 Good afternoon. We are privileged and honored today to welcome to the United States Institute of Peace, former President of Estonia, her Excellency, Kersti Kallulade. My name is Lisa Grande and I am the head of USIP, which was founded by Congress in 1984 as a national nonpartisan institute dedicated to helping prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflict abroad. Since February, the world has witnessed an assault on the sovereignty and people of Ukraine. Russia, a founding member of the United Nations and permanent member of the UN Security Council, has launched a war of aggression under false pretenses at the expense of the system of global peace and security that it itself helped to establish more than 70 years ago. The attack has created a fundamental shift in European, transatlantic, and global security. As we enter a new era of instability around the globe, all of us are looking to experience leaders and institutions to bolster peace and security efforts around the world. As we're storing its independence in 1991, Estonia has been a leader in fostering strong transatlantic cooperation and guaranteeing European security. As a member of both the European Union and NATO since 2004, the country has been at the forefront of efforts to address emerging security challenges. President Kallilade was elected president in 2016, having previously served as a member of the European Court of Auditors. She was the first woman to be elected president, and under her leadership, Estonia played a leading role in European and global security. We welcome everyone to this important discussion and invite people who are watching to join the conversation by asking questions through the event page on the institute's web page or by engaging on social media using the hashtag Kallilade USIP. Madam President, we are honored to have you with us today. We invite you to the floor. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to talk to you here in the Institute of Peace at this time of war. War in Europe, war between the free world and the other world, world of tyranny. Make no mistake of that, this war is about freedom. It is the war started by those people who do not even believe of the free will of the people to live as the UN Charter of Human Rights has promised all people should live. It was started by a regime who, as you already said, promised, but did not respect its own promises to not force the borders of any independent nation or limit the freedom of choice of any nation in its quest for peace, prosperity and partnerships. Who went as far as to promise specifically and in the spirit of Helsinki agreements by Budapest memorandum, security to a country it is now destroying. Aggression in Ukraine is therefore not only a war against Ukraine. It was started in defiance of every aspect of international rules-based world order. It is the war, therefore, against such an order. It was started to stop Ukraine being part of the strongest democratic partnerships ever built, the European Union and NATO, and it didn't start in February. It started in 2014 when Ukrainian people demonstrated under the flags of EU on Mayden. It is the war fought to break that will then demonstrated by the people of Ukraine. And yet, it is the war put in unleashed because he miscalculated. He went to the war confident that Ukrainian people do not care that much about who their rulers are to put up a fight. A fight for the survival of their dreams. Yes, Putin has never understood that the will of the people really exists. That the will of the people in democratic nations is such that you cannot break it with showing readiness to dissuade them from their chosen path even with military aggression. Every time people in neighboring countries to Putin's regime manifest their willingness to be part of the free and democratic world, he deems this simply Western influence, Western willingness to enlarge our sphere of influence. The man has never understood that people are drawn to such a way of governance, drawn strongly enough to defy all the risks on the way. Being Estonia, I know how difficult and dangerous is the route to first, freedom, and second, to the alliances and unions which help to protect this freedom. There is no such thing like free world expanding its sphere of influence. The free world simply has so strong pull that nations are ready to take high risks or fight for the right to belong. And yet, while Putin does not even believe that free people have their own will and that they are not to be made pawns in the chess game of antagonistic worldviews, he is out to break that will. The Orwellian world of killing people for exercising their right to decide their own future, while not even believing, people have the ability to figure out what their dreams are by democratic process. That is what Putin's worldview truly is. That is what his fatal miscalculation is. And unfortunately, not only his. I have heard skeptical voices before February 24th from our side, too. Will they fight? Yes, they do. Why they fight? Because we failed. We failed to see Georgia in war, 2008, for what it was. We failed to see Crimea on occupation for what it was. Yes, Ukrainians could have done better at reforming their country, building independent institutions, and generating level playing field for business development. Indeed, lack of reform might well be the reason why Ukraine could not join European Union and NATO at the end of the last or beginning of this century. Lack of reform. But the people of Ukraine made clear in 2014, on my down, where they think their country should be going. How long will they fight? Until they have re-established their right to decide the future of their country, whole and free. Until, also, they have won. But they can do it only with our support. We have to provide them with all necessary equipment to keep going. Also, I think their will to fight lasts as long as we give them hope that one day Ukraine can be part of the democratic alliances they are fighting to join. But even more importantly, fighting also to sustain. Because they are fighting for our freedom too. Yes, they are. Because if the aggression in Ukraine can, in any distant or not so distant future, be considered as a step worth taking, there will be next steps. No autocrat will respect the will of the free and democratic world to defend itself if we lose this one. If Ukraine loses, we all would have lost. Is our support to Ukraine, therefore, simply an act of self-protection? For many among us, yes. Even for those among us who think they are two or three countries removed from Russia, it is still self-protection. But even if it were not, and even if we know that Russia is not going to attack any NATO member state, they simply cannot do it. No power enough for fear of us. Even in these conditions, we should do all it takes to help Ukrainians to win this war. Because it simply should be our honor. Because people sincerely believing in value of democratic freedom should always support the other people who want it for themselves too. Article 5 of NATO is not about self-preservation of all NATO members. It is not only about the security guarantee which holds if we make sure it is never tried, tested and found lacking in any member state. It is also about doing the decent thing. And the such supporting Ukraine is also doing the decent thing. Not much is demanded from us actually today. Military support, resources to keep going and a promise to keep up fighting morale. A promise that at least EU one day will take in Ukraine and help its people to sustain democracy, build the rule of law and achieve long lasting peace and prosperity. The war will end one day. And it will end when Ukrainian people have achieved what they are fighting for. The right to decide their future alliances themselves. Where will Ukrainian borders be then? I will not speculate. Where will Russian regime be by that time? I will also not speculate. In the perfect world, of course, Ukrainian win will topple Russian regime and all will live happily ever after. But we are not living in a fairy tale. When Ukrainian people stop and negotiate, or are forced to stop and negotiate, the war Ukrainians are fighting for the whole free world might not be over. Most likely it will not be. Will we then put freedom ahead of air conditioning or heating the houses in Europe? That is what I am most afraid of. We cannot hope Ukraine alone will fight this fight between the free world and totalitarianism to the end. They will probably stop having given themselves a right to continue as an independent state and thus the time to prepare for the future acts of this war. And then the ball is in our hands. And this is my worry. Do we realize it is? And do we realize what is at stake? Or will we fall back into our old ways of discussing appeasement, painting put in out of corner, finding excuses to continue with doing business and removing sanctions? I am a mother of three sons already or soon at the age to serve if necessary. I am looking at the future through the eyes of the Ukrainian mothers or the sons serving today. And I know that mine would have to do the same one day if we are weak. If we do not recognize that the war must continue with economic means, making sure the democracies of this world stop enriching menacing autocracies of this world. It is my obligation to stand here to say to you, once cannons are quiet, it gets tougher for the politicians of the free world. But we must explain to our electorates that the fight must continue. Sanctions must stay in place. It is long-term painful. It will demand a lot of strategic patience. But we have to be through it, not knowing when we finally are through with it. Because dictatorships must learn by seeing we are able to be patient, accept economic pain and stick together for the free world, even through considerable hardships. Because if we fail, the worst is to come. Where from? Russia or elsewhere is actually irrelevant. All autocrats are watching how Ukrainian people are buying us time. They will watch how we will use this time, too. How we will use this time. This will decide whether my free sons will have to serve the way Ukrainian boys are now serving to defend the future of my four totaling grandchildren. How many times? We must buy time with blood until we recognize we have to remain strong, also when there are interruptions in hostilities. We aren't borrowed time, at least from 2008, Georgia and war. Somebody else is sending their sons to die now. Already a third time in this short time span, 2008-14 now. Will we finally do something meaningful with this bought time? Or will we remain in such a horrible cycle? It is for us, the politicians of the free world, to decide. President Biden has said there will have to be a long-term position on sanctions. Prime Minister Draghi has said the choice is indeed peace or air conditioning. Welcome frankness, starting to define our resolve. And we need more of that resolve. When this phase of the war is over, let's do our part. When military track has ended, economic track of this war must be sustained for the free and democratic world. It is all that clear and simple, this future of European security and transatlantic cooperation you asked me today to speak about. How on earth can we go wrong? Yet I know we are more at the risk of going wrong than getting it right. Prove me wrong, please. I sincerely hope. How on earth can we go wrong on this free world's peace and security? Thank you for listening. Madam President, thank you for an important and riveting speech. We've put together a series of questions that we hope you will allow us to ask you. And we've had a number of colleagues who are joining us online that have already sent in their questions, which we'll also, again, with your permission, be sharing with you. The first set of questions that we have relate to a theme that you were developing throughout your speech. And it's about the impact of Russia's invasion in Ukraine on peace and security throughout Europe, indeed throughout the globe. We hope you will start by reflecting with us on the impact on your country on Estonia. Yes, the impact on Estonia is profound both, I mean, economically, considering the security ordination, which, by the way, is not going necessarily in the bad direction because new members might join NATO. And while, of course, we leave this decision totally to Finnish and Swedish people and their politicians, we know that this would change the security situation of the Baltic states if there will be new members joining NATO. Economically, we've noticed that the courage to invest into our region is lower than it used to be. And interestingly, Tallinn is as far from Kiev as Berlin is yet to still consider more somehow at risk. So, please change your checklists again. NATO has never failed to defend its member states. Actually, it's never had to defend it. Deterrence has always held 100 percent no failure in NATO's history. And NATO is doing a lot since 2014 to make sure its deterrence is adequate and the reading of it will be correct. But the biggest impact on Estonia is coming from Ukrainian people now in Estonia. Ukrainian people were working in Estonia in tens of thousands before the war. So, we are one of these natural places, similarly to Poland and Spain and where Ukrainians have been working. Where many people come to seek refuge from the war. We right now have about 3 percent of our population added by refugees. And we do expect that it might rise to as high as 10 percent. It's easy to happen because we are a nation of 1.3 million. So, as soon as we have 130,000 Ukrainian refugees four times more than we have today, but we do expect the numbers to rise from the current levels. It will be a huge influx. And it will, of course, take a lot of work, hard work to accommodate those people for we do not know how long time. But we are ready to work with our European Union partners as well to make sure that we can keep providing for those people and employ them. Luckily, we are a country with liberal job market, low unemployment. So, we are optimistic about this situation. But these are technicalities. I mean, you read stories daily in Estonian papers like some border guard official asked somebody, what's your whom address please? The person to chairs. They are not able to answer these simple questions because it brings them back vividly. There is no whom address anymore. It doesn't exist. And we are trying to support these people through these hardships daily. And this, finally, after all, these technical impacts is the real impact on society. Madam President, there was a very striking part of your speech. You said it several times where you said it's really at stake as freedom and air conditioning. And you were clearly leading us the audience to understand that one of the great problems created by this unprovoked invasion is Europe's energy policy. Do you see that this new security reality will change the way that Europe is approaching energy? And related to this, do you feel that Europe, another theme of your comments, that Europe was holding strong, it was united in a way that it hadn't been before? Do you think that that unity can withstand the pressures of populations who want air conditioning, who expect heat during winter, and who need energy sources for their livelihoods and for their homes? Well, obviously, something has shifted in Europe because I was citing Mario Draghi. It definitely comes from a big Italian country currently struggling with high dependence of Russian energy. Well, we have been exercising to a certain extent at the lower level. And I believe we now all wish that after 2014, at least, if not after 2008, the sanctions level could have been as they are today. Maybe we would be in a better world today. But this is kind of a spill. Only worth mentioning not to repeat the same errors. I mean, this time around. I hope that even if the acute fighting phase will not last too long, Europe and our partners there will not turn back from their current resolve of not using any more Russian energy. It's painful and paradoxical, but if the fighting lasts for, let's say, a year, then the sunken costs of turning away from Russian energy will be high enough to make sure that we stay the course. Tricky parties, because I don't, of course, for heaven's sake, hope that the war lasts one a year or two. Tricky parties, if the hostilities end and we have not yet completed all the necessary changes. Tricky parties also, because European energy market is common and we need common rules. But some of us have longstanding gas contracts with Russia. Some contracts ending, which Russia feels now free to violate, like in case of Bulgaria and Poland, because whatever happens, the penalties will relate only to the last six months of these contracts. And then there are all efforts, both from private and public sector, to bring in LNG. But if you are from private sector and want to build LNG capabilities in Europe, you need guarantees that we will not turn back to Russian carbohydrates anymore. And these guarantees are taking far too long to come forward, I have to say. And the problem is they cannot be national because market is common and particularly smaller nations. For example, how can Estonian government guarantee an LNG terminal, which would serve not only Estonian market, but wider surroundings, if it doesn't know what the others will do with their gas contracts with Russia? And this is a trap we are slightly struggling to break out from. And being outspoken about it, I believe, might help us to make sure that we are, indeed, making permanent this shift. And I wouldn't have made that plea if it were self-evident that, I mean, the sanctions will remain. Why it is not self-evident to me? I can give you one example. It was about five days into the war, and I was on press conference in Prague. And the question comes in, when is the time to start removing sanctions? And some people started even to answer it. And then I was very rude and stepped in and said, like, why are we even discussing it? Is this the urgency? This is not the urgency. And since then, I've been on a mission to, I mean, force us to look into the mirror and accept that, I mean, long-term economic suffering might be needed in order to make sure that the free world wins this war. We cannot expect Ukrainians to fight it to the bitter end. They will fight until they feel that they have achieved enough to sign a peace treatment or are forced to do it in case things are not going too well for them. But this will not necessarily be the point when Russian regime topples and so the ball is truly and strongly in our court. And I want us all to recognize, I mean, this is our responsibility. I have a mission to go and explain that this is indeed our mission. I'm not ready to push this under the carpet that there are risks that we might not be strong enough. I'm also not sure that, I mean, here I've been talking to some universities with faculties of policy, political science, and also heard that are you sure that these sanctions will be sustained? No, I'm not sure, but I'm doing everything they will be sustained. Madam President, it's so interesting listening to you describe this because certainly the Russian leadership, Putin himself, has said, we're tougher the Russians. We can withstand hardship longer and more intense hardship than Europe can. We know that. And you almost have the feeling that many of the calculations that are being made in Moscow about how to prosecute the war, the length of the war, are based on that assumption that the Russians can withstand more hardship than Europe will cave. We have to prove him wrong. I mean, technically, I understand where this thinking comes from Russians or Ukrainians or Belarus people for that matter. I mean, they all capable people of growing their own groceries. And in Russia, many actually do rely on natural economy still. I mean, after all, what is Russia economically? It is the primary sector exporter who is almost able to also feed its own people, which was very proud after we put the sanctions on 2014, that it's now independently able to feed itself and its population. This is not the 21st century economy. And since it is not the 21st century economy, of course, people are more independently able to sustain difficulties and live without any money, without too much connection to the rest of the world. And we are not like that. But if we know there is a risk we need to, I mean, suffer hardships, we can be prepared. And indeed, we should be looking long term. If we only look how can we live over the next winter, then okay, we fill our gas storages and live it over. But we shouldn't be taking this view. We should be taking this view that how will we live the next 10 winters. And then, of course, there is the complication both here and on the other side of Atlantic that we are doing the green turn at the same time. So, I mean, doing massive LNG installations means that, I mean, you might prefer to build them dual use. I mean, being able to convert to hydrogen or to biogas, last is actually simpler and cheaper, of course, to do. And this all complicated picture needs, I mean, quick resolution because our people, I feel, are ready to kind of accept that houses are slightly colder, at least in Estonia they were in 90s. I mean, when Russia was pulling us with energy, I mean, that they are slightly colder if they know it is for one to maybe even five winters. But if they know, if they don't know what's, what's the plan of the politicians, then the risk of not accepting is actually bigger. So planning is not only important to avoid the situation, but also to give positive feedback to our people that this economic suffering is not going to be endless. When you look at the ways in which the transatlantic alliance is pushing back on Russia, sanctions, massive flows of weapons, support to the refugees, promises for reconstruction, is that enough? Obviously not, because people are dying daily. But we do what best we can. And I also sometimes understand, I mean, disappointed words and vocabulary from Ukrainian diplomats and politicians, because these big ships take so long time sometimes to turn. And myself think that indeed, I mean, Estonia could start from before the war started already to deliver things which Ukrainians were sure they could use in case javelins and other things. Other started slightly later. And of course, every day later means additional, I mean, people dying. And it's very, very painful. But the big ships, luckily, are turning. So I don't want to be too critical, too harsh, even if, of course, I mean, thinking of the scenes of Putscham, Mariupol, I mean, and in today, for example, in Tallinn, a lettuce from a woman in Kharkiv, I believe, or was it Harrison, were read out in front of the Russian embassy about how they are surviving there and what are their hopes, dreams and worries. And it's incomprehensible for us, I mean, trying to be a woman in Ukraine today. But, you know, precisely because Russia has been so criminally hostile, aggressive against civilians, the last hope that, I mean, Ukrainian people could at one point accept occupation peacefully, try to kind of go on living, like, for example, after Soviet occupation in the Baltic States, I mean, finally somebody found some place, somehow shut up and put up with it. This is not going to happen. We have to understand that. And that means that we have to keep providing Ukraine with the weapons, keep building these weapons quicker if we need, and so on, so on, because they are not stopping fighting. And it is for us to decide also how this fighting ends, with them nevertheless losing, because we are not good enough in providing supplies or them fighting to, hopefully, better ending. It's our responsibility daily. Madam President, there's always an argument that goes on in situations where you have wars for which it's not clear how they will end. Should we take steps that will balance the interests of the aggressors? Should we build our war effort on the principles of international law and justice? Should we follow appeasement, or should we stand up? What's your take on the intentions of Russia, and what is the right policy, the right approach now? Interestingly, I don't even know whether this is true, but my former boss, Prime Minister Mart Laar from Estonia, 1909 to 2002, told me that when Estonia was negotiating to get Russian troops removed from Estonia, then it was the Americans who taught, you have to be tough, this is the only language they speak. And we got them out by being relatively tough indeed, and I'm afraid it still holds true. Every sign from our side to seek appeasement or seek opportunities to help Putin paint himself out of the corner is understood as classic Western weakness on which this regime has been counting. And it has been counting on this classic Western weakness because they have grounds to count on it. 2008. I mean, we were slightly angered by part of Georgia occupation. 2011, I know for certain, I found an article. We were again arguing that there should be kind of visa liberalization between EU and Russia, and so on. And I can even see, I mean, sometimes I have this dream that I see Lavrov and Choyko sitting somewhere and having a discussion in 2013, what to do about Ukrainians who are clearly turning their back to Russia and looking forward to join the free world and democratic nations and our partnerships and alliances. And of course, Choyko would say, well, very easy. They turned their back, we bite their backside. I would eat this to Georgia and look what the West did. The West dropped them like a hot potato. Nobody's talking anymore about Georgia within EU and NATO. And meanwhile, the democratic process has unraveled from this disappointment. Easy. Let's do it. And then there would have been Lavrov saying, well, it's closer to Europe. The sanctions might come. It could be that it is not blowing over so quickly. And they were both right. Yes, sanctions were there. It took more time to blow over. We have never recognized the occupation of Crimea and annexation to Russia. And so what? We taught them. So let's not repeat the same errors, please. Madam President, at the end of the conflict, did you see a role for Russia in European security? Obviously, of course. I mean, very often Baltic states have been accused of kind of gloating over how Russia has turned out after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is not true. The biggest geopolitical disappointment of us, everybody knows what is Putin's, but always is that Russia, which we honestly expected, when we regained independence, we honestly did expect it will be a country exactly like us. There is no reason why it shouldn't be. It's a country of educated people, a country which is very similar to us, but it all went wrong. If it all goes right again, then obviously. I mean, I still dream of Russia having really good partnership with European Union. It will also help with a lot of former Soviet republics to democratize and build stronger economic and political alliances. So obviously, this is our dream. How we could, I mean, see this happen. Well, history has a way of opening windows opportunity and Russian people, of course, have their role to play in this, using then this window of opportunity, like Ukrainian people are now trying to save the last kind of window opportunity for them, which they didn't use in 90s. I mean, we don't know how the history will turn, but we have to be ready in case there are signs that things might go actually right also in Russia to come in with support for civil society. And today we can prepare for that. We can support Russian civil society as soon as always being accepting Russian students to our universities. Our oldest university has a college at the border town of Narva precisely because we want Russian young people to come and see what does it mean to live in a free country where you are not punished for your opinion on anything. Madam President, there's been an argument, of course, in Europe that the whole aim of much policy in the last two decades has been to establish an economic set of links and relationships with Russia that would promote and over time ensure security. But it seems that hasn't worked. What's gone wrong? We've also thought that opening up to the world economically and economic prosperity, for example, will make China look a lot more like we do. But unfortunately, this is not the case. We cannot change and I think we shouldn't change regimes from, I mean, outside. This should never be our aim. But on the other hand, we should also be clear with which kind of relations we do trust. I mean, countries living on the autocratic regimes. For example, I'm thinking of this century's intertwined world and trusted connectivity, for example, is extremely important if we live in the time where there is Internet of Things. We have to be sure that all our greets and networks are solely under the control of free and democratic nations, even if countries which look different, which are living on the different political regimes, might be pretty good at providing us with gadgets. I think we need to learn this lesson. How it will all end, some people say, but I mean, these autocratic regimes are more efficient in allocating resources for technology development. I totally disagree, frankly speaking. Simply because all the technical development happens in private sector rather than in public sector does not mean it's not happening. We simply need to learn how to onboard it for defence and public services needs, for example. But it's happening anyway. And finally, I do not believe that an autocratic nation can rise above the middle income country level. You know why? Because only three people are truly creative and only truly creative people have had enough value in 21st century economy. So we need to be patient and we will prevail. It's simply, I mean, logic of economy in addition of being the kind of how we humans are built. We are freedom loving these two elements. Let's never forget them. Let's not be insecure in ourselves. Madam President, in your speech you talked about the transatlantic partnership. What has been the impact of Russia's war on this partnership? Has it invigorated it? Has it put it under new pressure? How do you see it? It obviously has invigorated it. And also some kind of weird things which I mean, have been reactions to certain words on one side or another. I mean, for me it was, for example, great mystery. I mean, US was long demanding Europe to do something about being able to defend itself and take care of its own surroundings. And then there comes an European politicians and says we need to be strategically more autonomous, by which he meant that we should be able to go and have an operation in Libya if needed without immediately calling to US. And then the other side is offended by it. I mean, I'm a deeply rational person and I never got it. And I think these kind of things at least are now totally erased from our relationships. So we work together to make sure that we prevail quicker rather than in a longer perspective. Because as I said, I'm sure a long perspective is guaranteed for us. Krishna is how quickly we achieve more security to our people. Madam President, you have long been a leader in cyber issues, including cyber defense. As we enter into a period of increased global instability, how do you see these factors impacting our collective efforts to secure peace and secure prosperity? Well, cyber, as we have all seen, is less important if you are any way breaking power plants and roads and bridges. Then, I mean, attacking cyber-wise signalling systems is not too important. But to create confusion and bring fair to, I mean, to the neighboring countries and outside of the military theater, for these things are still going on. I mean, we haven't attributed and I don't know how we will end, I mean, who finally did it. But when we were having the world biggest cyber exercise in Tallinn, we also had some attacks, but which was far more interesting was this try to build fear into our people by having a physical kind of mentioning that somebody really an ugly graphic to let us root on the wall of the center of excellence in Tallinn, of NATO's cyber defense, kill and attack you. It looks like third grade schoolboy might have done it at the same time during this exercise. It's kind of this KGB logic of building and showing we are present to be afraid. I think we are in for a sustained period of these kind of actions and not necessarily in our country because during all these kind of discussion, how hybrid risks affect our democratic processes here in US, in France, in UK, elsewhere, we've been sure that we are less at risk because breaking a stone in democracy doesn't really change the world that much. Whereas, I mean, hurting, trying to hurt yours here is a much better goal and well, capabilities are limited everywhere. So, we were not too worried, but what we were worried was that people associated cyber risks also with geographical proximity to potential adversaries, which is not true at all. I mean, it's weird, they did, because I mean, it's not the case. There's no geography in cyber. Madam President, before today's conversation, we reached out across the internet and to many of our partners and said you were coming and asked if they had questions. Basically, there were four sets of questions that colleagues wanted you to reflect on. One had to do with American constancy. One had to do with your singular role as a woman leader. This was a very interesting posed question because it reflected on the fact that this European crisis at this time, you have a number of women leaders across Europe who are playing decisive roles in trying to address the problems that have been created. There was another set of questions that related to whether or not the U.S., in your view, has gotten this right. Are we doing the right things in Ukraine? If we were to take the first question about constancy, and really this was about the U.S. is now very fixated on Ukraine, on European security, but maybe we won't be in the future. Maybe we'll be more concerned about Asia. How would you respond to that? I think we have factured in that you have to be and will be more interested in Asia. What does it mean for us in Europe? Of course it means that we have to be more self-sufficient in making sure that our regional risks are handled by ourselves, and by this I don't only mean eastern risks. We also have to look at the south and elsewhere. We are out of this kind of comfort zone where we were on the other side of the Iron Curtain, but Western Europe had it very comfortable during the Cold War time. Our regional risk or their regional risk at that time coincided with the global risk. It's not the case anymore. I mean, whoever runs whichever country, whichever words are used about it, I mean, 2% the most important or strategic autonomy or whatever. I mean, finally, they are all expressions, I mean, saying out loud, we have to be responsible for our regional risks and then see how we can contribute and work together in a transatlantic format to make sure that we first understand and then also are able to cover and then we stand the risks which are global. Sounds pretty simple. Everybody has their own role. Indeed, situations shifted, but I mean, our partnership, if anything I feel is expanding, we are now talking certainly more about the Boris of Quad countries, for example, also in my country. We are trying to understand South Korean Boris and then risks and so on, so on. So first, take care of your own surroundings and then lend a helping hand if you can. The question about has America, has the US gotten our approach to Ukraine and to Europe right? Are there things we should be doing instead? Definitely, you have gotten it right. And I'm sure Ukrainians would also add, but keep doing more of the same thing. And then, Madam President, on the question of being a woman leader and the role of women leaders now in Europe. Yes. Today in the morning, I heard a great colleague from Kosovo, Shosas Mani, to say exactly the same sentence I've been saying for now close to six years, to when asked about women in leadership. Children in Estonia or in Kosovo for that matter, girls particularly, never ask this question, can I be a president? Because for them, this is a matter of fact that you can. Children in kindergarten, they're drawing president in the dress, then they know, can be a woman, they can be the president. I think that's the biggest impact of being a female leader on our own country. I don't believe in the specific characteristics that women as a group do something differently than men as a group. But I do believe that, I mean, women's world view is 50% of the global world view. And as many good ideas as come into the male heads, definitely come into the female heads. Which means that, I mean, both sides need to be equally represented to make sure we take the best decisions. It's that simple. Arithmetic almost, I mean, to keep all emotion out of it, because you know female politicians, at least in my country, are very often accused of being emotional. I'm not. And then a final question, Madam President. If Russia were to prevail in Ukraine, what would that mean for Ukraine, for Europe, for all of us? Citing Ukrainians, I mean, if they stop fighting, there is no more Ukraine. So that was, that's their own assessment. And I agree with them. At least not the Ukraine, free and democratic, with European aspiration, as their people demonstrated in 2014. That's what the people of Ukraine really want. And for us, as I said, all autocracies are watching. Whether the free world and democratic process can deliver swift and quick responses. Because, you know, it's kind of natural. And in one way, you understand yourself that the leaders can only run as quickly as people understand why they're running or where they're running. And this kind of makes a certain lack into our political processes to be kind of almost inevitable. And it takes a really strong influence, like the war in Ukraine to radically cut this time. But I believe, I'm a hopeless optimist, I believe that we can learn also from that. And to explain to our people that sometimes we are going to act before they understand, we come back, explain they can hold us, next elections accountable anyway. And this way, we will prevail. I am quite sure that finally we will do the right thing. But if Russia has any feeling that it has had any gains from this war, then we just will be sitting back and preparing for the next act. This must not happen. Madam President, it's been a privilege to have you with us. Thank you for describing the many important dynamics in Europe and for framing the core issues of this conflict so clearly, so that it's obvious to all of us what needs to be done. Thank you. Thank you all.