 Good morning, dear Chancellor, Mr. Olaf Scholz, it is an honor for me to welcome you to Davos in your first year in office as Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. We gather here at the critical moment as we've seen throughout the many discussions this week. It is a critical moment for Europe and the international community. Following the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the world has changed abruptly. Germany has also seen a watershed moment under your leadership, with far-reaching consequences for German and European foreign and security policy. Since taking office, Mr. Chancellor, you have worked tirelessly to secure peace, freedom, and democracy. In these tragic times, the world now needs to see a new era of global responsibility and cooperation to meet the monumental challenges we face. A strong Europe is crucial to this end. This is why we are particularly looking forward to your participation this year. Once again, welcome, Chancellor. Professor Schwab, ladies and gentlemen, when someone like me who's grown up in Hamburg comes here to Davos, their thoughts turn inevitably to Thomas Mann and his great novel The Magic Mountain. At least that's what I thought of on the way here. The parallel seemed all the more apt, since in the book The Visit by Hans Kastopp, the man from Hamburg to Davos, ends with what Thomas Mann termed the thunderbolt, the outbreak of World War I in July 1914, that is. Ladies and gentlemen, we too have experienced a thunderbolt. This truck on the 24th of February, 2022. Russia's invasion of Ukraine does not mark the outbreak of some little conflict somewhere in Europe. A major nuclear power is behaving as if it had the right to withdraw borders. Putin wants a return to a world order in which strength dictates what is right, in which freedom, sovereignty, and self-determination are simply not for everyone. That is imperialism. That is an attempt to blast us back to a time when war was a common instrument of politics, when our continent and the world were without a stable peaceful order. And that is why, three days after the Russian attack, I spoke in the Bundestag of a watershed. This is, by the way, in line with the analysis of the World Economic Forum and the theme that you, Professor Schwab, have chosen for this meeting, as you say, the world is indeed at a turning point. And it is not only the state of Ukraine that is at stake. It is the system of international cooperation that was designed in the aftermath of two devastating world wars to give effect to the vow of never again that is at stake. A system that subjects power to the law, that bans the use of force as an instrument of politics, and that has, in the past decades, guaranteed us freedom, security, and prosperity. Our goal is therefore crystal clear. We cannot allow Putin to win his war, and I firmly believe that he will not win it. Even now, he has failed to meet any of his strategic goals. Capturing all of Ukraine seems less likely now than it did at the start of the war. Thanks not least to the remarkable defensive actions fought by the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian population. Ukraine is now emphasizing its European future more than ever before, in a similar vein as Georgian Moldova. Incidentally, we're also pushing ahead with integration into the European Union of the countries of the Western Balkans and the promises that have been made and given have to be upheld and fulfilled. The brutality of the Russian war has welded the Ukrainians together as a nation more than anything in the past. Sweden and Finland, two close friends and partners now seek to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We will welcome them with open arms. And lastly, Putin underestimated the unity and vigor with which the G7 NATO and the European Union would respond to his aggression. Working together, we have imposed sanctions that are tougher and further reaching than any previously imposed on each country of Russia's size. Even now, the cost to Putin's regime is huge and is growing every day. For the first time ever, Germany is supplying arms to a war zone, including heavy weapons. To my mind, if one thing is clear, it is that Putin will only seriously negotiate at peace when he realizes that he cannot break Ukraine's defenses. And that is why we're supporting Ukraine. The support is closely coordinated with our partners and allies. And this, too, we are united. We will do nothing that could make NATO a party to the conflict, because that would mean a direct confrontation between nuclear powers. The aim is rather to make it clear to Putin that there will be no dictated peace. Ukraine will not accept that, and neither will we. And finally, ladies and gentlemen, we've also performed an about-turn on German defence policy. We have decided to equip our armed forces so that there are, at all times, in a position to defend our country and our alliance under the new conditions created by Russia. We're even in the process of changing our constitution in order to make this happen. We want to make available 100 billion euro for the necessary modernization of our forces in the coming years, for it is the security of our country that is at stake. And we have an unequivocal message for our allies. You can rely on Germany. There's another point on which there is no doubt. We will end Germany and Europe's dependence on energy imports from Russia. A decision will be taken this autumn on co. We plan to phase out Russian oil by the end of the year, and we're also working flat out to end our reliance on Russian gas. We are, for example, turning our attention to floating LNG terminals and alternative sources of supply. We're moving forward with the development of the requisite infrastructure, terminals that has ports, pipelines, and we're doing so with unprecedented alacrity. Nonetheless, this restructuring will have an impact on Europe's economies. We are feeling it not leased through rising energy prices. And of course, this presents a very special challenge to a country like Germany, which is an industrialized nation and plans to remain so. We will therefore not leave our businesses to whether this is alone. We've put in place a protective shield to secure loans and where necessary assist with equity capital. And in the coming years, we will invest billions in the transformation of our economy. We want to have the duration of planning processes. At least, half of it. And within the next few weeks, we will launch an Alliance for Transformation through which we will coordinate with employers and employees on the restructuring of our economy. That way, everybody will know what to reckon with. Ultimately, our goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 has been given an additional boost by Putin's will. Now, we have even more cause to move away from fossil fuels than before. In Germany, we are working urgently on an emergency climate action program. The first steps have already been taken and we want to almost triple the speed with which we cut emissions by 2030 and generate 80% of our electricity from renewable sources. At the same time, we want to make progress on transforming the transport and heating sectors and are working to develop a hydrogen economy. We aim to remain an industrialised country while it's becoming climate neutral. The 2020s thus will be years of change, renewal and rebuilding. We will not walk this path alone. With the EU's fit for 55 package, the European Union seeks to ensure that the course is set for climate neutrality by 2050 in Europe too. Energy and climate policy are areas that exemplify how Putin's war has made it all the more urgent for us to act. But it is by no means the sole event that has triggered this watershed. The theme of this meeting is history at a turning point, a theme that encompasses far more than solely this breach of the international peaceful order. In addition to Russia's war, I see another global development that constitutes a watershed. We are experiencing what it means to live in a multipolar world. The bipolarity of the Cold War is just as much part of the past as is the relatively brief phase when the United States was the sole remaining global power, even though the United States will, of course, remain the dominant power factor in the world. Incidentally, I don't give any credence to the reports of a new bipolarity between the US and China either. Of course, China is a global player. Once again, we should add. Because historically speaking, that was consistently the case throughout long periods of world history. But just as that does not mean that we need to isolate China, neither does it give rise to the claim of Chinese hegemony in Asia and beyond, particularly since we're seeing new and ambitious powers emerging in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We cannot look away when we see human rights being violated. For example, in the case of Xinjiang, as I said, we are seeing new and ambitious powers emerging in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And they're all seizing the opportunities that globalization offers them. Even before the start of the pandemic, the consultancy firm Price Waterhouse Coopers published a report on the state of the world in 2050. And it maintains that the seven largest global economies will then include countries that recurrently still describe as emerging economies, as well as China. These include India and Indonesia, Brazil, and Mexico. After the pandemic, this analysis is hardly likely to be any different. Another factor is Russia, which is attempting to secure its importance by means of military force, and it does so with horrific consequences as we are witnessing at this moment. And then there is the European Union, which is finally beginning to convert its geoeconomic weight into geopolitical influence. That is what we mean by European sovereignty. In this multipolar world, very different countries and regions are demanding greater political participation in line with their growing economic and demographic influence. And to be quite honest, that does not pose any threat. Yet, where there is a shift in the balance of influence and global power, it also inevitably affects the political order. And the crucial question is this. How can we ensure that the multipolar world will also be a multilateral world, or to put it in another way? How can we create an order in which very different centers of power can interact reliably in the interests of everyone? This task is by no means a trivial one, given that there is no historical precedent. And yet, I am convinced that it can succeed if we explore new paths and fields of cooperation. After all, the alternative, everyone for themselves, and at the same time, everyone against everyone else, involves high risks and costs, even for the strongest powers. And that is another reason why a firm and uncritical response to Russia's blatant violation of international law was so vital. Because this response also makes clear to everyone else that a multipolar world is not a world without rules. Upholding this principle is in everyone's interest. That is why it was so important that in March, 141 United Nations member states condemned Russia's attack in no uncertain times. Yet we know that for many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the war in Ukraine is geographically speaking far away. However, its global consequences in the form of looming hunger, commodity, and inflation crises are all too close. And if we want these countries to continue to join us in defending freedom and justice in the future, we also need to show solidarity with them and to take that concern seriously. In a multipolar world, this kind of international order will not be achievable without international solidarity. That is why we're investing in new partnerships. That is why we're placing existing partnerships on a broader footing. The buzzword here being diversification. And to this end, we're putting faith in a characteristic that unites us with many countries of the global south. We are democracies. For too long have we practically equated democracy with the West in the classical sense. It was actually this Western world that denied the South its rights and its freedom in a most undemocratic manner until well into the last century. I'm speaking of colonialism. Acknowledging this is not only a question of honesty. It is also a prerequisite for closer cooperation with the world's democracies, which we need, and towards which we are working. At the beginning of the week, I returned from a trip to South Africa, Senegal, and Niger. While there, I made a conscious decision to encourage these countries to cooperate closely with the G7 presidency on issues such as the energy transition, climate change, mitigation, the fight against the pandemic, migration, and last but not least on how we can maintain and strengthen international cooperation in these times. And I made a conscious decision to invite my colleagues from South Africa and Senegal, as well as the heads of the governments of India, Indonesia, and Argentina, which holds the presidency of the community of Latin American Caribbean states to the G7 summit in Elmau at the end of June, for they represent countries and regions whose contribution is needed by the world if we are to make progress and global challenges in future. In Germany, we've made a conscious decision to adopt an Indo-Pacific strategy in order to intensify cooperation with the countries of this forward-looking region. In April, we made a conscious decision to hold intergovernmental consultations between Germany and Japan for the very first time. As the world's third and fourth largest economies, we want to jointly develop solutions for sustainable growth that will also work for others. And I made a conscious decision to invite my Indian colleague Prime Minister Modi and his government to Berlin for intergovernmental consultations at the start of this month. The outcome of this meeting is that our countries intend to work even more closely together in future on issues such as climate change, mitigation, energy migration, mobility. Their priority is to make progress on issues that will define the future. And at the same time, it is about showing that international cooperation provides answers that multilateralism works. That is, incidentally, the precondition or the condition for halting the deglobalization trend we are currently experiencing. Of course, we need to reduce some of our strategic dependencies. The pandemic has shown us that not only in connection with medicine is unprotective equipment. Our dependence on fuel imports from Russia likewise falls into this category. That is why we are putting an end to it or take the current lack of semiconductors, for instance. Against this backdrop, it is really good news that Intel is planning to manufacture chips in Germany in future. That is, by the way, one of the largest industry settlements in the history of our country. What we need now is greater economic resilience in this multipolar crisis-prone world. And here, too, the answer has to be diversification for politics and businesses alike. And at the same time, we need to take care that necessary diversification does not become an excuse for isolation, customs barriers, and protectionism. To put it plainly, deglobalization is not the right way to go. It will not work. For contrary to everything that populists grandly proclaim, it is the enterprises, employees, and consumers in our countries who pay the price of customs duties and trade barriers. Those people, therefore, who are already bearing the brunt of soaring prices. And another thing we must not forget, when people speak carelessly of deglobalization or even decoupling, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty has fallen in the last 40 years for more than 40% to below 10%. Child mortality fell in the same period from 10% to below 4%. And globally speaking, life expectancy has actually increased by 12 years, from 61 to 73 years. These achievements are not only the result of national policies, they are above all the result of international task sharing of knowledge exchange and global economic connectivity, which have enabled billions of people to find their way out of poverty. By that, I don't want to say that globalization has only produced winners in the last 20 or 30 years. And that is especially true with regard to industrialized nations, global competition, the relocation of production to other countries or regions, the crises on the financial market, the impact of this digital transformation on the labor market. All of this is unsettling many of our citizens. All of this has intensified the calls for renationalization. Policymakers and business must take these concerns seriously. And our answer cannot be simply carry on as before, particularly as the special phase of globalization. We have experienced in North America and Europe during the last 30 years, with reliable growth, a high level of added value and low inflation is coming to an inevitable end. One reason for this is that the low cost producers of the global south are gradually becoming thriving economies with their own demand, which aspire to the same level of prosperity as we have and are competing with us for the same goods. We require, therefore, is a sustainable resilient globalization, which uses natural resources sparingly and, above all, takes the needs of future generations into account. A globalization based on solidarity which benefits all citizens in all parts of the world. And we need an intelligent globalization with modern rules and new forms of cooperation. I want to illustrate what I mean with three examples. Take, for example, climate change. We all know that if we fail to meet the Paris climate goal that the world is heading towards disaster, at the same time, representatives of developing and newly industrialized countries often tell me we need fossil fuels for the foreseeable future to take advantage of our development opportunities, just as you have done for a period of 150 years. Our companies in the industrialized countries, on the other hand, tell us, if you impose even tougher climate rules, then it's possible that entire industrial sectors will be relocated to countries where the rules are more relaxed. Carbon leakage is the key word here. We have to resolve these conflicting interests, and we have to do that through cooperation. We've set ourselves the goal of making the G7 the core of an international climate club which will implement the Paris climate goals at an accelerated pace. This club is open to all countries, provided they are prepared to commit to certain minimum standards. For in that way, we can create a level playing field and prevent different rules in different countries from distorting competition. At the same time, the climate club countries will further develop climate friendly technologies with one another and work together even more closely, for example, in the sphere of hydrogen. As the G7, we also want to advance the issue of international climate financing. Along with South Africa, we want to offer other developing and newly industrialised countries just energy transition partnerships which will help them to transition fairly to a climate neutral future. That will enable us to get on board partners we urgently need for the climate transition. My second example concerns the UN's 2030 agenda. There is a danger that the pandemic and Russia's war will reverse the progress in development made during the last few decades. And this is especially dramatic in the fight against hunger and poverty. If we do not act quickly and decisively to counter it, we run the risk of experiencing the world's first famine for decades. As the horrors of the G7 presidency, we have therefore established an alliance for global food security along with the World Bank. Germany made available just under half a billion euro for this at the very outset. And in addition, we are investing more than a billion euro each year in rural development and infrastructure as well as in food security. And we are convincing intensively for support, not only from other governments and international organisations, but also from scientists, academic, civil society foundations and not these leading industrialists like you. The alliance for global food security is open to everyone. And something else is important in this situation. As the G7, we are committed to open agricultural markets. In saying this, I'm aware that there is still much work to be done, especially or also in Europe. Export restrictions are no solution. They undermine global food security. Indeed, they endanger human lives. The third field where we want to ensure better international cooperation concerns is how we deal in future with health crisis. All of us hoped that 2022 would be the year when the global economy bounced back following the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, we've seen lockdowns in China, new virus variants and continued high-case numbers. The pandemic is not over yet, much as we wish it were. It will not end until we finally stop the recurring cycle of new mutations, triggering new waves of infections. That is why, as the G7, we will continue to do everything in our power to support the ACT accelerator coordinated by the WHO. It ensures that vaccines are distributed around the world. Germany is leading the way here by providing 1.3 billion euro this year alone. And I ask all of you and your companies to join us on this path. One example of what cooperation between policy makers and business can achieve is the development of global vaccine production. A few weeks ago, I joined forces with the European Union and the African Union, the presidents of various African countries, and the German company BioNTech to launch a project designed to establish modular production sites in South Africa, Rwanda, Ghana, and Senegal. This is about the fight against COVID-19, but in future also about the fight against diseases such as malaria or Ebola. The G7 Health Minister disagreed on a pact for pandemic readiness last week. This is aimed at improving the exchange of data, fostering networks among international health experts and mobilizing rapid response teams to tackle an outbreak if the need arises. And we will strengthen the World Health Organization on a durable basis. We achieved a first break through in late April. We agreed at international level to finally place the funding of the World Health Organization on a broader and more reliable foundation. Davos has often provided impetus for these issues. Not least, Gavi, the vaccine alliance was founded in 2000. It was worth its weight in gold during the pandemic. Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to end by evoking and appealing to this good spirit of Davos. Yes, we are experiencing a watershed. History is at a turning point. However, we are not at the mercy of history. If someone to lead us back to the age of nationalism, imperialism and war, then our answer is, count us out. We stand for the future. And if we notice that our world is becoming multipolar, then that has to spur us own on to even more multilateralism, to even more international cooperation. Thank you very much. Mr. Chancellor, thank you for this speech. I have a number of questions that I would have liked to ask you, but you've already incorporated most of the answers into your speech. However, I have said a few things that I would like to talk to you about. When we look at what is awaiting global economies, one of the major topics this week, we have to say that there was a feeling of optimism throughout all of the sessions, especially when we talk about inflation. You get the impression that the aggression towards Ukraine has certainly been a turning point and a shock moment for economies. Mr. Chancellor, which political decisions, which financial instruments would you think to be efficient for Germany, for Europe, to stabilize our economies on a macroeconomic level? We have a host of difficult conditions that have had a shock effect, the corona pandemic being one case in point, which led to a situation where we had an economic fallback. In response to that development, we set up global infrastructure and economic development programs that ensure that global demand has increased as a consequence of these programs being set up. So these are major changes that are linked to the fact that we have to put an end to man-made climate change, and this is why we want to reduce demand for fossil fuels in order to ensure that those who don't think that this is ever so important will not be able to find sufficient resources in that regard. Then you see the dramatic effect that and impact that Russia's war of aggression has had, not only in Ukraine and its neighboring countries, but on the world at large, even on those countries that are geographically speaking far away from Europe. This is why the response to this question is the one I try to give in my speech. We need to see international cooperation when you take a look at the world becoming multipolar in many parts of the world. But we also have to try to, in a way, take our fate into our own hands and ensure that there will be an economic improvement. During the pandemic, we had to improve our cooperation. More needs to be done in that regard. There are some countries that have not made sufficient headway with regard to vaccinating the population, and this constitutes a challenge for these countries. So we are pleased about the fact that we have not only been able to mobilize funds for vaccination campaigns, that we have the ACT accelerator, for example, and similar initiatives, but that we also work now to ensure that the vaccines get from the ports and the airports to the people that the jabs get into their arms, so to speak, and that the countries are being put in a position where they can set up their own production sites. As far as man-made climate change is concerned, it's going to be important now that we develop the technologies we need for our futures. I am convinced that the classical industrialized countries, the G7 countries, that is the countries of North America and Europe, North America, Japan, India, that these countries face up to the important tasks that they have to tackle. They have to reduce, they have to produce sufficient alternative energy sources and fuels to replace the old ones, and in so doing, they will also offer an alternative to other countries. And that is what I've tried to highlight in my speech. The globalization of the last 30, 40 years will not continue for another 30 or 40 years. Basically, it was founded on the fact that there was a core centering on Europe, North America, and for those average Asian countries I already mentioned. But the world produced for this market, also with regard to the production of its fuels, and that is changing slowly and progressively. They develop their own economic programs, providing economic stimulus to their developments. They want to use their own resources. So that period in which a vast part of the world focused on providing for a limited part of the world is coming to its end. And thus, we have to make sure that we develop these technologies, make them available at a global level, and that we trigger the necessary growth processes. We will not be successful, as some may imagine, and I never understood them doing so. I've always rejected this approach, which is that we can look back on 200 years of industrialized developments in Europe and North America, and turning to the developing and emerging countries, saying, you see what's happening to the climate, you cannot expect the same level of prosperity. And look, this is what the countries in South America and Asia and Africa want, and it's their very right to do so. And this is why we have to develop the technologies that are necessary, if you want to create the necessary growth for these countries, too, without using up the air that we need to breathe, without increasing pollution. That is the path that we have to pursue, and that is what we intend to do. And a final point, if I may, such step backwards into the 18th, 19th centuries as is a Russia's war of aggression cannot be tolerated, cannot be accepted, and we will have to stand up to them in a spirit of solidarity. Mr. Chancellor, I would also like to get back to the energy transformation. You said that Germany is to be climate neutral by 2045, which concrete actions do you want to bring about to make these changes happen? Which political and industrial means do you want to mobilize? We will not fully understand the changes that are ahead of us if we don't take a broader view. The vast majority of energy is consumed in industry. This is why we have to trigger a major global industrialization here at the global level. The process of globalization based on fossil fuels is nearing its end. And if we want to change course and tag and our approach, we will have to do so at great speed. One necessary precondition is that we will have to produce much more electricity than we have done so far. Germany will rise the increase from 600 terawatt to 800 terawatt this year. And we will have to double that in the next 10 years. Steel is being produced with the help of electricity. And if we want to do so in future and produce electricity not from fossil fuels and also heat without relying on fossil fuels, we have to do more. The same goes for mobility. We will have to resolve to the use of hydrogen to a great extent. Technologically speaking, it's already possible. It's nothing new, but we have to tackle and approach this in a manner that acts quickly. We have to act with electricity. The European Union is following the same approach by the way. We want to overcome regulatory burdens and impediments, do away with massive over-regulation in order to allow wind farms on offshore and onshore solar panels. Steel plants that use hydrogen and electricity from renewables, that is the approach. And that we advance these technologies. The magnitude of the task that we face with liberating ourselves from over-regulation is difficult to imagine. You cannot always only speak of offshore wind parks. Take a industrial side, let Ludwig's have them with its chemical industry. They need eight to nine wind parks only for their own needs. And one to three would be necessary for one steel plant, which gives you an idea of the magnitude of the task ahead. But finally, industry knows where to put its money. That's a good thing, isn't it? Mr. Tanzler, I think you've already touched on this topic. But this restructuring on a global level, on a national level, will bring about a new dimension of collaboration, a new way of working together between politics and the economy. If we look back on the globalization efforts of the past decades, we've often seen that economic interests prevailed. Now in this new world, politics has a more active role to play. How do you see this balance between economy and politics? I don't think we can find an answer by pointing to the primacy of the one or the other. Politicians have an important task to attend to following the mandate given to them by their voters. And we will implement that mandate. And the question we're facing is that whether at a point where necessary cooperation and coordination is of the greatest need, we ask ourselves, am I going to invest billions of monies into this deep land? And if I do so, will it generate the electricity we need? So industry will turn to the government and ask, will this function? Will this produce what I hope for? If I invest now into wind farms offshore and onshore to produce the necessary electricity, is it going to work? Will we generate the energy we need? And industry points out to us, the authorization processes have to be sped up. This is what we all aim to do. I set myself the task to not draw this out because otherwise we will lag in our efforts. One year will turn into two, three, or four years, and that would slow down the process far too much. We need to set these things in motion in order to achieve the magnitude of a transformation that we need to become climate neutral by 2045. So speed is of the essence. Would you agree to that, that both governments and businesses need to speed up their efforts? Let us look back to the beginning stages of the major industrialization. If I remember correctly, that was from 19 to 1930, possible in the United States to get support for the automobile. In a country, there were no genuine roads, but they had highways in most of the states set up over those 30 years or so. It was possible for cars to be refueled. There were no lorries and cars being produced, and it was possible to achieve a degree of automobilization that Germany only achieved in the 60s or 70s. That kind of speed is what we are aiming for. I'll give you an example from Germany. I took a closer look at the so-called industrial park of Leuna, the eastern part of Germany. In the 20s of the last century, tens of thousands of jobs were created on Greenfield's side. The processes had been used that had only been tested in laboratories before that. All of a sudden, everything was there, was made available. That was possible. Let us remind of that, and if that was possible then. It doesn't really make any difference whether we are here now or they were there then. It could be done here and now too, and that is what we aim for. Mr. Chancellor, we have time for one more question, and I would like to ask a more personal question. You have taken on this office in a very difficult time period. When you first took on your office, you were unable to imagine that you would have to face the situation of a new war in Europe. We see inflation and many economic challenges. What has really shaped you as a person during these past months? The greatest, the biggest challenge for all of us what has been preying on our minds day and night as human beings is this brutal war, has been this brutal war started by Russia against Ukraine. And I want to be very clear, you cannot just, you know, switch off, it's not as if it ended overnight. It is something that keeps us on our toes, that keeps us deeply concerned, me and other politicians, millions of people in the world. What is going to happen with this war, whether it will expand beyond the borders of Ukraine, and thus we have to support the citizens and the military of Ukraine. When you see their suffering, this is horrible, and we must never forget the horror about it. We cannot switch off, we cannot push it aside. It has to spur us on, on a daily basis, to do what we can in order to put an end to this horrible war. Mr. Chancellor, as someone who remembers the bombs of the Second World War, I can only wholeheartedly agree to what you've just said, and I think this is a good message, a good signal to send out to the people. It is something we need to keep in mind during this crisis. Thank you for your visit. Thank you for coming here to Davos, and thank you for your meaningful keynote speech.