 Yes, thank you. Thank you for the invitation. It's a pleasure and honor for me. Perhaps let me start by reiterating the most important thing in my view that has not changed. And this is the meaning of this war of Russia against Ukraine. And this meaning is that the outcome of this war will determine the fate of Europe for decades to come. Because this war is about whether the return of war in Europe as a land war will be accepted and rewarded as a political instrument in the 21st century. If that were to happen, if war turns out to become a political success, war will remain in Europe. And of course, the world will and would draw a lesson from the success of war as a political instrument. And in a way, the world already is learning because the geopolitical struggle between China and the United States in a way functions as a protective umbrella for regional actors to just apply war as a political instrument, which we have seen in the southern Caucasus and which we are now seeing in the Middle East. So under this umbrella, war is coming back in regional conflicts. What we have seen so far is also so the consequence for the Europeans and for the world, I would say, is that is a definition of victory. Victory means that there has to be a victory over war as a political instrument. This is really faithful. This is crucial and decisive that we beat war as an instrument. This understanding of the historic dimension of this war has unified, I could even say, reunified the West, has injected a historic sense again, has contributed members to NATO. So this really has constituted a new West in responding to the return of war into the 21st century and at least into Europe. What we have seen is, I slightly disagree, I think we have seen that again in the situation of a European land war, the US against all the intentions of the United States, which intended to pivot to Asia, was drawn back to Europe and is acting as the number one security power in Europe. The European security power is the United States of America. We are lucky to say this and we should also say it's embarrassing for Europe that we have to say that. However, the war in the Middle East is possibly changing also this role of the United States. It's not only distracting public attention from the war in Ukraine to the Middle East, which is good for Vladimir Putin. There's also mounting pressure on the president from the Republican Party and influential elements, for example now the speaker of the House, are mounting pressure not only to reduce support to Ukraine and replace the financial and military support of the United States from Ukraine to the Middle East. So there are increasing doubts whether the United States will serve in this role as the number one security provider for America. This is only one reason why we are not going to see an end of this war until the presidential elections. My view is that Vladimir Putin irrespective of this event is neither willing nor able to withdraw from Ukraine. I think he is beyond this point. He will stay in and he has to stay in because this war, which started as a war to establish, to reestablish a Russian empire in Europe, has become now a war about his very personal political survival at least as Russian president, perhaps even personal survival. So he is not able to withdraw even if he wished to withdraw. At least he will wait until the presidential election and if Trump gets reelected, we will see how the strength of the Europeans are. I doubt that we have become the number one security supplier. I don't talk about commitments, but I would talk about supply and delivery and there of course America is far ahead of the Europeans. If Trump gets reelected and even if he not only were to reduce military support, but perhaps strike a deal with Putin and start an economic war with China, then we were to see where Europe is and because this can't be excluded as a possibility at least, the Europeans should start to prepare for that. My lesson now after more than one and a half years of this war is that we really have to wake up to appreciate and recognize, not appreciate, to recognize this war as a European war and that the demand and the necessity that Europe enables itself to provide security for our Europe has become ever more urgent and we have to urgently prepare. The clock is ticking for that and if we are again unprepared for the events, we can't exclude but we can clearly foresee. We will wake up in a disaster situation and then we will contribute to the re-establishment of war as a political instrument even in Europe. That was my point. Thank you very much. The point about a victory for Putin would be a victory for the notion of war as a political instrument that helps define a little bit what what success would look like in in ending this war. I've been told that we can't get the connection up to, I've seen a sign on our monitors here across the front that there is a stable connection could not be formed and so I'm afraid that that we will have to to go proceed without input, but if you can hear me we hope to see you maybe next time in any case. We will proceed with the panel that we have which we've got a lot on the table already. We've already explored quite a bit of territory, important territory for thinking about the trajectory of the Ukraine war because while we cannot talk about how it will end we can talk about how we might want it to end and we can talk about how Ukraine of course wants it to end and what the principal factors are that will determine the trajectory as we move along. The commitment from the European Union, other European players also players abroad not just within the European Union but the United States is absolutely critical within the context of NATO.