 This is what we call a packed room. No wonder. We have a great panel. But we also have, I think, one of the most topical issues on the agenda, how is the geopolitics of the world doing? Someone asked me that last night. And I said it's worse than last year. But I'm not sure if it's better than next year. Let's see after we have had the panel. I think seriously this annual meeting in Davos is happening against one of the most complicated geopolitical and geoeconomic landscapes, our backdrops we've seen for decades. This session is about also identifying the opportunities that are for cooperation even in a fractured world. And we saw, for example, during the Bali meeting, G20, that President Biden and also President Xi Jinping came together. They restarted the process on climate. After listening to Vice-President Mayor Li He earlier today, I think there is also hope for new processes. So we are currently in a situation where also Kristalina Georgieva, head of IMF, has said that there might be a recession in one-third of the world. And if we don't get the geopolitics right, I think they're more difficult to also have a recovery. To discuss this, we have, as I mentioned, Kristalina Georgieva, head of IMF, managing director. We have Mohamed Altani, deputy prime minister and foreign minister of Qatar. We have Pekka Haivistu, the foreign minister of Finland. We have His Highness Prince Faisal Al Saud. And we have Senator Chris Kuhn. So this should be a perfect panel for discussing what I just outlined. So, coming to you first, Kristalina, even if you don't naturally IMF deal with geopolitics, it's become also a part of your agenda. And if you see the fragmentation of the global economy now, is there a way to fix this? And how worried are you? Let me first wish you all a very good 23. It is true in our economic projections. We expect growth to further decelerate this year. But since in the beginning of the year, we do seek some good news. Here it is for you. We also expect in 23, growth to bottom out. In other words, to start the process in which we go up rather than down. Just to put in a context what going down means, 2021, we were quite optimistic. We discovered vaccines, COVID was retreating, and we finished the year with 6.1% growth. Then we stepped into 22. January, Omicron reminded us that COVID may be down, but not gone. And on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. A abrupt slowdown in the world economy, we have finished last year with around 3.2% growth. Two times slower than in the previous year. Now in 23, we expect the growth to decelerate to around 2.7%. We would come with numbers soon. And what we see in the year are three very significant challenges. Number one, the war is still going on. And as long as the war goes on, it has a damning impact on confidence. Consumer confidence, business confidence, especially in the neighborhood, and I'm sure Pekka will talk about it. Number two, cost of living crisis. Inflation that has been generated by multiple factors, but especially by the war, is hitting people, especially poor households, very dramatically. And interest rates are at the level we have not seen them in decades. And that is the third factor. High interest rates inevitably are going to contribute to a slowdown in the world economy. So let's put the question of fragmentation in this context. And the context is, it's not great. So when it is not great, the logical thing would be for us to reach out to each other and see how we can do better together. But instead what we are seeing is more forces that are pulling us apart. So we asked a very important question. What is the cost of fragmentation? And we came to Davos with an answer. If we manage the adjustment to more security of supplies smartly and there is some decline in trade, the cost would be manageable, 0.2% of global output. Not nothing. It is still not great when growth is low and we are struggling. But if we manage this poorly, if we allow trade to collapse, the cost would be in the order of 7% of global GDP. Just think what 7% means. This is about $7 trillion lost. The equivalent of Germany and Japan taken together. And then further work says, if we add to this technological fragmentation, the cost could be somewhere 8% to 12% of global GDP. Why I'm stressing this issue today? Because we still have a choice to make and be wise and don't throw the baby out with the bat water. An integrated global economy have served us all well. As a result of this integration, over the last 30 years the world economy tripled. For emerging markets and developing economies, it is even more important they quadrupled in size. But rich countries also benefited. Their economy doubled. And all this means 1.3 billion less extremely poor people on this planet. And it means higher standards of living for everyone. So my appeal is to be very rational. Yes, we will not go back to the days when costs were the only consideration for where you allocate production and how supply chains work. COVID and the war told us security of supply requires some redundancy in supplies. In other words, there would be some cost. But if we are smart to keep that to the level where we make the economy, the world economy, more resilient and not drag the world into a place where we will be all poorer and we would be less secure. My fear is that we are sleepwalking into this world. But hey, here is Davos. Wake up. Do the right thing. Thank you, DeServa. A applause for that. Chris Coons, a senator. We know the US is still the largest economy of the world. What you're hearing also, the managing director of IMF is saying here that a bit of nearshoring to avoid this notion of just in time and a little bit more just in case, building a little bit resilience is fine. But if we go too much into this notion of friendshoring or more protectionist measures, we can shave off a lot of growth globally. We know that there is a new house. There is also partly a new Senate. How far will the US go in friendshoring, making sure that things goes to Mexico and contrast that you're allied with? Did you see the point of the IMF managing director and how will the US balance this? So make sure that we also will have growth in the years to come. And this will be a very shallow recession, never a recession at all. Look, thank you. Thank you for your comments and the opportunity. I do think that American leaders and business leaders in particular recognize that the severe disruptions of the pandemic and some of the challenges of the reach and the scope of globalization that have caused a backlash in many of our countries, a populist backlash, certainly in the United States, need to be addressed. One of the ways to deal with some of our challenges in terms of the hemisphere and migration also is to do some near-shoring to improve the job opportunities in Central America, for example. But I don't think it will be as robust as potentially projected. I do think that we will continue to have an open economy to be committed to free trade and to see the robust value that globalization has brought to the world as well as to many of our people. This is a delicate point. It is unclear where a divided Congress might go in trade policy. But I do think there's been a lot of comment, a lot of concern about the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the largest pieces of legislation that a divided Senate just passed, a 50-50 Senate, managed to do some robust things, invest in our own infrastructure, invest in our own science research, and invest in our own energy, security, and independence. I was encouraged to hear the comments from Ursula von der Leiden earlier today that we recognize that as we are implementing this significant investment, we need to do it with an eye towards our closest partners and allies and to do it not just for our benefit but for the world's benefit. I think one thing that is missed in the coverage of the Inflation Reduction Act is that a lot of it is an investment in new clean energy technologies that can benefit the whole world, methane management capture, carbon capture and sequestration, small modular reactors. So if you take the message from the Inflation Reduction Act that somehow America has become solely protectionist and that we will abandon multilateral finance or we will abandon the global markets that have helped make so much progress over the last decades. I don't think that is a correct reading. I think it was principally about our energy independence, not an attempt to harm others or to isolate us from others. And I do think that the implementation of it will end up proving to be more positive for the world as a whole than was initially seen. Thank you, Senator. Prince Faisal, Saudi, the kingdom is one of the largest energy producers in the world. And in this discussion related to the cost of living, of course, oil price is also an incredibly important part of it. So maybe you could comment on that. But also, the region that Saudi Arabia is situated is not the most peaceful region in the world. And we know that one of your neighboring countries, Iran, the relationship there has been complicated. So maybe you could elaborate on both those two things. Sure, thanks. So on energy, energy security is absolutely key. And here what we feel in the kingdom is that stability is absolutely the key to that energy security. So one of what we believe the successes of, for instance, OPIC and OPIC Plus has been, it has been able to deliver a relatively stable oil price, one that is predictable by both consumers and producers. Some other energy sources have faced significant challenges in that regard, significant rises. And we continue to be committed to that. We are also, of course, committed to a clean energy future. But the only way we can transition to a clean energy future in a way that doesn't impact the issues that Crystalina addressed, the issues of access and ability for the developing world to continue their path towards prosperity is if we can ensure some level of stability and predictability in the supply of traditional sources of energy while we invest in renewable energy. So in Kingdom, for instance, is investing almost $200 billion in deploying renewable energies in the Kingdom and abroad. Our companies are active in 21 countries around the world deploying solar and wind energy and other sources of renewable energy. But that's going to take decades for the developing world especially to be able to have enough energy for it to replace traditional energy fuels. In that interim period, we need to maintain a stable supply of traditional energies. And one that is priced in a way that ensures that stability and that I think we have been able to do. This is certainly our feeling and we will continue to address that in a responsible way. Our neighborhood you mentioned and I want to really focus on the positive rather than on the negative because our neighborhood is also showing signs that even in adverse circumstances you can't deliver success. The Kingdom's economy, for instance, is going to be this year the fastest growing economy in the world. Through a very ambitious reform program, Vision 2030, we have been able to transition the economy in a significant way away from a dependence on hydrocarbons, on oil, as a source of revenue for the government and as a proportion of the GDP. That process continues to go on. We are activating all kinds of areas of the economy. Unemployment is significantly down. Labour force participation is up, especially for women. So these are all signals that even in a difficult part of the world you can be successful. And when it comes to Iran, we have reached out. We are trying to find a path to dialogue with our neighbors in Iran because we believe very strongly that dialogue is the best pathway to resolving differences. And we feel quite strongly that what we are doing in the Kingdom and what others in the region, especially the GCC countries are doing in addressing the challenges of their economy and investing in their countries in focusing on development rather than geopolitics is a strong signal to Iran and others in the region that there is a pathway beyond the traditional arguments and the traditional disputes towards joint prosperity. And I think the more we can build a sense of cooperation in the region, the more we can work together, the more we can deliver not just prosperity for our people but also for our immediate region and beyond. Thank you. The relationship with your neighbor, I'm thinking about the U.S. here, after the summer, there were some speculations that there were some challenges in the relationship after the OPEC decision, was that true or how would you say it is today? Because we know that Saudi Arabia and the U.S. traditionally has been very, very close. So certainly a much less challenging relationship as a neighbor than the other neighbor we just talked about. But look, certainly, you know, we have a strong partnership with the U.S. and we continue to work through that partnership. That doesn't mean we don't always... That doesn't mean that we always agree. We sometimes disagree. We certainly disagreed on the issue of the oil market. In the end, we believe that, I think, our position was the correct one and it showed through what we see now. The oil price continues to be stable. And we have a responsibility to the broader oil market, to the broader economies of the world to make sure that we continue to provide that stability. But we're going to have a robust dialogue with our partners in the U.S. We're going to continue to work through any issues. But overall, this relationship has delivered significant benefit, not just for our two countries, but for our region. And as we continue to address the issues that Christina just addressed and that Senator Coons just addressed, we're going to need to work together. We are all going to need to work together. That means the GCC with each other, the Kingdom with the U.S., the U.S. with Europe. Everybody's going to have to work with each other in order to address all of these challenges. If we start getting hung up on minor issues, we are not going to be able to address the big challenges that face the world. And you share this view, Senator? Largely, yes. I will say one thing that has brought together Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the American populace generally, and most of our core allies and partners in the world is opposition to Russia's brutal aggression in Ukraine. And so I think there were initially some concerns expressed by many of us about the OPEC decision. And as time has gone on, I would agree with the scientists that as the price is stabilized and as we've had more dialogue, we recognize there is a positive path forward for this longstanding, important relationship. But many of us remain concerned about the path forward for Ukraine and ensuring that there is a commitment, stability and investment that gives Ukraine's leaders and those who are fighting bravely every day on the battlefield confidence that they will encourage them with the knowledge that there are many around the world who stand with them. We'll come back to Ukraine. That's one of the other elephants in the room, I think. But I would like to go from the Kingdom to Qatar, to Sheikh Mohammed, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. The relationship also with Saudi Arabia is much better than it was a few years ago. I think we could agree on that, but it's still a region with its complications. Qatar is one of the largest exporters of natural gas and I think Europe has been very pleased with also the LNG capacity. Where do you see natural, I had two questions. Where do you see the role of natural gas being a bridge between the fossil fuel-based society and the renewable society? Qatar's role there. And second question is that we are talking about a lot of conflicts in the world and Qatar also has played a role under EU leadership as important in peace and reconciliation. But I think we're seeing it in many of the conflicts. It's very difficult because we can bring the horses to the well, but it's impossible to make them drink the water. And I would love to, for example, hear your comment on the latest development in Afghanistan that has been a great concern for all of us. So, Sheikh Mohammed. First of all, thank you, Borghi, for inviting me here. And I'm really pleased to be among such distinguished speakers and attendants here. Regarding the first part of your question about the energy and the role of the LNG, we believe in Qatar as the gas is a safer, cleaner and more reliable source of energy. And we believe that the gas will remain relevant and the destination fuel. And it is very important in the energy mixed for the next decades to come. Now, when it comes to the transition agenda, unfortunately a lot of the policy makers, they have set unattainable goals, like very aspirational goals that they didn't realize that this will need time, will need a significant amount of investment. And also they stopped or didn't allow investments in the last 10 years, probably. And we have seen that this energy poverty, which unfortunately being accelerated because of the war in Ukraine, it is a result of these policies. So I believe that this underinvestment, which Qatar didn't follow luckily, allowed us now to have this additional capacity which will become online in 2027 in order to bring more gas to the market. And especially to Europe now, since they are diversifying also their source. We believe that the energy mix taking it in consideration very important to keep the gas, to diversify also the sources, but also to keep in consideration the other sources of energy until they reach these goals. I think also from another perspective, it's also unfair for a lot of developing countries to demand them not to develop their own resources and not to be energy and dependence while they are still in need for their development journey. And a lot of countries around the world, actually they are seeing the wealthier countries being unfair for them and demanding them to stop to develop their own resources. The third point on this, I'm not sure if there was an honest discussion about also this transition agenda and what kind of damage it might create for the earth when we are talking about mining their earth or also mining the metals to use them as an input for all those renewable energy equipment. So we believe that it should be more a deeper conversation, more inclusive, all the countries needs to be included in that conversation, not only the G7 or the developed countries to set the agenda for the world. Regarding our role in the conflict resolution, and as you mentioned, Borg gave very correctly, that it's not an easy job, it's maybe, it is a difficult journey to bring parties with this agreement together to reach an agreement, but it's also more difficult to sustain the agreement. And we recognize the fact that it's not easy for a country like Afghanistan, which suffered not only in the last 20 years of war, but really beyond that probably in the last 40 years and they've been fighting with each other. We cannot expect that an agreement that happened between them and the US will bring peace to the country in one day or one year. Especially there were no real dialogue between the parties of the war themselves, I mean the Afghan, the entire Afghan dialogue didn't take place properly. What happened recently and the recent measures by the Taliban government in Afghanistan has been very disappointing for us and we've been warning them from taking such a decisions that are going just to make the situation much worse for the Afghan people, but also for the international community to be able to deal with them. Does it mean that we are going to stop our efforts? No, we should continue. We always remain hopeful that the way we are engaging with others, we are engaging with people who are sometimes difficult to talk to. It's the only way forward to find a resolution. Otherwise, what would be the alternative? The alternative would be a civil war social unrest in the country, which is going to blow up for the entire region. So on the latter, I think when we have a dialogue with the players in Kabul is one thing, but decision makers are also in Kandahar. Do you think there is a hope in the near future to get the dialogue on this and change the decisions or are we talking more medium long term? Well, from the beginning we've been trying our best in order to reach out to them either directly by us but also by other countries in the region and especially the Muslim countries where we see them playing a major role in such issues, especially the social and the economic issues for Afghanistan. We've been trying even to reach out to Kandahar and to have a dialogue with them. Until now we didn't succeed, but we are in a continuous consultation with other countries in the region with some Muslim countries in order to go and to reach out to them as a group of countries and to talk to them about these issues and about these measures that have been, unfortunately, taken without any rationale. And they couldn't even rationalize it for us, the ones who are talking to them. So I believe it's not going to be an easy job, but it's very important to keep trying and to keep insisting to drive this change unless, until we see a real change happening there on the ground. No, thank you. It's about a whole generation of girls and women's rights to education. So we hope all that there will be a way of breaking that impulse. I said to Senator Kuhns that we were going to come back to Europe. There is a war in Europe. And Pekka Hives too, we've known each other for many years. Pekka was also a presidential candidate for the Greens. You became Foreign Minister in probably the most demanding time and challenging time for your country in decades. Had you ever reflected on that you as a Green was the one that was going to bring Finland into NATO? Well, actually, we had this kind of very rapid NATO debate in Finland, which started 24th of February last year and ended in May when we tabled our NATO documents. And of course, we were so happy to get Sweden on board. I have to say that I was more skeptical with Swedish possibilities after 200 years of neutrality to join. There was a changing religion. Yeah, it was a big issue there as a Nordic background. You know about it. But I have to say that my party fully agreed with that. But even the left wing alliance that has had in their program the anti-NATO policy changed their policies and voted in favor. So it was a very unified Finland. But maybe on the Ukraine issue and on the security situation, I have to say that the blacks ones, unfortunately, are now coming from Europe. And the risks are coming from Europe. Of course, we can think about this different kind of escalation of the conflict, Russian aggression against Ukraine. We, of course, would like to support the Zelensky's 10-point peace plan, but peace needs two to tango. We know that. And then I think the issue, when we speak about the multilateralism and how the international organization work in this time. Of course, Helsinki was the place where the Helsinki Final Act 1975 was signed. It was some kind of end of the Cold War. And now Finland will be sharing the OEC 2025 50-year celebration. And I don't know if it's a real celebration because we see a broken structure in European security. And what I would like actually to defend a little bit to you and because I'm facing a lot of questions that should we close the whole shop with the UN at the moment, because UN cannot defend Ukraine and UN can do this and that. I have been saying that actually, according to the UN Charter, Article 51, a country which is attacked can ask help from the other countries until the problems are solved in the UN Security Council. And we are exactly there. Ukraine has been attacked. Ukraine asked for help from other countries. We are helping. We are waiting for the Security Council to solve this. And of course, the bottleneck is the Security Council. And now instead of the Security Council, we have the General Assembly that has been taken a very high, moral high stand on this issue. And that's important. We have international agreement on that issue. But of course, at the same time, we should work through the UN on issues where we can. The food security is one, the grain trade channel that has been opened. I think it's a success story. I just two days ago discussed with Mr. Grossi from the IAEA, who was on his way to Ukraine to look at the nuclear safety issue, very important for Europe and globally. And even some exchange of prisoners that is ongoing, I think the Turks are negotiating successfully in Ankara on this issue. It shows that these channels are open and discussion channels are open. But of course, it's very important that we stay in solidarity with Ukraine, defend their independence, their borders. And I'm also quite proud citizen of European Union, I have to say, because in the beginning, everybody was very skeptical. How European Union will react? Are we united and so forth? We have through the European Peace Facility been supporting militarily, Ukraine systematically together with the US and UK, an excellent cooperation on support of Ukraine. But of course, the big challenge remains, how do we get Russia out of Ukraine? How do we get peace that is permanent peace in the region? And even what kind of security guarantees we can organize for Ukraine? And Finland has 1,300 kilometers border with Russia. So what I follow in Finnish politics is also this notion that Ukraine is then really also about other neighbors' future with Russia. Is that your interpretation, too? Well, of course, we think we are very security-oriented people. And when we look at the world news, we always ask first, what if this happening on our borders? And only then, when we have solved that question, then we say how to organize the solidarity towards those who are in trouble. And I think it's from our history. And when first Belarus organized illegal migration over the border to Poland, the Finns asked, what if this happening on our border? When Ukraine was attacked by Russia, we asked ourselves, what if this is happening to our border? And that led us to NATO debate, particularly actually these unconventional weapons issues, like the nuclear threat, the chemical weapons threat. People asked that, hey, we have a quite strong traditional military, traditional army, big reserves. But what if we are threatened with unconventional weapons? And I think it's fair enough to ask, unfortunately, today, also that kind of questions when we see the prognosis of the war. And I think that's where we are. We are all the time saying that we are bringing a peaceful border to NATO, 1,300 kilometer peaceful border. Our border authorities are still working. We have limited visas towards Russian citizens, but we allow those who are working to come over, those who have our studying in Finland, and those who have relatives, or those who need a hospital treatment. So there is traffic over the border. I think the question we are all asking us is when and how can this war end? And as foreign minister, I used to always come to Helsinki and discuss with you and your predecessor in the present about Russia, because there is a lot of knowledge about Russia in Finland. It is a long history. I guess that the mood is not the best in Kremlin these days, because I think the plan was probably to take Kiev in a week that didn't happen. The war is not going as it was planned. Europe is united. But a war needs also to end. So what is now the current thinking in Kremlin? Do they see a way out of this? Do they think about that? At all? Or is the mentality now that we just double down on it? We just have to continue even attacking civilians and breaking basic humanitarian law? Well, I maybe wouldn't sit here if I had the right information directly from Kremlin, but I would use it. I said understanding of the mentality. I would use it immediately. But let me say how we Finns looked at the situation. We have been living in a long neighborhood with Russia. We have even been part of the Russia during our autonomic time and so forth. But let's look 100 years first backwards. We had not King Batotchar, and then came Lenin, and then came Stalin, and of course, then came Rutschev, and then Brezhnev, and then Gorbachev, and Yeltsin, and then Putin. And we see the Siksak 100 years in the history. And when we look towards the future, our best guess is that this will be the similar Siksak 100 years from now. But in all these circumstances, we have to live in a neighborhood with this country, and we have to understand somehow exactly how to create the mentality. Currently, we see a rising patriotism. We see quite weak opposition in Russia. Many people have left Russia, who think in a different way, and so forth. Many young people, and Russia. There's a huge brain drain from Russia at the moment. And this is, of course, not good for the Russian future if you think in that way. But at the moment, we don't see any movement that is from the inside Russia, stopping the war, and so forth. So we can only think that militarily Russia should be stopped, and militarily it should be shown that there's a limit. You cannot go, there's a red limit. You cannot go over the border of a country without any consequences. And I think, by the way, when I'm referring to this UN article 51, I've been, people, has it been used before? I said, 1990, autumn, I was sitting in the Finnish parliament. A delegation from Kuwait came and said, Iraq has been occupying our country. Can you help? And the coalition of voluntary countries were formed. So actually, 1990, it was the same mechanism. And that gives us the responsibility to protect Ukraine as much as we can. Yeah, and I think I'm, of course, trying to be a neutral moderator here. But I think there is, wasn't there a Budapest memorandum in 1994? And there was no dispute about the borders. Originally, it was an acknowledgement of the borders, wasn't it? Yes, yes, all borders, of course, have been recognized. And already, what happened in 2014, of course, the stealing of the Crimea. By Russia, everybody said that we should have been reading these marks, even more clearly, we can be critical to ourselves that we didn't maybe react strongly enough. But of course, major violation of the international rules has happened and major violence against the rules of the human rights have happened, of course, in this bombing of the civilian locations and others. And I think it's very important wherever the countries are coming from, that in the UN to agree on those principles. And there are some principles and we have to respect those. And you're sending weapons to Ukraine too, Finland? We are sending weapons and we have been sending 11 hard packages. The latest one was worth 55 million euros. And we are discussing now about the Leopard 2 tanks. We have some of them in Finland bought very cheaply from Netherlands, by the way, in the time of the peace. And this is an issue, these Leopard 2 tanks, they're spending on Germany and Poland. But basically, these are German-made tanks. So we need permission from Germany, but also we need a bigger slot of same models to be sent, otherwise it's quite useless. So, coming back to you, Senator Kunz, because I heard today that, of course, the support from the U.S. Air has been critical for Ukraine. You had also President Zelensky addressing both the chambers of the Congress. But there is also this discussion going on, though, how long the U.S. will support the war. And one of the things that is said also from Kremlin is that we don't know how long this will continue, because there is also not full alignment on this thing in the U.S. You think with the Republican majority now in the House and the Democratic majority in the Senate, do you think there will be changes in the U.S. policy here, or is there just a few single voices? I think there are just a few single voices. I think there are folks on the left and the right in our political spectrum who are questioning the cost. But I think this is something where the overwhelming majority of the members of Congress and of our people support a continued, robust partnership with all of our allies in Europe and around the world, frankly, to see this as what it is, a brutal war of aggression, an attempt to rewrite the boundaries of Europe, an imperial war. And frankly, after tens of thousands of Ukrainians have died fighting, we cannot step back at this point. Putin had calculated that he could divide the West during the winter by having huge costs, cutting off energy and making Europe bear some of the costs. That has not happened. He calculated that by striking a civilian infrastructure and leaving millions of Ukrainians in the cold and the dark, he could break their will. That has not happened. Now, Putin has to assess where the costs are greater, where the risks are greater. And I think Western unity and unity in pushing back against this aggression is critical. It will determine a lot of the shape of the next few decades. He has already made a huge strategic mistake. Finland and Sweden will join NATO, doubling the border with Russia and bringing two sophisticated advanced economies into NATO. I think what we now need to see is a path towards a successful conclusion and the liberation of Ukraine. Thank you. Of course, if it's any of the GCC foreign ministers that want to comment here, please feel free to comment on this topic. If not, I will go to Kristalina. Yeah, I mean, just to say, and I'll just say that, you know, we've heard and you emphasize this, that this conflict has impacts well beyond just Ukraine. And at some point, we need to find a pathway to ending the conflict. So that's, I think if you listen to the developing world, that's the message you will hear mostly, is, you know, that this is significant. And obviously, this is a complex question, but we will have to talk about how we find a pathway to ending the conflict. And Pak, I kind of mentioned that there are already some efforts on the margins, let's say, you know, prisoner transfers, you know, we were involved in some of those, Turkey's doing some of those desperate work on nuclear safety, which might be a doorway. So then, you know, we need to also look towards a path to ending this conflict, because without that, the uncertainty that Kristalina referred to is going to continue. Thank you. Sheikh Mama? Well, I think, look, Borge, what just Pekka mentioned about, you know, referring to the charter of United Nations and, like, no one from us, no one, at least, you know, Qatar, GCC, all of the countries we voted, for example, for the resolution, no one would like to see an aggression toward another country or threatening of using of power. And we want to see everyone standing up and abiding by the UN Charter. But what really, you know, struck us in the region when we are looking at the world, you know, mobilizing only for specific cases and specific causes. And we've been in the Middle East, like, suffering for decades from all violations for UN Charter, including from the Palestinian-Israeli issue to the Syrian issue, and just, you know, a lot of other things going on. We would like to see the same world stand for these kinds of causes, because unfortunately, we still see them unaddressed and just continuing. There is a very big concern now among the region with what's happening in Palestine with all these provocative policies. We would like to see a real stand from our allies and partners also to stop the Israeli government from taking such an action. And this is applied also to the suffering of the Syrian people and others. We would really want to see an end for this war in Ukraine. We would like to see everyone abiding with the Charter of the United Nations. We want to see an end of the suffering of the Ukrainian people as soon as possible, as well as the other people in the world. Thank you. It says time out, but, but, Kristalina, I think we can at least recover, take the privilege of prerogative of taking two minutes. I think you're the only one Russian speaking on this panel too, and we should not forget that Kristalina grew up in Bulgaria. He also was the World Bank's representative. I remember I met you in Moscow. So how do you look at this? Will there, is there an end to it? And I think the economic impact and also food prices and et cetera is quite terrible. So if you can do that in two, three minutes. Well, it is tragic to see Russia taking such a course to destabilize Ukraine, but also destabilize itself. And if you look at 22, the biggest, single biggest factor affecting the world economy was this senseless war. What I know about Russia is that one of the pitfalls of the last decades was the fact that there wasn't more concerted effort to integrate the Russian society, the Russian people, within the world community. When I was in European Commission, I used to very often say back, we have to have more people to people exchanges with Russia. So we have the Russian people feeling that they are part of a family of nations rather than being taught that they are somehow different. I was country director for Russia based in Moscow in the best days when Russia was reforming and there was GA, remember these days? And at that time, when you ask the Russian people who they are, how they define themselves, the majority would say Europeans. Even the Russians that live in the Asian part of Russia, when you ask the Russian people today, they say we are different. We are a different civilization. We are different from the rest of the world. So if I draw one lesson is to remember that yes, policies are defined in the high corridors of power. But when a population of a country subscribes to policies that are detrimental to their own interests, there is something for the world to reflect on and perhaps think about ways in which we can do more people to people exchange. I am concerned that in this horrible thing Russia has done, there is a bit of kind of vilifying all Russians. We throw them all in that pot and we have to be careful about it. There are so many wonderful, smart Russian people that don't agree with these policies. Some of them are now in Poland and in Finland. And try to think not to take this individual case of Russia and say a world that is more integrated is a world where we are connected on the basis of our humanity and we recognize how much we depend on each other. That we actually, all of us, we are not that different. We are all part of humanity. And to finish on this note on Russia, those who speak, are there Russian speakers in the audience? Anybody? I think there is. It's like me, okay. There's an honor, there's a couple. There's some. There is a very famous Russian song and when the war started, it spiked into my mind that is about Russia not wanting the Second World War. And the song is, Khatiatli Ruskiy by Na'im. Do the Russians want a war? And the whole notion of the song is, no, they don't. What happened? Why did it happen? And how we can put an end to it? I want to leave us with this notion that even the hundred years war ended where at the negotiating table? The sooner we define the space, as everybody here said, for this horrible war to end, the better for everyone. And of course, great news for the world economy. Well, thank you. First, I'm biased as the moderator, but I thought we had a very interesting discussion, very insightful panel. This is, like for me, the best kind of dialogues in Davos. As I remember the dialogues two decades ago also in Davos, small room with the most insightful people in the world. So thank you very much. Thank you.