, the collective defensive umbrella is something that we also need to contribute to, and all European countries are scaling up in a gradual way their investment. We in Belgium have decided so a few months ago we will continue in doing so. What is important to me is that if we invest more in defense, is that to me there are three elements which are important. First element is less fragmentation. Today, European defense is incredibly fragmented, which makes it expensive and not very operational. Second element is more industrial return for European industry. Today, that industrial return is way too low. Third element is more societal return. If we do investments in cybersecurity, it should be for our industry and our population. If we invest in intelligence, it should help us. For example, in counterterrorism, if we invest in the well-developed defense, it should also be a way of training part of our population. The last element that I want to put forward is that security is not just defense. We have to have a much more holistic view of this. And why is this holistic view necessary? That's because Vladimir Putin has also a much broader view of destabilizing Europe. He's not only destabilizing Europe just with the war in Ukraine. He's doing it with the war in Ukraine. He's doing it strategically using his energy reserves. He's doing it with disinformation campaigns. He's doing it with refugee flows that he's trying to weaponize through Belarus. I mean, there's so many tracks that he is using to try to destabilize Europe, which means that if we want to stabilize Europe, we also have to have a much broader view than only the defense part. But the defense part is the most urgent one, and it's good to see that European countries are all stepping up. But, President Pindorovsky, if we talk about the defense part, it took years for your country to actually exceed to NATO. What do you make of the fact that we're now trying to accelerate the accession of two member countries? No, being the last entry into the alliance two years now, I know the best, the desires of the Ukrainian people, why they would like to join the alliance. And I would like to forget, speaking about the NATO membership, the membership in the European Union, they have applied for that recently as well, because these are two corridors, so to say, for the better, more secure and prosperous future. We have been waiting for 21 years to become the member of the alliance, since becoming the candidate country for membership in 1999, and we have finally succeeded in 2020. And unfortunately, we're still waiting, speaking about the European Union, 17 years with the status of a candidate country for membership. So we should help Ukraine to persuade other allies, which might be skeptical, I'm not speaking only about our allies in NATO, but in the European Union as well, that both gates of these both organizations should stay open for those people, for this country, because they're not fighting only for their freedom in the first place, of course, but they're fighting, this is the war of one autocracy towards democracy. They are fighting for the democratic values, for all of us. And if Putin somehow succeeds in winning this war, then it's not gonna be only Ukraine. So a few days ago, I have sent a letter to President Zelensky, saying that we are doing everything we can. As a small country, do not forget that North Macedonia is 1.8 million inhabitants. We have a military budget of only 171 million euros, but we are helping Ukraine as much as we can from the military hardware to the diplomatic support throughout the international fora. So I sent to him that we are gonna speak with our partners, both organizations, that gates should stay open. As I said, the open door policy is not, should not apply only for the NATO Alliance, but for the European Union as well. Otherwise, the concept to have the United Europe, to be at peace with itself and with the world, from the Atlantic to the Euro, will be only a dream. Mr. Drollengren, how much money, how much funding do we need actually to secure Europe? And how much, can your country and allies keep on sending to Ukraine in terms of weapons? Well, in terms of weapons, I think yesterday we had a meeting with the Romstein format, so that was 40 plus countries that coordinate their efforts to help Ukraine with the weapons they need. Ukraine is very good at articulating very precisely what is needed, and I think we are now also much better coordinating amongst ourselves in a way that we can actually provide what they need. If we can not do it ourselves as the Netherlands, we can join forces with Germany or with other countries, and by in that way, provide them with really complex, advanced weapons systems that is very much needed in the war itself, but also as the representatives of Ukraine just said also, because Ukraine now has to sort of backfill their own military equipment, because they also used old Soviet Russian equipment, they can of course not replace it by Russian equipment, so they have to get stuff from our countries also to build on their military infrastructure, so that's really costly. And at the same time, we're also increasing in the Netherlands and other countries our own defense budgets, of course, because we have to be stronger on the eastern flank of the Alliance, we really want to step up our efforts to be ready also for the future. But one warning, I mean, if we all are going to spend more, but going to spend it separately, then only the costs are going to go up, and then we will not increase our own security, so we really have to work on that, we have to coordinate better, we have to find ways for standardization, for interoperability of our systems, and for joint procurements in ways that countries are already experimenting with now, the Netherlands with Belgium, for instance, but we have to step it up, because otherwise we will keep fragmented armies in national countries instead of a very strong NATO army and also European defense that can step up when necessary in Europe. Prime Minister, what happens if the war lasts years? Well, then, first of all, I hope not, of course, but if it lasts years, we'll continue support for years. I mean, we have to be very clear on this, we're supporting Ukraine and this, and we will continue supporting what is necessary, what equipment talked about with information as well, because in a war situation like this, information intelligence, of course, is extremely important, and we, as European countries, will continue improving the equipment that we have, and I think indeed, as Kasha said, I think it's important that we do it in an intelligent way, in a planned way, less fragmentation, as I said. This is about how much we invest and how much is important, but how we do it is equally important, and if I see in some of the investment plans of some European countries, which are very aggressive investment plans, let's coordinate, let's really sit together and let's see who is doing what, what are we buying, how can we standardize? I mean, what we need to do as a European Union is to do a gap analysis ourselves, and to see, okay, what weapon systems do we need, how do we develop them together? Together with the Netherlands, we do this for naval efforts, we develop together the battleships that we need. It's good that Belgium and Netherlands is doing it, but honestly, we should be doing this together with many, many countries. This is not just ramping up investment because of Ukraine war. This is a long-term effort that we are putting forward for the next decades. If we do it for the next decades, let's please do it in a coordinated way so that we become more efficient, because, I mean, if you look at the total defense budget of European countries and compare it to Russia, actually, our budget is much higher, but it's much too fragmented if you compare it to the way Russia is organized today. Mr. President, then I want to ask you. Only one sentence plus. Of course, I wouldn't like to criticize my friends because we are in the part of the same alliance, but please, that joint procurement system, which has a big flaws from times to times and weaknesses, should be improved in the future. In my view, that should be the task, main task of all of us, to coordinate to have the better procurement system, but in the years to come. Now, give the Ukrainians on the bilateral basis, whatever they want, because this is a critical period of the war. In my view, then, following what the NATO experts and all of the military security experts would say are saying to us, in this period of the time, it's probably very decisive period for the rest of the war, whatever it might last. So, this is very important. Give them now, on the bilateral basis, we are giving them, of course, everything they want, but give them more, and these questions, these coordination among joint procurement systems, that's hot topic always, being for years and years within the alliance, not to waste time and resources and to have duplicity in that process, but now it's critically important to help Ukrainians today, not tomorrow. Yeah, so this is a kind of timeline. I just want to spend a couple of minutes with Secretary General, because I know you spoke to the President of Turkey over the weekends, over his concerns about Sweden and Finland, actually accessing NATO. What does he want in return? Well, in my conversation with President Dalluan, he expressed many of the same concerns that he has expressed publicly, and that's about terrorism, it's about their concerns about the PKK, and also, of course, the need for Turkey to be able to acquire the weapons, the beam that they need. But let me start by saying that the fact that Finland and Sweden applies for NATO membership, that is historic. Very few people, if anyone expected that as late as the beginning of February, and now they are implying. And that demonstrates a very important thing, and that is that when President Putin tried to close the door to NATO, then actually Finland and Sweden decide to move in. Because as late as in December this year, President Putin proposed a legally binding treaty for NATO, which actually was going to re-establish spheres of influence, where big powers like Russia could decide what smaller neighbors could do or not do. Because in that treaty, it was stated clearly that there was no more NATO enlargement whatsoever. NATO had to withdraw all its troops from those allies that had joined after the end of the Cold War, introducing NATO A and B membership, first and second class membership. And then of course, he wanted less NATO military presence on his borders. He's getting the opposite. He's getting more NATO presence on his borders, more troops, more forces. And then there will be more NATO members. And I think that's a very strong answer to a President that really tries to reshape the European security architecture by using force and intimidation. And the response is, no, we will not bow to that. Then of course, as when there are concerns, as expressed by Turkey, we sit down. As we always do when there are differences in NATO, and then we find a way out. I cannot tell you exactly how and when, but be confident, we're working on the issue. And we have solved the problems before in this alliance. All of us, also Turkey, agree that NATO enlargement has been a great success, helped to stabilize Europe. And we also realise how Finnish and Swedish membership will strengthen NATO, will strengthen the transatlantic bond and also not least be of great importance for the Baltic region. So I'm confident that we will address those issues. Quickly, you have been confident in the past that actually this can be resolved quite quickly. But if you look at some of the weapon expert controls, they cannot be lifted overnight. No, but I still hope and work for a quick solution. But let me also add that I think a part of this solution is also to recognise that despite the fact that there are different views within NATO and among NATO allies on issues related to Turkey, we also have to recognise that Turkey is an important ally. Turkey is the ally that has suffered the most terrorist attacks, far more than any other NATO ally country. And Turkey is key just because of its geographic, strategic location bordering Iraq and Syria, the fight against ISIS has been totally dependent on using facilities in Turkey. And of course, when you look at the war in Ukraine, the Black Sea, you realise the importance of Turkey. So I'm not saying that there are not these differences within the alliance on issues related to Turkey, on the freedom of press and other things, but I'm only saying that we need to understand that the reason why we need to solve this issue, the concerns that Turkey has put forward is that Turkey matters for the whole alliance. And therefore we are working hard on this. Yeah, look, I think the question that is at hand here is do we believe Europe will be more secured if Sweden and Finland join NATO? I think yes. There's absolutely no doubt about that. OK, so Europe will be more secure when both of them join. That's the main goal. And let's talk with Turkey and let's solve the issues that they have, but we as 30 countries and now 32, the main goal we have is stabilising Europe and we will be better off 32 than 30. So I honestly would be very surprised that things would be put on the table which are unsolvable, knowing what the goal is that we have in front of us. Minister, you agree with that? Absolutely. I think NATO will be stronger with Finland and Sweden in. I think they were already partner countries, member of the European Union. We have military cooperation with these countries, also with the northern part of Europe in the Joint Expeditionary Force. And as the Secretary-General says, of course there can always be issues and issues must be raised. There is room for talking about specific issues that countries have. But in the light of the situation that we're in now, I think we have to have the confidence that Secretary-General and others will be able to solve this issue. If we're talking, I mean, have they asked you to actually lift some of the exports, bands on weapons? Is it something that your country would need to do? We also, we have bilateral talks with Turkey on a very regular basis. I think these talks are good. We take each other seriously, and we try to find solutions that are acceptable. Just a few technical elements, because we have been, as I said, last entry and Secretary-General knows the best that procedure, but without the political agreement and full consensus among all of 30 members of the alliance, there is no way forward. If that political disputes between Sweden and Finland and Turkey on the other side is resolved today, hopefully, as soon as possible. But let's say today, this procedure for ratification of that protocol should go into all of these 30 parliaments of the nation states. In our case, it took 20 months. But a half of that time was during the pandemic. But I cannot remember that anybody has entered the alliance without having the political disputes prior to that moment, quicker than 12 months, only for the ratification process in all of the parliaments of the member states. Prime Minister, what can Europe actually do to not double up on NATO, but also secure as European Union? I mean, also given the fact that the funds are limited, we've just gone through COVID. There's been a lot of fiscal spending and debt is mounting. That's true, I mean, a lot of things have changed for the fact that population looks much more towards the public or public service or government in solving all the big things we're confronted with. First of all, I'm not doubling up. I know that there's this discussion if Europe has a stronger integration from a defense perspective, is that to the detriment of NATO, not at all, not at all. I think NATO will be way stronger if we as European countries pull our weight. And NATO will be more stable with two stable legs, which is one North American one and one European one. Honestly, I'm not afraid of that at all. What is important is that if we do these military investments, is that the return of those investments is as high as possible. As I said before, industrial and economic return should be way higher. Societal return should be way higher with also components in basically also dealing with climate change. I mean, we will be confronted with the impacts of climate change in the years to come in a much more drastic way. Actually, some of the defensive investments could help with this. And yes, the pandemic has shown us that the bar is being put much higher on the expectations that the public has and we have to invest in climate change. Okay, how I see it as a government leader is the bar is being put higher, which means that we have to be on the top of our toes and it's that moment of crisis that we move forward. It's this moment of crisis that as a European Union, we take steps forward. And honestly, what I see now is that as European Union, we used to move forward because we had some visionary leaders with great ideas and they pulled the European public forward. Now this has changed. It's actually the European public that looks at us and that says, please, for those big challenges, we know that the nation state on its own cannot do it. Please do it as European Union. Healthcare was not exactly European competence. Energy isn't really as well. And defense isn't really either. The public demands from us more integration. And yes, so there's more demands of how much we should do, but if we do it as an integrated way, we can do it in a more efficient way and we can do more. The minister and then I have many questions for you, Secretary General, also from the audience. So I'll get to that in a second. Just briefly, I think, yes, we are increasing our budgets for defense and that is also, you have to prioritize. You cannot do everything at the same time. But I think it's not only about defense. It's not only about having military at our borders. It's also about our freedom. It's about rule of law. It's about democracy. It's what we all stand for. So that's why I think we all feel it's important to do it, but to do it in a smart way, as Prime Minister of Belgium has just stated. And I think also you have to look at the future. So at the same time, with climate change, with the importance of having a well-educated population in our countries, these are the choices that you have to make. And sometimes it means raising taxes, being smart because we also have our budgetary rules and they apply to all of us in the European Union, at least. Thank you. I have many questions for the Secretary General. So we'll start off a bit rapid fire. This one is, is it time now for naval coalition of NATO states to secure a free and open black sea by escorting vessels from Odessa to supply grain to the Global South? It's first and foremost time for President Putin to lift the blockade of Odessa and other Ukrainian ports to allow a grain to be exported out of Ukraine, because this is really his responsibility. The war is causing the food shortage and the increasing prices. It's not NATO or EU sanctions. It's actually the direct consequence of the war and the Russian blockade. Then I welcome efforts by EU, by NATO member states and others to try to find a way to get more grain out of Ukraine, by rail on land, and also the efforts that are addressing is it possible to get it out on ships? That is a difficult task. It's not an easy way forward. The best and easiest way is to end the war, to drop the blockade and let the food go out. Let me add one more thing. And this is a war in Ukraine that affects the whole of Europe, but it has global consequences. The increasing energy prices, energy and food prices affects everyone and the poorest people of the world. It just makes the whole war, the Russian invasion, even more senseless. Another question for you. Is the best way to prevent a NATO-Russia war to ensure Russia is defeated, or is it to ensure that Russia has an off-ramp? So diplomatic negotiations or are we beyond that? I think the best way to prevent this from escalating, again, it's for Putin to stop the war. If that's not the case, then the best way to act is for us to be very firm. To make it absolutely sure that there is no room to believe that he can attack any NATO-allowed country without the full response from the alliance. Because as long as that's clear, there will be no attack. Because NATO is by far the strongest military alliance in the world, 50% of the world's military might and 50% of the world's economic might. So NATO solidarity and also demonstrated by increased presence. The reason why we have now roughly 30,000 more US troops in Europe over the last three months is to demonstrate exactly that NATO solidarity. So that will not win the war in Ukraine, but that will prevent it from escalating into NATO territory. Then we need to support Ukraine to help them reach a result on the battlefield that makes it possible for them to agree on the negotiating table. This war will most likely end at the negotiating table. The question is how and when. And therefore we know that for Ukraine to reach an acceptable result at the negotiating table, they need to be strong at the battlefield. And that's the reason why it's not either support the military or be in favor of a negotiated solution. A negotiated solution which is possible to accept for Ukraine will only be achieved if they have strong military position on the battlefield. President, maybe this one is for you, the former UK Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Hague of the UK. Wrote in The Times today that Putin may attempt to divide NATO by calling ceasefire that Ukraine cannot agree to. Would NATO remain alive? Do you want to take, yeah? No, I agree fully with that. But up to now we are not showing any signs in the little one that we are divided. This was, as Secretary General knows the best, we have shown the unprecedented unity, not in recent times, in NATO history probably. But I would like to send a message to everybody speaking about this subject these days. What is at stake in Ukraine? First of all, defending the Ukrainian territory, defending the Ukrainian children and whole people. But we should help, first of all, Ukrainians to defend themselves, but we should send the message to all the prospective autocrats that democracy will always prevail over dictatorships. And that we would like to live in the democratic world. Minister? Well, I can only agree, of course, with that. But it could be much more of a challenge than we're talking about here, if this drags on again for years. Yes, it's very difficult to predict this, of course. None of us know exactly what is going to happen, but it's one of the scenarios that we have to take very seriously, is that this can go on for years. And I think it's very important to point out that it is for Ukraine to decide whether a ceasefire or even a peace is acceptable, if the terms are acceptable. And I also agree, until then, we must do everything we can to support Ukraine with weapons, with training, with our partnership that we can give them. And one thing I'd like to mention, because it's what's also important, is every day the price for Putin and for the Kremlin is going up, the sanctions are hurting them. And we have to push that even further, I think. And to make them pay for this war in every way that we can. And that also helps Ukraine, of course. It's the other side, the more economical side, but it's very important. Prime Minister? Yeah, actually, I think you just said it. Don't forget the sanctions and the impact of the sanctions. It's a thorough impact. The six packages there, it's going to go much, much further. And then besides the sanctions, all European countries are making irreversible choices related to energy supply. And the impact of that takes time. But in the years to come, this is going to have a profound impact on the exchange with Russia. And it's really hurting the Russian financial capability to continue financing this war. Don't underestimate, besides the packages, what we are doing in energy and all European countries are making choices which are not going to be turned back. I think one of the lessons we have learned during this crisis is that long-term security interests are more important than short-term economic interests. To be too dependent on Russian gas is dangerous. That's the brutal reality. It has a price to win off Russian gas but we have to do it. And therefore, I support free trade. I believe in a more globalized economy but when we need to choose between protecting our values or profits, we need to choose protecting our values. If we need to choose between long-term security interests and economic gains, then, of course, again, we need to choose economic interest. This is about energy. It's about technology. And it's about also controlling critical infrastructure in Europe. So this is a hard lesson learned. It has a price. But I think that's quite obvious in light of what we have seen over the last weeks after the invasion of Ukraine. We're almost out of time. So I'm going to ask you each for about 30 seconds, actually, to give one or two priorities for what we need to do to achieve peace and security. Mr. Yermak, let me start off with you. You're still there joining us from Kyiv. I'm sorry. Can you repeat your question, please? The question is in the very short term, apart from the weapons and the support, what do we need to make sure that there's peace and security in this region in the longer term? Thank you for your questions. First of all, I'd like to say that I very tend to release in all your comments of colleagues. Thank you for your attention. And thank you for your support, Ukraine, in this war. It's very important to understand that this war is continuing. And every day, Ukraine continue fighting, but we continue lost our people. And of course, as soon as possible, we need to receive all necessary weapons. Because I'd like to say that as long this war is continuing, it's starting to be more higher the risk that some in other countries, especially which have the borders with Russia, will be involved. And in this country, it is country as the members of the NATO. It's mean that if we receive everything, which absolutely you say that in all capitals in our friends and our partners exactly know that we need, we will win. We stop this war in central of the Europe. As we are talking for the long perspective, I explain in my speech that we are proposed and we are now in the consultation of the, first of all, of the security of the guarantees for Ukraine. But we think that after this war, we can't say about strong system of the security in the Europe. It's necessary to build this system. Because till this war, it's continuing. Not any countries in Europe can feel safe. And we are a lot of times talking about it. A lot of conversation was before this war. But it's happened. Most bad things happened. Happened in the center of the Europe. It's mean that it's time to thinking together and to build new strong system, which will be protect any potential aggression, any potential violation of the international law, violation of the territorial integrity of the European countries. Thank you so much, sir. In 20 seconds, President Pinarovsky, how do we achieve peace and security? In 20 seconds, some people are naming this period of the time as a second Cold War. What is important, let's agree with that, but what is important to remember, what is the main difference? The previous Cold War was about ideology. This is not anymore the battle between communism and capitalism. We are speaking here, it's clear at least to me, that this is the battle between democracy, democracy throughout the world, and autocratic leaders. And I'm not even there to think, to imagine the world, if we are pressed to live in a world where the autocracy rules. It's gonna be the most dangerous place to live, and certainly not the prosperous place the next generation would like to take part. Thank you, minister. I think from the beginning, we've said unity is our strongest weapon, so we have to stay united. If we stay united, I'm confident we can keep on helping Ukraine with the weapons, humanitarian aid, financial aid, everything they need. And the second thing I'd like to say, I think this has been a wake-up call for the European Union in a geopolitical sense, and I think we have to use that momentum to build on a stronger European defence within NATO and within the European Union. Secretary General? Well, my main message is that the Ukrainian war has reminded us of the importance of North America and Europe standing together. I don't believe in America alone, and I don't believe in Europe alone, but I believe in North American Europe together, and NATO is the institutionalised expression of that unity. Two world wars and the Cold War thought us that we are not safe when we are divided, we are safe when we stand together. I'm sure. Ensure the support of our domestic population. I think we are in for a somewhat longer period of instability, which means that we need to make sure that our North American European populations are supporting us, which means that we need to protect them for the impact of what is happening. If we don't protect them well, we might lose domestic support and it might become much harder. Thank you so much for this important conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.