 So I think we have a tendency to personalize power, to see power in the manifestation of individuals. And I believe that the concept is much deeper, much more abroad than that. For example, there are many kinds of power. There's economic power, political power, military, moral, and so forth and so on. I think that we try to often simplify these ideas. And again, this turning power into a person or seeing a person and making that emblematic of power. So power has not changed. Power is the capacity of one individual organization to get another individual organization to do or stop doing something. So that has not changed. What has changed deeply, profoundly, is the sources of power. The way power is exerted, the way power is constrained, the way power is gained and lost. In the 21st century, power has become easier to acquire, harder to use, and easier to lose. And you see a lot of examples. But do you think that this guy of Facebook and those Google boys really think that they can lose their power? You know, if we had this conversation five years ago, we would not be talking about Microsoft. We will be talking about Microsoft rather. Now we're talking about Google and Facebook. Five years ago, we would be talking and everybody was worried about Microsoft. So all I'm saying is, of course, these are very, I'm not denying that they are very powerful centers of power. All I'm saying is that power is becoming more fleeting. Is that there's more constrained. And, you know, we see constant rotations in those who have power. Power is becoming less permanent. And so you asked, where is power today? And it's everywhere. There is far more centers of power, centers of veto, that limit what the main players can do that in the past. My position is much easier because the best ways to define power is when you don't have it. And from this point of view, the Bulgarian position is good. We never abuse power. But I'll try to make just three very brief points. First is on what you were reading in War and Peace because this is part of the Western dilemma. You have Knyaz Bulkowski being there, somebody who is fascinated with the idea of the French Revolution and Napoleon, but he is fighting him being a Russian officer. So from this point of view, the fact that somebody is going to be influenced by you does not mean that he's going to be on the same army with you. And from this point of view, the very idea that democratization of the world is going to end up in the pro-Western world. In my view, it was one of the major illusions that people were talking about. Everything that you see in a certain way is the result of the democratization of the world. But different people. Secondly, and for me, this is also quite important. You have two different ways to try to deal with power. One is to pretend that you are more powerful than you are. And it's a classical authoritarian game. You pretend that you control everything, knowing very well that you don't. But now you start to see in the democracies the opposite game. Now the democratic governments govern by pretending that they are much weaker than they are. If you basically talk to the democratic politicians these days, they are competing to tell you that they cannot do anything. I cannot do this before the market. I cannot do this before the courts and so on. And to be honest, part of the support for the populist parties come to the fact they said, we want something quickly, says that he can do something. And I do believe this is quite important because this also explains, and this is my third and last point on this, why the conspiracy theories are so spreading all over. People don't have the feeling that they know where power is. Because power is not where it used to be. So you say, okay, if the governments are so weak, where is the power? Is it Facebook? Or is it something else? And from this point of view, there is a strange story. The world is more transparent than it used to be, but as a result of it, the conspiracy theories are basically spreading better. So probably there is nothing more suspicious than transparency of power. The individual is more powerful than it was, but exactly because he is more powerful than it is, at least in the Western world, the collective action is much more difficult because you have the feeling that you can make a change without needing others. And this is why people whom you're going to see on the street protesting against something are not the same people who are going to vote on the elections. Paradoxically, we have this big protest in Bulgaria some years ago and the major demand was new elections, but 60% of the people who asked for new elections, they said they are not going to vote for them because there is nobody to vote for. And this is part of this paradox of empowerment, which is not producing a kind of a much more democratic society. I feel that the Europeans have limited themselves, both politically and militarily, and they have had a relationship of dependence with the United States. I do believe that they can lead again. I'm with you on that one. They can lead again and they must if the United States is where it is now. But I want to move from here to actually the Middle East and talk about power over there, where those who govern are scared of those whom they govern and those who are governed are scared from the people who govern them. So who has power? For many, many years, the Arab world behaved like an abused child. It has no trust in itself or confidence in the others. It's basically the result of many years of colonialism, but also because after being brutalized under colonialism, they were brutalized by their own leadership. It's a leadership that is brutal but not powerful. In fact, their weakness is translated into brutality. But I think the uprisings have, at least for people from the Middle East and the Arab world, it has, we had no hope. At least now we have hope. When you talk about this uncertainty about the power in the West, it indeed has to do with the shift of power in the world, from the West to the rest, notably China. And if we talk about the power in terms of soft power and hard power, what you see is clearly what I call a shift, a paradigm shift from the so-called democracy versus autocracy to good governance versus bad governance. That's what China advocates. Good governance can take form of Western political system. There are some cases, not always. Good governance can also take form of non-Western political system. Chinese is an example where many problems, but overwhelming speaking, it's far more positive than negative. Mr. Levy, today you said something that, first of all, again, you inspired me to look at behaviors in the world and to think about what we have done, failed to do, and could do. But you used the term many times. And you said, everyone knows. I have to relate a personal experience. When I retired from the military and I spent a year in academia, I was struck by a similar term being used by a number of professors or lecturers. And the term that I heard quite frequently was, you know. And after hearing this for a while, as soon as I heard the term, I used to tense a bit because often what followed wasn't what I knew. And it wasn't what I had seen. And in some cases, I'd actually been there and seen that in some cases, done it. So I was very a little put off by this, but the point is that I believe we have our own visions, all of us, each of us as human beings, of what's going on. And one of the challenges for those who would aspire to power, to use it in good ways, is the reality that you need to, in my opinion, get people to buy into the idea that you're trying to do something and hopefully you're doing it for the good. How about the number of source of powers? This is the real question. There is the power of Mr. Zuckerberg and the power of Mr. Trump. But what the modern philosophy, the philosophy of the last decades, did teach us? Michel Foucault, for example, the name is familiar, everybody knows. I'm sorry, can I say that? Nearly everybody knows that Michel Foucault said that the power has no place. No place. That there is no single source of power. That there is something which he calls bio-power, bio-power, and which is spread, disseminated all over the society, embedded in the very flesh of the language, in the very flesh of the society, in the very blood of the desire uniting or creating misunderstanding between human beings, men and women, women and men and so on. So the source of power is absolutely disseminated. And you have a great book of a man who is not my political friend, called Tony Negri and Michel Art, called Empire, where he said common, he said to the anti-imperialist. Common, American imperialist joke. China, new empire, joke, no. The real empire is a sort of network of micropowers which makes the real empire.