 So much to talk about in these 80 minutes that we have, Mr. Saddam, Mr. Al-Sabi, to kick us off. Afghanistan is a region of importance to the West, but also here in this region quite clearly a number of countries are involved, have been involved in the dealings and the on-going in Afghanistan. Could you perhaps for a couple of minutes, and then of course we dive into more detail in a couple of minutes, tell us where you see things in Afghanistan at the current moment? Thank you, Ali. I think you're right. Afghanistan is still a very important regional position. After what happened in last August, we all realized that there is a big shift in the political and also the security situation in West Asia. UAE have many relationships that are, you know, commercials, and I'm speaking from an official point of view, commercial and also security. We have also security concerns, but also we need to think that Afghanistan has already been in decades of unstable, instability, terrorism, poverty. So I think now most of us and also the international community, we need to assist Afghanistan to come back and find ways for their people because they deserve a better life. Thank you so much for your initial remarks from the view from the UAE, so to speak. We will of course come back to you in just a moment to go into more detail and ask what role the UAE can and ought to play in the region. But let me go to Jim Biderman here first. Jim, you are an American based in Paris for many decades with a lack of Americans on this panel. I won't ask you to put on the Washington hat here, but of course America's role is extremely important here. Give us a sense in the first couple of minutes. Well, just to contradict a little bit, one of my fellow Americans, Stu Eisenstadt, who was just on the previous panel, and basically was saying that Afghanistan did not signal the end of isolationism in the United States. I think it is kind of a neo-isolationism that we're seeing right now with the United States. The withdrawal from Afghanistan basically is a signal, I think, that the U.S. is not going to fight any further. Regional conflicts that don't make a big difference to their strategic ambitions, whatever the strategic policy is for the United States, strategic interests, those are the things that are going to take the priority and it will be things like China and other things. But the idea that we're going to become involved in regional conflicts, it looks like to me anyway that it's no longer the case. Absolutely. An America's role here more than pertinent throughout 20 years. This has been America's longest-running war for two decades. And all the questions that come with it, of course, what does it mean for the future standing reputation, perhaps, of the U.S. moving forward? I'll come back to you in just a moment. But let me go to Renaud here, who's a very prestigious war correspondent, senior reporter, who's been to Afghanistan more than a dozen times. You've written a book, Return to Pasha, you've experienced the Mujahideen, you've experienced the Taliban, and now you see a return of the Taliban. Renaud, for the first couple of minutes, how surprised are you that things are the way they are in Afghanistan at the current moment? I think it's a very important moment, indeed, in the history of international relations, because it's the death, I would say, of American neoconservatism in conditions that we didn't even expect. People in our generations believed that the Americans were going to redo the coup of Saigon in 1975, but it didn't bother them. They did it again without any need, because it was very easy to keep the air base of Bagram and to continue the discussion with the Taliban, with a carrot and a stick, and to obtain a unified government in Afghanistan, which obviously wasn't announced by the Taliban. I think what we need to understand in all this history is that there were two wars in Afghanistan. The first war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001, with the intervention of the missiles that were fired against Kabul. And it ended with a brilliant intervention of the CIA, close to the Alliance of North, with Kabul, which falls on November 13, 2001. So it was a very big success, and the Taliban withdrew from all the Afghan cities and were going to be refugees in the tribal areas of Pakistan. And then this success, this liberation of Kabul, what we call the Liberation of Kabul, the alliance of Kabul when the Alliance of North arrived, it was the images on all the television channels, caused an American Everest, which was found in the conference of Bonn on December 5, 2001, where the Americans decided, in fact, a second intervention, which was a national building intervention, where they promised to rebuild Afghanistan, to democratize Afghanistan, I mean democratize Afghanistan, and to develop the Afghanistan economically. They were not obliged to do that, it made them think of the civilizational mission of the colonization of Jules Ferry. It is an absolutely incredible project, but they took this commitment and Joe Biden accepted this intervention and he even went to Kabul to support this grand project, to democratize and develop Afghanistan. The Americans could have been very happy about the First War, where they destroyed all the Arab-internationalist elements that were found in Afghanistan and all the cells of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. They made this choice of national building, of an intervention war in Afghanistan and they gave the task, I don't know, to rebuild Afghanistan to soldiers. And this is the incredible mistake that America made, to give to soldiers to do the provincial reconstruction teams and to understand that the Afghan citizen did not appreciate having foreign men in arms. And after the failure that was already signed at that time. Because you wrote a book on the war on terror where Afghanistan, of course, is prominently featured. 20 years later, 20 years after the fatal attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Americans go in. 20 years later, the hastened withdrawal as Renault put it, with Vietnam-like photos. And here we are, your opinions. Yeah, you're right, Ali. I mean, what we witnessed this summer was not just the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. It's actually the end of a strategic cycle, a strategic cycle that started 20 years ago with 9-11. And actually it ended in a failure, a dramatic failure. So I agree with Renault Girard's comment. It's a very important event that we attended this summer. Actually the objective of this war on terror was defined by George W. Bush at the time and there were three goals. The first one was to eradicate al-Qaeda and it was not done. Actually al-Qaeda still exists. It's in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda central, but also al-Qaeda in the Asian subcontinent. The second objective was to get rid of all terrorist groups of global reach. That's a pretty blurred expression. And the fact is that 20 years ago ISIS did not exist. But now we not only have al-Qaeda, but we also have ISIS, which obviously is a terrorist group of global reach. And then the third objective was to neutralize or to eradicate the actors, whether groups or states that hosted international terrorist groups. And obviously here we're speaking about the Taliban. And not only were the Taliban not defeated, but they're now in power in Kabul. So obviously that's a major failure for the US, but also for the US allies who were very much involved in Afghanistan and France was part of the game. Yeah, so the war on terror that the US and the West in form of NATO has conducted for the previous two decades. Now with the swift return of the Taliban and al-Qaeda most probably you can argue whether it was a success or not. I think that we will go into more detail. But Tatiana, let me come to you here because before we talk about the United States here and rightly so of course, because this has been America's longest running war, but before the Americans the Russians were there. And I'm sure they have a thing or two to say about the current situation they can draw from personal experiences. Absolutely. If I had to sum up today the Russian attitude towards Afghanistan and the Taliban, I would say that there is a certain duality. Mr. Vitaly Naum who had mentioned that the Taliban is part of the list of terrorist organizations forbidden in Russia, which gives place to formulations by the Russian intelligence official agencies such as the Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov to express his support to the Taliban, among other things, to the terrorist organizations forbidden in the Russian Federation, for his support in the fight against the Islamic State. And this duality, we actually find it in the attitude towards the Taliban because on the one hand there is an extremely heavy baggage, the memory of the war of the 10 years in Afghanistan that has marked as many elites as the Russian societies. And Vladimir Putin in September said that Russia will not intervene militarily in Afghanistan. He said, we have done this experience, we are going to pull the trigger. And at the same time, since 2014, Russia speaks to the Taliban. We can enter a little into the details of how and why, but according to the Taliban sources this year, Russia is part of the first three supports in financial matters, in terms of arms sales to the Taliban. It is in a very pragmatic approach to speak to all the forces, etc. And I also think that there is an important point to understand, which is that for the Russians today, the main enemy is the Islamic State. So they see the Taliban a little like allies in this fight between the two words and choose the least. And this duality there, we also find it in the eyes of the Americans of Afghanistan. On the one hand, it is considered as a kind of geopolitical opportunity, and that when we see the first reactions in the media, in the TV shows, etc. it is a kind of satisfaction, the Americans have not done better than us and it leaves us with the place and the way of maneuvering today to do better. It will attract other countries towards us as suppliers of more credible security. And at the same time, you have the strength of security and teaching, which are extremely concerned with the security risks that it can generate. Yes, so very interesting, a bit of a mixed, if not schizophrenic feeling in Moscow about the events in Afghanistan. On one hand, perhaps a dose of glee, if not charred and Freud about the failure of the Western NATO in particular, but on the other hand, of course, security concerns very much on their own. And when it comes to security concerns, MK Narayanan, we're not far from India, of course, Afghanistan very much in the geopolitical proximity of your country and with the pertinent and crucial role that Pakistan, your neighbor, is playing in Afghanistan. I'm sure Afghanistan, a country that you know well, has been very much on the radar. What's the view in New Delhi? What's it new from New Delhi these days? Apart from the view of New Delhi, I think there's a view of all Indians. First and foremost, we're looking around the panel here. I'm the only one who sees this as a South Asian tragedy. It's mostly others are out, I'm sorry to use the word, are outsiders. The Russians came in at one stage and of course went back without, the Americans came, hoped to create democracy and kind of thing and they've gone back. And who are left to pick up the pieces? The nations of South Asia. Afghanistan is part and parcel of South Asia. What happens in South Asia is therefore a matter of great concern for each and every South Asian country. And that's the largest country in South Asia. And more so with civilizational links with Afghanistan, which goes back many thousands of years. For us, the Afghanistan tragedy is felt in every single home in India, apart from the government's involved. Because most of us, particularly my generation, the Pathan was the most friendly soul in the Indian neighborhood. He was a very generous individual who looked at it. So the tragedies that have fallen on Afghanistan over the years has been a matter of great deep concern for most Indians. So the first and foremost thing is the lesson that I think we need to use, which is a lesson which I heard a number of other speakers speak when they talk of the Middle East and other places. Please take into view the opinions of the nations of the region and please don't impose solution on them. And if you do impose a solution, don't do what happened in the American region. They just left. You must have an organized retreat. You can't leave a country in shambles. So we have a nation tragedy of certain. We have a greater South Asian tragedy. And I think that is the issue that we need to, because we have to now link up and find out what do we do next. And since you've given us me only a couple of minutes to begin with, I just want to add one more point. The last two days you've heard about the problems in the rest of the world, or many parts of the world at least. I think nothing symbolizes this more than the shambolic nature of what Afghanistan is today. There is clearly what I would call a crisis of confidence in how to manage problems and difficulties. Whether the Taliban now that it has taken power in Afghanistan will be able to govern Afghanistan or not is still a matter of eye for one. Do not believe that the Taliban is capable of governing Afghanistan because Afghanistan is not one country. Afghanistan is a construct of several Pashtun tribes. They've never had a central authority. They've never been a single focal point. And if President Bush, whom I dealt with extensively and I'm greatly revered, thought that he could impose democracy in Afghanistan with all the CIA or the State Department, I think it was the biggest folly that anybody could have thought of. So I think we need to remedy this kind of thing. How will we move forward is the issue. But I leave it since you don't want me to go into everything in the beginning. I will leave it at this point. And I just want to add one more point. Tatiana mentioned this, I think, that what is the result of foreign intervention? Sorry, not that. It was Vitali who said that. Two decades of foreign intervention. None of the objectives. I can at least understand if something was left behind. When Hamid Karzai was there, at least we had something like a democratic administration somewhere. The primary objective, as Vitali explained, is the expert on terror. In books, I'm on the terror on the ground, having said that. Destruction of the terror networks like Al-Qaeda. Clearly not happened. The Al-Qaeda is stronger today than what it was, I would like to say. Right. And I speak with Vitali. Then we have a lot of newer outfits that Daesh has come into existence. The Islamic State, the ISISK. So this has been a great tragedy that has been visited on the people of South Asia. I'll leave it at that and I will talk to you. Thank you. Absolutely. Many more points to be raised throughout this discussion for sure. Your country's perspective and your experience is extremely pertinent to this discussion. Thank you so much.