 My name is Igor Jorgens, I'm the head of independent think tank in Russia, and I keep a couple of positions in business organizations in my country. The title of our round table was Russia in 20 years, and since some of my compatriots insist that Russia is the country with unpredictable history, so it's even much more difficult to predict Russia's future. So from this point of view, we started with some statements like imagine 1997, 20 years ago, we are discussing what will happen with Russia in 20 years. Most of the speakers, both from Russian side and from European and American, would say Russia aspires to get into the European Union, Russia wants to be an associate member of NATO, there will be peace and friendship on the European continent. We have four spaces, remember, Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Putin negotiated with Salana four spaces, common economic space, common space of democracy, common space of security, common, even common political space. So 20 years after where we are, we have the checks and shambles of that concept, and we are almost fighting in Ukraine, in Syria and some other places with the West. So from this point of view, to predict what will happen in 20 years is pretty difficult. Most of the speakers on the Russian side were in favor of the concept of bipolarity, where China will lead autocracy countries, including Russia, Iran, some others, and the West will be led still by the United States and democracy countries. And this bipolarity will be a determinant factor for Russia to position itself as the major ally of China and this bipolar world. Where do we stand now from the point of view of the future role of Russia in the world? Soviet Union produced at the peak about 19% of the world GDP. Russia now produces 1.5 aspires to 2%. That tells a lot in terms of the economic weight, so to say. GDP production, we are at the 10th place at the moment, and linear model, shown by one of the Russian participants, gave us 15th place in 20 years. So we are going down in the economic, economically. Russia at the moment needs human capital and laxate. Demography is not so good. Investment capital and laxate because of the sanctions from the West and lack of its own structural reforms. And technological capital because of the abundance of oil and gas for the last 15 years brought us to the situation when the scientific investment, the fundamental research and educational systems didn't receive enough attention. So from this point of view, we are at the position when independent and autonomous development of Russian Federation doesn't bring much, you have to build up alliances. If we are neglected in the West, some participants would say, so let's go to the East. Some other participants would say that this is a very bad idea because even Chinese autocracy would require from Russia serious structural reform to be a reliable ally of China. Better put your own house in order first and then go and choose. From the point of view of choice, Western participants of our round table would say it's much better to visualize the reset of Russia with the European Union and with the Western general because we need you and you need us. How to do this is a big question mark at the moment because President Putin definitely feels himself offended by Western behavior. He started in 2000 as a friend of Bush, as a friend of Solana, as a friend of the West. He opened up his possibilities after September 11 to the Americans on the hinterland of Russia among the Alliance in Eurasia. He helped in any way he could in Afghanistan. In the fight against Taliban, he closed up the Cameron base in Vietnam, big asset militarily for Russia. He closed down big base in Cuba, huge asset for Russia militarily and from the point of view of intelligence, aspiring to get something back. For example, no NATO advance to his own borders. Nothing of that kind happened. So at the moment he feels offended. He doesn't trust the West, it's obvious. But he's a man of, I'm sorry to speak about the policy of the country, speaking about one man but that's the way autocracy and Russian tradition is built genetically. He's running for the next term in March next year and the fight of two concepts inside Russia with Russia to autocracy or to democracy is very serious one, cannot be neglected and it found its reflection even during our round table among Russian participants. So it's not a done deal, Russia joining the bipolarity on the Chinese side. But we have to keep in mind that Rzezinski's theory that who controls Eurasia, controls the world is a very serious concept and from this we cannot neglect one way, one belt theory. We cannot neglect the attempts of the Western democracies to get its way into the Eurasian hinterland. So Russia will be in the position to think about its role in future but this role will not be made up by Russian people. It's only the position of the large West, the United States and Europe and the position of people's republic of China will largely influence future decisions and here I would say that the theory in the West about Russia's future and about Russia's role in the world are totally different. I met people who say, okay Russian people are part of Europe, no question about that and we will get over the difficulties even during Putin's time with some intuition and with some measures to offer a set but there are some other people who say never with Putin we have to confine and contain the present administration. We have to be very strict on sanctions and all other isolation measures vis-à-vis Russia. That would of course mobilize the patriotic nationalist and military cluster of our population and then of course I think that by pushing us into the embrace of China this not very natural marriage will take place. So there is negative and positive scenarios of the development of this bipolarity if we are pushed into this embrace in four or five years. The negative will be, as the previous speaker told us, assertive China, nationalism, socialism imposed on its allies and so on and so forth and Russia helping militarily and from the point of view of geopolitical position. But there is another scenario and this is of course more of a dream than a practical scenario. This is the scenario which academician Sakharov, the father of Russian democracy, which American economists like Rostov, Galbraith, like living Stiglitz are playing with, this is the scenario of conversion. We take the best of socialism of China and ex-USSR, social justice, the thrive to bridge the disparity between the wealth and the poor and we take the best from the economic efficiency of the West and gradually through normative and analytical methods we build up a model of global governance which is not confrontational. At the moment it looks like a dream but many people work on this dream from this normative and analytical point of view. There are models of how that could be done in principle in future. It doesn't look realistic at the moment, I do understand that. But for many in Russia there will be no other way because we don't want to be the frontier in the fight between Chinese and Americans. We want to be the player of our own. We want to control our own Eurasian space, our own in terms of living together with those nations with which we lived together in friendship and cooperation be it the Soviet Union or before. So, negative scenario. In 20 years we are in a real fight between autocracy and democracy. And positive scenario. We manage to build the bridges. We manage to create new ideas and we make a huge step forward in terms of global governance of togetherness. Thank you very much.