 Welcome to episode number nine of Eat NATO for Breakfast. I am Noda speaking to you from Madrid, where the NATO summit will begin in just about three months. The war in Ukraine goes into its second month, and we are here to try to make sense of the situation. Today, we are here with Reiner and Sean from the International Peace Bureau. The IPV is an international peace organization that has been working for over 100 years, dedicated to the vision of a world without war. And today, we are here with them to talk about NATO's 2030 agenda and how to build a vision of peace in this context, because NATO's new strategic concept will be implemented at the Madrid summit in June. That's why we are working all together to build the peace summit towards Madrid. Today, in this context of war, it seems that, again, we have to sacrifice everything for security. But what does security mean, in fact? In today's show, security is going to be one of the concepts that connects our conversation. And we have a proposal to make to you from the peace summit. Let's think together precisely about security in the background as we talk with Reiner and Sean, and let's share those ideas and points of view through art. We want to announce today our security, insecurity poster call, a discussion on peace and war in our daily lives. Let's try to find out what makes us feel secure and what makes us feel insecure. Well, we are going to paste this link to the call on the chat for you to participate and share, right, Francine? Thank you, Nora. Good morning all. Welcome to the show. Today, we'll be looking closely at what is actually happening below the surface. We hear that NATO is going to protect us and keep us secure and is working on peace and security, if not for all, at least for some of us. We want to question Reiner and Sean, who have been looking at this intensely for a long period of time to actually figure out what is really at the heart of the new agenda. Before we start, I just want to put one more link in that helps us to investigate further and to learn about what NATO is. From the IPA, we have a seminar going that is called Peace vs. NATO. It is going into its third week and the third week will deal exactly with the point of what would be necessary for peace, what are conditions for peace. So the link will be in the chat. Please feel free to sign up for it to continue this conversation that we are beginning today. I'll first pick on Reiner. How are you today, Reiner? How is it going? You know, it is Saturday and I really have not the feeling that it is a weekend. This is not only the meeting now, it's two other meetings over the weekend where we are discussing about these horrible situations with the war, the illegal war of Russia against Ukraine and what could be peaceful answers to that. What does this mean for peace movement, for design and activities? I think this is a quite intensive, controversial and deep discussion, which I think you know, this like me, takes a lot of time, lots of power and effort. And so the weekend is a little bit full of actions and I hope I have a little bit of time to watch a little bit the soccer games in the afternoon and the early evening. That's very good. I really hope you do get a chance, but yes, you're already pointing to the difficult situation that we are facing at the moment and that it does indeed take intense activities and learning and conversation and debate. In the recent episodes, we had a couple of guests already explain a little bit the NATO history, how in fact it was actually built, including fascist regimes like Portugal at the time and it sort of matched by all these old colonial powers. And then is this still so? And how did NATO enlargement result in like now being an alliance of 30 countries? And then how global NATO, so 30 countries now, are actually determining the fate and the fate of all nations on the planet or at least it seems that this is the goal. Can you explain to us a little bit about the general layout of global NATO so that we understand what we really, to many of us it seems like NATO, of course it's global because it seems to be that way already. It somehow seems like, is that even a question? But can you give us a little bit of an overview so that we understand better what global NATO really means? You know, I will try. You know, you mentioned the figures at the end of the Cold War, NATO has 16 member organizations. And you know, it was definitely a global NATO because it has both sides of the Atlantic, Europe and United States and Canada as members. Now, 30 years later, NATO has 30 countries. The new countries are coming mainly from Central and East Europe. So it enlarged their membership in the Central East Europe. And I'm saying against the common decision of the end of the Cold War period made by the leading politicians at that time. You know, there was this agreement of Paris, the Charter of Paris, which said, we want to have a common, peaceful, disarmed Europe, but NATO is the opposite. But now, and this is the meaning for me for global NATO, NATO is not any longer what the name said, North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is the biggest military alliance in the world. And I think it's not wrong to say, it's the biggest military alliance in history. What does this mean? This means first, there is a new discussion about further member organizations in Europe. This is Georgia, Moldavia and very controversial, you will have to see it, I'm sure later, Ukraine. But that is not the key point of global NATO. The key point of global NATO is the new relations by treaties, contracts, maneuvers, exchange of officers, common trainings and an end with the following leading countries in the world. First of all, Japan, there are strong actions in the militaries of Japan and NATO. Japan is always in, depending with the vice minister of foreign affairs or defense, the NATO summit. Next to South Korea, the same, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, they are also engaged in the NATO system. Engaged in the NATO system means above all, they are part of the NATO communication and information structure. So they are developing together the next steps, the exercises, their trainings, the next events. And addition to this, we have to mention that these expansion includes Australia and New Zealand. This is the enlargement or expansion of NATO to the East to Asia, why? Because when you look to the map, it is very easy to answer, NATO helps the United States to encircle China. It's a part of the fight of the United States against China. This is a key point. Why should be German warships in the South China Sea? They could stay at home, but this is one part. The second part is to Africa. Africa is playing in the future a leading role by resources, by the development of the people for the climate change resistance end and end. And NATO above all about their former, about the former colonies, countries, Great Britain and France have about 15 military bases in Africa. And the US is developing two or three new military bases, mainly so-called drones bases where they put their drone systems and where they are starting the drone activities and arrangements in the North of Africa and in the Middle East. Drones activities, drone airports are for example, in Nigeria and Nigeria but also in other countries. These, in addition to that, NATO is closely connected to the new partly military alliances in Asia. The names are Quad and Orcus. One is the combination or the common work of Australia, United States and India. And the other is together with Japan, India, US, always US and Australia. These are military alliances and the only opponent of these military alliances is Asia. When you are looking to the military expenditure, the military budget of all these countries were in the last year growing by three of, till to five or six percent. So we have a huge arms race in this area. In addition to that, an absolute new necessary for a global NATO are the military bases. We have about 800 to 1000 military bases of the United States all around the world. And when you look at the picture, you will see that the main reason of these NATO bases is to encircle on one side Russia on the other side China. Last sentence to not to speak too long. Don't forget the aircraft carriers above all from the United States. They are something like militarized islands where they are using always for their fights and attacks against independent sovereign countries. So global NATO means the globalization of NATO with the main focus on so-called two enemies, Russia and China. Thank you very much Reiner. I think this like portrays very well like the alliances and how new alliances and through bases through military bases what is the map that we have today. But also we understand that these global NATO project have different strategies for different realities that is being adapted for different regions of the world. You've been talking about Asia and Africa. So maybe Sean can explain to us a bit on how this impacts Latin America. And as Reiner was saying, the role of the US because I don't know what you are portraying Reiner and maybe what Sean can explain to us much is like magically also the strategy of the US or maybe it's just everything by chance. So hello Sean and let's go into Latin America and NATO. Thank you very much. Sure, yeah, thank you. Just a few thoughts before I dive into Latin America in particular, it's worth noting that NATO in this global strategy uses sort of propaganda within the way that it describes its global alliances. For one hand, they have article 10 of the NATO is basically limiting members of NATO full members to Europe and a lot of academics and peace activists postulate that this was basically a strategy to during the Cold War separate itself from Russia to say, okay, we're only a European alliance. We're not this global colonial force but that has always been more rhetoric as we've seen by this development now of global partners which hold most of the same roles. And although things such as article five, the defense don't technically apply to it. It can be guessed that if there were to be conflict among these global partners as well that through this alliance structure, NATO would be involved in a response as we've seen in previous NATO involvement or interventions in different regions around the world. Also in some cases, these global partners have actually played a role such as in Afghanistan where there was Australian involvement, New Zealand involvement along with the Republic of Korea. So just some examples there as well of how that's involved. Now, also one other thing and this comes with an anecdote in Latin America. As of now, there is one global partner to NATO in Latin America and that's Columbia. I'll go into that in a second. But just recently, I think this was 2019 or 2020. There were also discussions in a press conference where NATO was asked about the possible involvement of Brazil as a global partner to NATO to which they responded, countries need to decide for themselves if Brazil comes to us and says they want to be a member, wink, wink, then we would consider having them as a global partner. So there is a sort of strategy for the expansion of these global partners where in the rhetoric they say it is up to these states to choose. But also of course it comes with benefits and there are nods or hints for certain partners, usually partners of the US to join. Now to go back for a second specifically to the situation in Columbia because that is of most interest when we're talking about Latin America. Dialogue with NATO between Columbia and NATO began in 2013 in 2017, Columbia formally became NATO's global partner, the first in Latin America. And in 2019, there was a further individual partnership and cooperation program formalized between the government of Columbia and NATO which increased their roles in cooperating together in a number of different themes. On one hand, this is counterinsurgency and counter narcotics work which we all know in Columbia has been terrible for human rights. However, this is something that NATO is learning in some ways from Columbia as part of the agreement is the counterinsurgency that they're doing there that has resulted in countless civilian deaths and really destruction of the environment and plenty of other problems in Columbia. On the other hand, then NATO is also training Colombian forces as we've already seen in the past between the US and Columbia which has also contributed to the human rights violations in that country. And this beyond just the training can also include imports of arms. And one of the benefits of becoming a global partner of NATO is being able to receive US and NATO arms exports at a more convenient price for the NATO allies. So there's also that benefit that comes with NATO which is in some ways an incentive to countries that are looking to increase their militarization but which is also quite destructive. So I see that my time here I think is coming to an end. So I'll wrap up the section for now but that gives a brief overview anyways. There's plenty more to talk about about US military bases through Latin America and if there's more time I'll get into that. I think that definitely we need more time for that and maybe even another show because it's a very, very important point. So like it was a very good beginning. We will be developing it. Thank you very much, Sean. I think it's very interesting the way you frame it because you talk about choice about how countries can choose. And I think that's something that we can also develop a bit farther with Reiner when he was talking about Africa before. So can we consider for instance, Libya as a global NATO target in 2011? This is going to be the global NATO like the global Libya. And regarding the choice, what are the countries have actually to say? Is there an actual option for those countries not to get bombed or I don't know. This also connects with the idea of freedom, democracy that also need to provide. Thank you for that. But I see like the now the media narrative is in like in the words of Josep Borrell, the high representative of the European Union from firing a first and security. In fact, when he's saying, we will remember those who are not by our side. Very dangerous words, right? So what's the choice in fact regarding global NATO, Reiner? You know, no one is to forced to become a member of NATO and there are always alternatives. So the argument of some of the NATO leaders that there is no alternative, that is not true, like it's always not true. There are always alternatives. And when we are looking to the development of NATO in Europe in the period of the, after the period of the Cold War, there was the alternative of a common security Europe, which was announced and fixed in the charter of Paris. The big difference between a common security system and NATO or the military alliance is that military alliance are always exclusive and they are always against an so-called enemy. The common security system is always inclusive. It's include all partners of the region to solve the problems on the peaceful human, human rights basic. And this is the big difference. You know, don't tell me that NATO is a democratic organization or organization which is facing human rights. You know, we know the story of Franco Spain. We know the story of Portugal. We know the story of the colonial countries. We know the story of the engagement of NATO in Afghanistan, in Iraq. We know the criminal activities of NATO in Libya. So the question of NATO, why there is NATO? NATO is for interests. And to say it in a very simple way, NATO is for the interest, the profit interest of the Western countries. It should secure the arms trade ways. It should secure the resources and it should secure the power structure. The traditional old white dominant Western world will be continue the leading power in the world against the so-called newcomers. The main newcomer is definitely China. But for them also a newcomer from a very difficult old situation is also Russia. And they want to lead in these countries. And that is the reason NATO expand. That is the reason NATO tries to engage this military spending, the militarization of the whole country. Because it also want to force the other countries to spend more money for military purposes which reduce the social development of the social and ecological development of these countries. So don't tell me about NATO and democracy. NATO is using democracy when it is a good propaganda slogan. NATO is using military forces when it is helpful for power structures for the influence in the world. That is what really NATO is really doing. And I think Libya is one of the most criminal examples of NATO military use. And you see the results. The country is totally destroyed. It is divided. The people are killed. The people have to leave the countries. And when they are leaving the countries, they are killed in the Mediterranean Sea because we don't take them as refugees. And you can see these are the consequences of the wars. And look to Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan. 95% of the Afghanistan people are going to bed with hunger now. That is the result of 20 years engagement of NATO in Afghanistan. Yeah, you're raising these points which bring us a little bit to the present right now. The way that NATO is perceived, especially at this particular moment here in Europe due to the war in Ukraine, we see more and more that the corporate media talks about the international community being united against Russia. Well, we actually know that this international community is neither international because it only concerns the Western world as you already pointed out, Leina, nor is it really a community since all of these countries also have particular interests that they try to push through. But what does this mean? Like in the current situation, for example, in the UN on the votes on sanctions, we saw that there is not so much consensus, that global NATO's strategy to sort of substitute the role of the UN as sort of an international framework and being like the organization that in fact acts with the legitimization, at least at the pretend legitimization of the UN, that this is cracking a little bit. Maybe not so much in the corporate media. As I said, I think the media is still telling us that there is unity, but if you look a little tiny bit closer, you see it isn't. Is that an opening for exactly what Reiner is trying to describe of like maybe there's an option of not joining NATO, maybe there's an option of finding more secure, more common security-based alliances elsewhere. Do we see an opening here or is this just something that we, I don't know, that we from the peace movement like to dream and imagine about? How do you view them? I guess the question is, how do you view the discrepancy or the dissonance between what the media is currently telling us and the break between the reality to many, many, many other countries, like South Africa didn't join. Are the bricks coming back? Is that like a different arrangement? So I know I'm throwing a lot of things out there. I think what I'd like to ask Sean is maybe to talk a little bit about what are opportunities for resistance on an international level and resistance not necessarily in fighting terms, but in what are opportunities and openings for resistance that are currently maybe opening up? Yeah, certainly. Firstly, I think it's worth reiterating, as Reiner said that the invasion in Ukraine is illegal and it is wrong. And we do agree with that, although that is not just the NATO line. At the same time, of course, we do see that certain countries are not condemning Russia as strongly or remaining silent. And that may in some ways be as a counterweight to the NATO Alliance really taking the lead on this. One point that I did want to mention, of course, NATO also all members of the G7 are NATO members or global partners of NATO in the case of Japan, for example. So there is an economic alliance that's tied with the military alliance to a significant degree. And this I think can be seen as well in the resistance. So it's very interesting when you bring up the BRICS and the possibility of new economic forces realigning the way we see political matters. And I do think there is an opportunity there as we see more of a multipolar world now that isn't as centered around the US and we have other regions of the world with economic and political influence. So in some ways that can certainly be an opportunity for opposition to NATO, not necessarily in a military sense, but refusing to join NATO, creating alternative security in other regions. We have nuclear weapons free zones in Latin America, for example, in Africa and in parts of Asia as well. These could be expanded upon. Nuclear obviously is a big issue because NATO is a nuclear alliance as well, something that is often forgotten and the nuclear weapons are currently shared in Europe. Although there are also discussions, for example, in Japan to allow nuclear weapons there or even in South Korea with the new election, there's also some risks there. So I think nations that are not aligned really have an opportunity here to consider alternatives to NATO for their own defense. First of all, in many of these regions, they're not very close to Ukraine and so their security concerns are quite different. Oftentimes in Latin America, in Asia and in Africa, we see economic concerns, domestic political concerns, insurgencies where NATO really has proven they have no ability to fight these and that alternative ways of security do need to be explored. So I think these countries really could have discussions between them to develop an alternative that addresses their particular needs to security, which are very different than what NATO claims should be. There's, when we look at Colombia, the situation in Colombia, despite it being a partner, NATO really cannot help except by providing more arms and more destructive trainings that will really harm the people of Colombia. So even in that case, they should be considering alternatives because their partnership with NATO will not help their domestic situation. Yeah, and I think that also, like all this situation developing in the world is totally connected with the military expenditure, as Rainer was saying before, that is as well one of the focus of the IPV. This relocation of military expenditure reducing the funding for the military sectors towards what's necessary for the people, right? But this understanding that maybe some time ago it was very, very clear is not being taken under consideration, right? We see how the proposal of the investment of the 2% of the GDP on NATO that Trump made and came country by country asking that first seems like very, very crazy, now seems reasonable. We see how strong European states like Germany bend to the will of NATO, even proposing changing its own constitution to fulfill this military scenario. And also on the other hand, again, Mr. Borrell, ask the European people to turn off the heating that we do not consume Russian gas. His words were turn down the heat a couple of degrees, wake up from that dream of welfare, right? So thinking about these very strong words, we are like also individually like responsible to boycott Russian gas in a way that this means also that we as people have to assume the necessary sacrifices in our daily lives to fulfill the American proposed sanctions on a daily basis and not complain while the budgets of our country goes directly to work. How to confront Reiner, this view that brings us all to the global crisis that has these daily implications for all, especially in the global south. You know, first of all, every weapon which is developed and produced is to 90% also used. The only weapons which are not used are the nuclear weapons because they will destroy the whole planet and will end the life on earth. So more military spending means more wars. That is the clear message from the 2% and this is in Germany also the clear message from the so-called special fund for 100 billion euros. We are the government suggest. The second, you know, which problem you can solve by weapons? None. All the global problems will be even deeper and stronger by wars and conflicts. Climate change, can you solve it with weapons? Never. Hunger, poverty, can you solve it with weapons? Diversity, nature protections, nothing can be solved with weapons. Working places, also not true. One working place in the military field are three working places in the civilian production. So military is, military expenditure is like burning the money and only making profit for a very small amount of brutal criminal companies with earned money with the death of people. So that means we should really reduce military spending and use the money for what I would call the social ecological peace transformation in the world, which we need. And these include that we have to be definitely more careful with our resources. Personally, in the long term, I am for the idea that all the gas and oil should be under the earth, but we have to prepare it. We have to develop the alternative energy structures, alternative economic sections, ecologizing the whole economy. That is the challenge we are facing. And what our government is now doing is that the pools of the pool in the world suffering the most. The first victims of all the sanctions are not the oligarchs in Russia. No, these are the poor people in Asia and above all in Africa, which don't get any more corn because the corn is coming mainly or big part of it coming from Ukraine and Russia. So they are the first which are suffering. The same is with the people in Russia. And the same is with many other peoples in the world. So the alternative to these politics of militarization of the society is for my understanding, the policy of common security. And now I will also make a short announcement. In April, we have the 40th anniversary of the first Olaf Pymre Report of Common Security. On the 31st of April this year, IPB together with the ITUC, the International Trade Union Confederation and the Olaf Pymre Center will come out with the second Olaf Pymre Report. These Olaf Pymre Report is a peaceful alternative to militarization, how we can solve the problems of the world on the basis of common security. I think this is the key challenge and I'm happy that we could discuss it a little bit today. Thank you. That's a good call. I'm just thinking about the... So the NATO Report or the NATO Agenda 2030 begins with the awesome sentence. NATO 2030 is an ambitious agenda to make sure NATO remains ready, strong and united for a new era of increased global competition. I think everything that you just said, Reine, speaks to, you know, this is sort of the opposite of what you are trying to get to, what you are trying to tell us that we need to work towards. So I think it sets the stage for us to think about how to counter this type of language, this type of already, like very... It's like, it's a militarized language already. It's like a competition. It's about NATO being, in some strange way, also its own actor. NATO not even being an agency to bring peace and prosperity to all the people. It sounds almost like it's own an unleashed robot that is just going to run across the world and protect us to death, basically. So I would like to ask, because I know that both of you have studied the agenda or whatever is publicly available. I'm sure there will also be, I don't know, backroom deals and backroom conversations that people actually not really hear about and only get to feel a lot later. Can you highlight a little bit more what it says in this agenda? Because many of us will never go through this process of reading all of this or following the news or the journalists to, of course, put this out there and warn us on what is to come. Is it possible for the two of you to give us a little bit of an overview of what else is on the NATO agenda 2030? I open this for the two of you. Please, Sean, if you wanna go first, then you go, or Reina, if you wanna pick this one up, then go ahead. Yeah, I think Reina might have some more insights than myself. I'm still working my way through the reports and all the kind of information around it. I think there obviously is a lot that we may never know directly as well as you mentioned. And this is definitely even more concerning than the report itself is what happens behind the closed doors that we do not see. But I think what you highlighted really is part of what sticks out to me is what really is NATO's new focus moving forward and what do they plan to be involved in? And this idea of moving to global challenges, NATO really is transforming itself. It's not the alliance that was created really for kind of a conventional setting. And they're addressing legitimate concerns in the modern world but concerns that should not be addressed by a military alliance. And they're trying to really take NATO into being something that a military cannot cover, things such as insurgencies. We've seen the failures in Afghanistan, in plenty of other contexts around the world. Traditional conventional military intervention cannot stop subnational groups in countries, insurgencies, things of that sort. And it always results in civilian casualties. There's obviously a very clear focus throughout the report towards China. Really, the rise of China economically above all else. Of course, China has military but when you look at military spending China's military spending compared to NATO's or even just to the US's, Dwarves in comparison. There's no comparison to be made there. But the alliance really has China in its sights and this is led by the US. Even on the economic front when you see global partners around the world as Reine had mentioned at the beginning that there is somewhat an encircling of China within that and also combating the Chinese economic influence in Africa and in Latin America in particular with military US influence in the region. So they're trying to combat economics with the military. Even the military and NATO in Latin America have been involved in construction of schools of public facilities, something that military should not be involved in. And really what I have to assume from this is to combat the Chinese influence in the region. So NATO now is looking way beyond military to really contain China as a central focus of the alliance, which is something it was never meant to do and something it cannot do well through military means. I don't know if Reine would like to add something onto that then. I will not add what you have said because you've definitely covered into the most important point. Let me add three or four which are in these document of NATO which is sometimes not so much in the middle point of our discussion. First of all is a modernization of nuclear weapons. Key point is a new nuclear weapons strategy with modernizing the nuclear weapons all around the world and the developing of many nukes used as weapons in the conventional fights. So that is a very dangerous development because it reduced the engagement of nuclear weapons in the actual conflicts. Second is the new automatization, robotization of the military structure and military development and military forces. This means new weapons, new structures, new forces, new power structures, new alliances and this is very cost-intensive. So this needs a lot of military research which also touched against the universities. So that is a very important point. Can you imagine that we will have in the future a war without fighting peoples? That is the dream of NATO. The people are giving the start point. Others are fighting, robots and others are fighting and then there's a result, no one knows. But when you look into the Pentagon studies, you can see this on the Pentagon webpage, that they are training with that. So this is automatization, robotization. Second, a third very important point is cyber war. They always are saying Cuba, Venezuela or Russia and China making cyber wars, but the US has an own category of army which is related to cyber wars, like aircraft, like Marines, like infantry. So cyber war is a very important, intensive work of all NATO countries. So that's, and the final point is because it's so horrible expensive, these 2%. We will get in one week or in two weeks on the 25th of April, CEPRI will announce the new figures. We are now lying shortly under two billion US dollars per year, we will definitely much over two billion. Can you imagine what does this mean? For climate change, for social healthcare, for all the developments in the world, for all the crisis in the world? So I think- Sorry, just one correction there, it's trillion, trillion. Oh, okay. It's because in- Oh yeah, it's billion, billion, billion, it's trillion. Oh yeah, thanks. So more than two, above two trillion. So that is again, for me a key point, when we want to change, and when we go to a more social and more justice world, we have to reduce the military spending. These are some points in addition, what Jean was saying and when we discussed earlier about the main is a confrontation with Russia and China. That is the ideology of this report. And then there are a lot of concrete steps how to realize that. And I have now to leave because I have to go to my next appointment but Jean definitely will continue discussing with you. Thank you, Reiner. We are almost done. I just wanted to say that you've been rising a lot of important points. This conversation shows like also our next shows, how is, are going to be developed regarding nuclear weapons. But also we are going to take a bigger look about what you were saying because precisely the approach on what we need to face as humanity, it's also part in fact of the, also another agenda, the 2030 agenda of the United Nations. That is also something connected what Jean was saying about that NATO is trying to solve issues that are not the concern of NATO. But they are the concern of the United Nations and this new strategy, the willing also of NATO is to try to substitute the United Nations as the international guardian of the world. So I think all this is going to be in future episodes. Also, what you were saying about the importance of technology on the world, I think also can be totally connected with the intervention of Jean regarding China. That's one of the main points why this is felt like a competition, right? Because regarding technology, China has developed in artificial intelligence, in the 5G, in other issues. But maybe there is another use of all this, right? Maybe robots and intelligence in fact can be useful and towards peace. So I think that we are 43 minutes. This has been really important, really interesting. I think we will be continue talking with Jean that also represents in IPV also the youth process, how new people is approaching peace and also the understanding on NATO. So I'm sure we are going to see each other more often, also hopefully in Madrid in the PIS Summit. But before we end also, because you know that a lot of our friends and comrades and also other organizations that are part of the PIS Summit are organizing a lot of things. As Rainer was saying, this is a busy weekend. We don't want to finish without talking also about Europe because I don't know, sometimes we are all the time talking about the US and NATO and what about Europe? We see that Europe for sure has been disciplined by NATO just because what Jean was saying before, because they were wanting to trade with China and Russia. So we are being disciplined by NATO. A lot of people in Europe is thinking about this. We want our governments to work towards our needs, not towards this kind of Borrel approach of turn off the heating. And tomorrow, if you are in Rome, you can go to a really important event precisely to think about how we can also think on a peaceful and an alternative approach on all these contexts as Europeans. So we are also pasting this link on the website. And I think that I'm not forgetting anything else. I think we just need to thank you very much, people, Dispatch, to have this space to work together. We want also to promote the amazing articles that are also produced after this, even for breakfast, when we also have interviews in depth and more information about the show. So check People's Dispatch and for sure also thank Visak, our amazing producer to be with us another Saturday. And remember, peace cannot be achieved with more weapons, more budgets for war, and more enemies. Let's fight NATO, let's build peace together. See you next Saturday. Thank you, ciao.