 Good afternoon, welcome to our session on the future of geopolitics and business. This morning we heard very different perspectives, perspectives from institutions, from governments, religious perspectives. And we wanted to start today with an outstanding panel of business leaders from around the world. We have business leaders that cover very diverse geographies from Europe to Africa to Middle East, which will discuss with me the impact of geopolitics on business. We want to add a perspective of what does geopolitics mean for business. So we'll start with a short 10-minute introduction about how we see the impact of geopolitics on business, and then we'll enter in a panel discussion. And I'd like to frame us in a series of facts and figures that will allow us to have a focused discussion afterwards on what geopolitics and business mean. We have heard a lot about the war in Ukraine this morning, from a government perspective, from a religious perspective, from a philosophical perspective. The war in Ukraine has had widespread material impact. The war in Ukraine has had the biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe since 1945. 12 million refugees on the move, 7.7 million outside of Ukraine. That is a historic, unique event as we have heard also this morning. At the same time, we have seen huge destruction. The current estimates for a reconstruction of Ukraine turns between 800 billion and 1.1 trillion US dollars. But there's also hunger. 1.6 billion people are depending of Ukrainian and Russian export of wheat, cereals, fertilizers. And last but not least, Europe depends with 150 billion cubic meters on the gas imports, or I should better say, dependent on the gas imports from Russia. Now, when I talk to business leaders around the world, and I can tell you I've spoken to more than 200 executive committees and boards in February 24, there's always a question that arises and that has also risen in February, that is, why is that widespread impact so big, if Russia, Ukraine and Belarus represent between 2-3% of global world trade? You could say that these three economies are actually marginal in the global trade structure. And if you look at this chart, you see that it's even less for the US, we're talking about 1% of US trade, 5-7% in Europe and 2-3% in China. So why is the disruption of supply chains from Russia and Ukraine so fundamental? Well, because the picture I'm showing you here is wrong, or at least it's not complete, because what we need to look at is actually a de-average perspective of the economy. And I know this is a complex chart and it's very detailed, so I'll summarize it for you. But what it shows is that the three countries, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, play an outsized role in the global trade for specific commodity, starting with interest goal, pig iron, elements such as fertilizers, serials, wheat, plutonium, nickel. All these commodity groups have been massively disrupted by the economic sanctions that were taken on Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. And of course, if you pull out one-third or half of the world's trade overnight, you fuel inflation. And de facto, if you look at today's inflationary pressure, there are four key supply chains that are driving this inflationary pressure. The energy supply chain, the agri-food supply chain, the metals and mining supply chain, and the semiconductor supply chain. Those four supply chains, which you see on this chart, except the semiconductors are coming to that when we talk about China, are actually key elements in explaining large portions of the inflationary pressure we have now. So the typical question that comes is to say, okay, how is this over? How will it continue? Well, here we see two scenarios that are likely for Ukraine, from a government, military, but also economic perspective. One scenario, what we call freeze in place, or Korea 2.0, is a scenario where we would come to a ceasefire, to some kind of political arrangement, and some kind of stabilization of the economic volatility we have seen in the last few months. That's actually the positive scenario. The negative scenario is what we call no end in sight, or what we have called Afghanistan 3.0, which is a scenario where we will continue to have sanctions ongoing, where we will have continued pressure on macroeconomic situations, and where we will have a situation where the economic volatility will continue. So far for Ukraine. Now, the second hotspot, we also mentioned it this morning already, is the hotspot of China. And on China it would be relatively brief, but on China I think what is very clear is that we have contrasting perspectives between the grand vision of China, as it was celebrated on the 20th party congress in October, where President Xi Jinping, who is now traveling here in the region, as we all know, has announced a grand future for China, the doubling of GDP per capita until 2035, the development of high technology in China, the big role of China in the One Belt, One Road initiative. However, he's confronted with the reality of what we call choppy waters. And what I find very interesting, I don't know who of you has seen this data, but on Wednesday, so 48 hours ago, the China trade numbers came out. Chinese trade numbers came out. November year on year, minus 8.7% in export, minus 10.6% in import. This had never happened before over the last decades, such a drop. So what we see here clearly is that with the economic slowdown, with the situation of COVID and geopolitical tensions, we are far away from having a only grand future for what is the key player in the Indo-Pacific. So when we talk to business leaders, we get very often the question of saying, okay, what does this now mean for me as business? How should I prepare for the future? And what we have developed are four scenarios for the world 2030. Four scenarios that describe the world 2030. So now you know with scenarios, it's always the same problem. They are generally right, but precisely wrong. And so this is not the idea of telling you how the world would look like, but of showing you four potential perspectives of what the world could look like. First scenario is what we call back to the future. Back to the future is what Thierry this morning described as the unique time between 1989 and 2009 where the world seemed flat. Where institutions like IMF, World Bank, WTO were functioning. And of course a world where free trade and democratic values were at this dominant stage. The second scenario which we see is a scenario which we would describe as limited stalemate. A stalemate as I described it to you already before by saying, well, we are in Ukraine in a conflict that is frozen. We are in a situation where China stays away from the conflict and where actually the continuation of a conflict for many years to come creates a substantial economic instability. The third scenario which is called a tripolar competition and the tripolar competition is based on the fact that we see, well, there might be three blocks emerging. One block around the western countries, US, Europe, potentially Japan. An eastern block around China with or without Russia. And a third block of countries like India, the Middle East, Africa that plays a much more, I would say, non-aligned role. Although we're not thinking that we will see a recreation of the non-aligned movement of the 1950s and 60s. But that's the third scenario. And the fourth scenario is a scenario of the global escalation which would be the combination of a war in Europe plus a combination of a war in the Indo-Pacific. And we've discussed today about, of course, the risk of tensions around Taiwan. And this morning in the panel we heard about the high role of Taiwan in the semiconductor industry. Well, if you know that 92% of the production facility for chips under 10 nanometers are located in Taiwan, you know what this would mean for global economy if we were in a global escalation scenario. The interesting thing is, as I told in my introduction, I've shared these scenarios with about 200 executive committees and boards around the world from Chile to Japan. And I asked people to say where they see the highest likelihood. And it's quite interesting because the large majority of business leaders see the future somewhere between the limited stalemate and the tripolar competition. Actually, between 40 to 45% in those two scenarios. There are few optimists with back to the future and there are few pessimists with global recession. What it means for economy, and that's where I would like to conclude with, is that when we move away from the back to the future scenario to all the other scenarios, we will see a degradation of the economic and political and economic situation of the world. Whether you take GDP growth, whether you take inflation, whether you take the role of global growth, whether you take the whole dimension of climate change, whether you see that the more we move away from our traditional scenario which was back to the future, the more we will see pressure on key economic impact factors that are relevant for the business leaders with whom I will discuss now. So, from our point of view, there are six dimensions to business leaders to act in a world like this. It is, and I think this is quite important, embedding geopolitics in corporate decision-making. Well, for many of you, this might sound very normal, but let me quote a CEO of a large European company whom I met this May in Davos. He told me, Nicholas, 10 years ago, digitalization appeared on my agenda. Five years ago, sustainability appeared on my agenda. Geopolitics appeared on February 24th. So that shows you to which extent corporate leaders need to embrace these geopolitics in their decision-making. Then it's about supply chain resilience, it's about investing in people and strategy, it's about innovation, cybersecurity and acceleration of climate action. And I'd like now to discuss these six topics with the eminent business leaders that I will join on the panel and discuss with them about the impact of this new fragmented world on their businesses. Thank you.