 Hello. Hello everyone and welcome to the Eat NATO for Breakfast. I'm Francesca, I am a part of the European Coordination of the International People's Assembly and I'm talking to you from Berlin. Thanks everyone who's here to join us on this morning and I hope we have a first good show together. Nora, what are you having for breakfast? Nora, are you on mute? No, I'm not. I'm having too much coffee. I'm a bit nervous and excited. Hello everyone. I'm Nora, I'm talking to you from Madrid. I'm also part of the IPA and I am really excited about our first show. And also to talk to VJ at our premiere of Eat NATO for Breakfast show. Thanks for joining us. How are you VJ? Are you having some breakfast? No, I don't eat breakfast because I was actually up all night and for a good reason because I've been writing something that's interesting about the situation in Latin America. And I was looking into the fact that maybe NATO is global NATO is going to want to have bases and so on. So I was looking through the ether, looking at some NATO documents and so on. So you're actually up all night. So what you're doing is you're having evening tea. What is time? You are here. Thank you very, very much for joining us on this first show. You are actually our first guest because we feel that you are particularly good at explaining complex things using simple words. And we think that NATO is a pretty difficult subject to speak on. This is why we wanted to address and every Eat NATO for Breakfast show a different topic with different guests and speakers. So we will talk about NATO and ecology, NATO in Africa, NATO's history, NATO and nuclear disarmament and all these different topics to tear them apart a little bit in a more informal way so that we don't have another lecture or webinar or whatnot, but more in a way of a conversation to exchange ideas and then of course mobilize against NATO together. Yes, and this idea of together is very important because it's a show that we do together. We need your questions. So please pose them on the chat. We want these conversations to be useful and to address our needs. We need to know your interests, what are your doubts or what you want to talk about more in depth. So use the chat. Also together means that we are not doing this alone. In the next, we have 20 Saturdays until the NATO summit in Madrid. And you will see different hosts. So it will not always be Nora and me. You will see obviously different guests and speakers, not always VJ. And we will use different languages. We will definitely do a couple of shows in French, in Spanish, at least one in Arabic. But one thing will always be the same. We will always be here at our People's Dispatch home. So thank you very much for People's Dispatch for hosting us and being our friends. Yes, summing up this idea is that we need our anti-NATO Saturday show. We are going to be together in this educational program that is disguised as a conversation that hopefully would be around 30 minutes of our time. And something important, this show is part of the Peace Summit. No to NATO, Madrid 2022 efforts. So maybe we have on this first show to talk a bit of the Peace Summit. Cool. Yes, thank you, Nora. The Peace Summit emerged sort of as a unitary space where we are working together with different organizations and groups to build a coordinated response at an international level to the next NATO summit. The next NATO summit in June in Madrid. And our intention is to up to then create a diverse and connected space where we can organize autonomously or together like different types of actions, activities, mobilizations, shows, whatever we want. Yeah, this process started last December and also with the will to work during all these months in an accumulation of forces, both among organizations as in the development of a coordinated strategy to make visible our positions, alternatives and proposals in the public debate for peace with social movements and all kinds of forces and in the worlds of arts and culture, also at an international level. With this, we extend our invitation not only to watch us every Saturday, but also to you and to your organizations to participate in the process. We are all needed to build the Peace Summit. Right, Francie? Yeah. Before we give the word to VJ, please check our website. I think we'll be posting all the links and stuff into the chat so that you can see it. And please write already into your calendars our next open meeting, the open plenary meeting, which will be on February 26, 3pm CET time. We'll have English and Spanish translation. The meetings are open for everyone. And you can find all further information on the website. All right. We have VJ here. We want to hear from VJ. You don't need all that much introduction. You're a Marxist historian and the director of Tri-Continental. And I remember that you once said that you put a little pinch of turmeric or Kokuma in your tea. And I think that's the sort of recipe that we should share on a breakfast show. We want to talk about NATO. And the most pressing question that I actually have at this moment is, why did you even agree to join? Why are we here? Why are we all here? On a Saturday morning, when at least some of us have the privilege to sort of roll over in our beds to recover sort of from this, I don't know, capitalist weekly rat race when we could pull the blankets over our heads. And like for a moment, at least for a moment, pretend that everything is okay. Why do we need to talk about NATO? Nora? I think we need to begin thinking together why we bother about NATO? Why is NATO important if it's important? What the fuck is NATO anyways? Is it something from the UN? It's a democratic international space to keep us safe and defend democracy? VJ, what do you think? Well, firstly, it's great to be with you guys. You're drinking your coffee. Let's have a look at those no-to-nato mugs. Very impressive. Look at that. Yeah, well, sort of heart with a handshake. That's not NATO, by the way. That's the no-to-nato. NATO is not a heart with a handshake. It's a gun in your face. Well, the first thing I want to say is it's the 10th anniversary of a protest that I went to in Chicago against the NATO summit there. And I remember the tear gas and the being beaten on the head by a police officer and so on, actually collapsing on the floor. Thanks to that. Thanks, Chicago police. But what I really remember is that I spent the afternoon with Haskell Wexler, who was a cinematographer. He shot a lot of movies. Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? He shot Sydney Portier movies. He made a documentary called The Bus about the Freedom Riders. He had made a movie called Medium Cool many years ago in 1969. And he decided to make a short film about the protests against NATO. And I participated in that film. But really the interesting thing of the thing that I was moved by was that I got to spend part of the afternoon with a friend of mine who was a journalist. His name was Jim Foley, James Foley. And James said to me, Oh, I'm going back to Turkey because I'm making a documentary about my abduction, you know, a year before. And Jim went off to Turkey was picked up by ISIS at the border post, and he was the first non Syrian to be beheaded by ISIS. And, you know, I don't know for some reason when when this whole NATO thing started again, I was thrown back to the fact that, you know, that summit was it was a big protest and, and the story of Jim was front and center for me because I just returned from Libya, where, you know, NATO had essentially under the, you know, pressure from France and to some extent the United States destroyed that country had watched Libya being destroyed. And then here was young Jim Foley, a really sincere and good writer off to Syria. Now, admittedly not exactly a NATO war but a conflict that the NATO powers have been involved in, and he was beheaded. It was a very violent, you know, outfit NATO founded in 1949. It's interesting. I wanted to spend just a few minutes doing this because we often don't do it. You know, what's the legal basis for something like a NATO together together, what's the legal basis. Well, in 1945, the United Nations was created and you know, the charter was, you know, signed. This is an amazing text, and I hold fast to it, because it's the text with the greatest amount of consensus in the world, far greater than, you know, any other real text because right now a hundred and ninety three, well, in 1995, countries have signed on to it. And this is a binding treaty. Well, let's go in and take a look at what the NATO Charter says as a binding treaty, the basis in a way of modern international law contemporary international law. Chapter eight of the NATO Charter is called regional arrangements. And it says, you know, nothing in the charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements. So then four years later, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is created. The United States actually doesn't just do this in the North Atlantic. It makes a treaty organization called the Baghdad Pact center central treaty organization now dissipated in Manila. It creates the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization. The idea is to create these little spokes around the hub of US power to intervene to allow for so-called force projection into the world. And NATO was just one of these created in the late 1940s. Now, it's not against the UN Charter. It says that nothing in the present charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements. You can create any, you know, regional arrangement that you want. It could be militaristic as NATO is. It could be about trade. It could be about, you know, developing peace, Merk-e-sur, Unasur in South America and Latin America, for instance, perfectly legal and legitimate. Nothing wrong with that. Okay, that's fine. It says in article three of chapter eight that, you know, the purpose of the regional arrangement is to encourage the development of Pacific settlement of local disputes. In other words, you could make these NATO things if you want, but it's got to be there to encourage peace, not to encourage war. That's an interesting issue. Let's take the case of Libya 2011. The African Union is also a regional arrangement set up with the office and secretariat in Addis Ababa. It's trying its hardest to build the, you know, the customs and habits of regional arrangement. It has a peace and security council, which is the African equivalent of the security council that the UN has. Well, when the Libyan conflict started, the peace and security council in Addis Ababa met. People started to discuss what they should do on their continent. Just to remind people, Libya is on the African continent. The African Union had in that sense loosely jurisdiction over the regional affairs of the continent, including Libya. And so the African Union decided they wanted to send a delegation to both Benghazi, where there was this leadership of a rebellion. Most of them, by the way, financial advisors of the Gulf Arab states, but that's a separate issue. And also to send them to Tripoli to talk to the formal Libyan government, including Mama Gaddafi, who always said he had no real role in the government, but nonetheless, important. Okay, the African Union put together a delegation. They were ready to go to both Benghazi and to Tripoli. Well, NATO preempted the arrival of the African Union delegation into Libya. In fact, the delegation was warned. Don't take off. Don't try to enter Libya because we're going to hit you if you do because we're going to start bombing. And NATO preemptive attack, that is to say preemptive to Article 3, which said, shall encourage the development of Pacific settlement. NATO set aside the development of Pacific settlement, Pacific meaning peaceful settlement, set it aside and started the bombardment. Wow. You know, that's amazing. That's a violation of Article 3, Chapter 8 of the UN Charter. That's interesting. You know, I remember being pretty stunned on this. Well, NATO starts to horrendously bomb Libya. Now, here's the interesting thing. It bombed Libya based on a UN Security Council authorization. Yes, it's UN Resolution 1973, but UN Resolution 1970 and 1973 merely said that arms sales to all sides in the Libyan conflict must stop. Number one, it's a pretty straightforward thing for an international body to ask for in the middle of a conflict. All arms sales must stop. Second thing that the resolution said was there should be a no fly zone. That is to say that any member state that's the language of NATO of the Security Council resolution, any member state might intervene to have a no fly zone over Libya. But what NATO did in violation of Security Council resolution 1973, and I'm very particular. This is the second violation of international law is NATO became the Air Force of the Benghazi opposition. Rather than merely police a no fly zone, it started to bomb targets, government targets, deep into government territory, you know, where the government had a lot of support in western Libya. And where there was absolutely no sign, that is to say they didn't just bomb air fields to prevent planes from going towards Benghazi. They bombed targets, including government infrastructure buildings and so on. In that way, NATO operated, not to, as the language says and we should be clear about this not to encourage the development of Pacific or peaceful settlement, but actually to advantage the Benghazi rebellion. Later, when a African Union, that is to say just a few weeks later, an African Union delegation to bring peace did get into, into Tripoli. They met with Mohammed Gaddafi on that delegation was the South African leader Jacob Zuma and others. They met with Mohammed Gaddafi Gaddafi said I'm happy to seize hostilities. I'm happy to have a peace, you know, process. And they said, Well, African Union has been able to advance the peace process. That's good. Then when the EU delegation asked the Benghazi rebellion, can we come there? The Benghazi rebellion said we're not interested. You see, why they were not interested is because NATO had tipped the scales on their behalf. They wanted complete victory, not negotiations. And so the bombing continued. This is a violation of the standards of the UN Charter. The Libya experience is interesting as a violation. And finally, from the Libya story, when the bombing ended, as per as, you know, along the grain of the UN resolution, in 1973, various UN bodies, human rights groups asked NATO to publicly release their bombing target information so that, you know, human rights researchers could go on to the ground and see what civilian casualties had been there. The people in the lead on this and Amnesty International, which was very keen on establishing precisely civilian casualties on the ground. NATO refused to release those targets. In fact, Peter Olsen, the lead attorney at NATO said in a letter, published letter, he said that NATO never commits war crimes, never commits to kill civilians. If anything like that happens, it's utterly accidental. So there's no need to investigate it. So not only did NATO violate the letter and spirit of the UN Charter by setting aside the African Union in its initial attempt to negotiate peace, not only that, not only secondly, that NATO then went and bombed on behalf of the Benghazi in other words, entered the conflict as a belligerent, not to merely police in no fly zone, entered the conflict as a belligerent. That's a violation of the UN resolution. But thirdly, NATO just refused to allow any investigation saying, sorry, pals, no investigation because we never commit war crimes because we are above that we are too civilized to commit war crimes. That's the Libya story. I've already shown you three violations, basic violations of the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. But more than that, the UN Charter makes it very clear, very clear that no enforcement action, this is article 53, no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council without without the authorization. There's an exception, but we don't need to get into that. It's not pertinent here. No, so NATO, in other words, if we follow article 53 chapter eight of the UN Charter, NATO regional arrangement cannot act without the authorization of the UN Security Council and yet bombing of Yugoslavia intervention currently into Ukraine. I don't know based on what Security Council resolution, the NATO forces think they are operating in Ukraine, but I haven't seen any. If you've seen them, well, I would like to know the entire facade of global NATO, which is this new language that Jen Stoltenberg and others, you know, have started to throw around global NATO. I mean, what's the, I mean, when did the North Atlantic Treaty Organization itself, largely a defunct body in terms of its adherence to international law, so many violations I've showed you, even regarding the Libya conflict, a very much smaller conflict, although destroyed a country. Let's face it, Libya has been relatively destroyed by that NATO war, NATO has never actually washed its hands of it, you know, the hands have still got blood on it and so on. So, not only, you know, are there problems there but then suddenly global NATO, by what UN authorization, what Security Council authorization, it says that no regional arrangement can act without the authorization of the Security Council. I am bewildered by this, you know, they have these NATO meetings, there will be one in Madrid, they'll talk about how NATO is going to be the policeman of the world, that's in violation of international law. I'm not naive, you know, I understand these are powerful countries, I understand they feel like they can do whatever they want. Later this year, Noam Chomsky and I have a book coming out called the withdrawal, in which we make the argument that the United States, which is really, to be fair, the heartbeat of NATO, you know, the other countries are poodles to the United States. We make the argument that the United States acts like the Godfather, you know, from the Francis Ford Coppola movies. It behaves like the Godfather can do anything, you know, it can do whatever it wants. Nobody can put a check on it. It likes the idea of international law, perhaps, doesn't adhere to it, won't allow the International Criminal Court to investigate NATO's war in Afghanistan, let alone Peter Olsen's letter saying that look, can't investigate us in Libya. There's no investigation in Afghanistan. The special prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatih Ben Souda, has tried to open a file to, you know, look at war crimes by everybody, not just the NATO forces, United States, but also the Taliban, Afghan army, you know, she wants, she says, let's look at everybody. No, sorry. NATO is not going to permit it. NATO cannot allow itself to be under scrutiny. That's the answer given to the ICC. In fact, in fact, talk about the Godfather attitude. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, National Security Advisor, John Bolton, you know, you can raise your eyebrows and say that was under Trump. Look, these are US officials, essentially said publicly on the record, I've written about it on the record said that Fatih Ben Souda, a eminent jurist, special prosecutor at the ICC, they said Fatih Ben Souda's family will not be able to get visas to come to the United States. They'll punish her if she opens that file. And you know, under immense pressure from the United States, the International Criminal Court has shelved the investigation of war crimes in Afghanistan, shelved it, closed it down. Imagine that. That's the Godfather attitude. You know, which other country, you know, talk about the love talking about Russian aggression, Chinese aggression and so on. What about NATO aggression? NATO aggression, not just against the people of Libya, Afghanistan. I'm talking NATO aggression against the International Criminal Court, you know, which is an office, a body not far from NATO headquarters, the immense arrogance. That's what I'm talking about. The immense arrogance, you know, we can go into all we want about how many weapons systems and militarizing the Arctic. I'm talking about the attitude. We often don't talk about the attitude, immense arrogance, disregard for international law. So it has to be that they are going to be the ones in power. Thank you, Vijay. That is a very, that is a very bleak picture you're painting. And it seems like a very intense. It is like a very intense. It is a very intense power struggle you are describing. And it seems that the power is being applied in. Yeah, very much one direction. So I guess our question or our thought process here in this working in this very small in this moment in time has to be what do we do? How do we raise a how do we raise the awareness on what is actually happening? As you point out, some of those things are in the mind in the minds of many people, not even particularly connected or well known. So that is surely one aspect. But we also know that truth telling doesn't necessarily get you anywhere except for prison. If you look at Julian Assange. So truth telling alone is not, is not enough, because we know that moving people is not done, or is not done lastingly by, by telling the truth, even if it is as horrific as the destruction of Libya, or, or the destruction of Yugoslavia for that matter. What do we do? How do we move from here? How do we, how do we get all the people, all the Saturday morning people that we are currently addressing that at least made it out of bed, which I guess is a small step in the right direction. So how are we getting them to, to actually care and mobilize with us, especially also in, in Europe, where the summit will be held. And as you point out, NATO, yes, the European countries may just be the poodles of the US, but even poodles can bite. So how do we, how do we get there? What should be our, what should be our strategy to mobilize the people and bring them up and out into the streets? Well, by the way, the, the, the quotable line from today is even poodles can bite. That's really, really good. Even poodles can bite. I suppose, you know, there's a couple of things that we should be aware of. One is that I think it's important to recognize that governments around the world, even governments that sort of went toward the right. Governments in countries like, you know, South America, Africa, Asia and so on. I'm not even talking about progressive governments, okay, even like neoliberal type governments, recognize that there's something just wrong. You know, I remember meeting ambassadors from various African states in 2012, after the debacle, the destruction of Libya, and they were like, what's wrong with the United States? You know, what's wrong with France? France is an imperialist country. They use the word imperialist, you know, it wants to push itself and then the intervention took place in Mali, you know, which was to actually clean up from the Libya mess. I mean, you destroyed Libya and then they were escalating series of cat, you know, there was like a tsunami in the Sahel in North Africa, in Mali, in Burkina Faso, in Mauritania, you know, in Algeria, you know, the people who had come on behalf of NATO, NATO's ground forces really were partly al-Qaeda in Libya, and all these weapons then went into the Sahel and destabilized a number of countries. So then France had to, France intervened in Mali, you know, right after that. So a lot of African diplomats were like, you know, what's wrong with these Europeans? They're still colonialists. This is how people actually think, you know, even though they may be kind of neoliberal and close to the World Bank and so on. But they're like, what's wrong with these colonialists? Privately, they talk like that. One of the instruments has to be to strengthen the group of 77, the non-aligned movement, you know, these organized platforms need to be strengthened. A new vision needs to be created that just tells the Europeans and the United States, sorry, pals, the era of colonialism is over. Go back home, deal with your own problems. In the United States, a bridge collapsed in Pittsburgh. Go build your bridges. I mean, it's shameful. You're out there bombing bridges in the rest of the world, meaning your bridges are rotting to bits inside the United States. Go deal with your own problems. So one is that we need to really strengthen the international platforms of the Third World, G77, NAMM and so on. And they need to be a little more aggressive, speak out and that's one part. The other is the people's movements in Europe, for instance, really need to go after their governments. I mean, what the hell are your governments doing? Let's take the case of Germany. Germany right now understands full well and so does Ukraine actually, understands full well that the United States is accelerating a conflict with Russia on the Ukraine-Russia border. It's about a 2,000-kilometer border. It's a considerable border. It's the United States that's accelerating this conflict. Even the president of Ukraine now is saying, guys, calm down. He was a comedian. He thought the whole thing was a joke. Well, sober, sober reality. He says, calm down. Germany. Germany is so hypocritical. Germany will not come out directly and say, look, our people are going to essentially freeze to death. Gas prices will go up. We need Russian gas. We need to have a negotiation. Instead, Germany sends, what military material does it send to Ukraine? It sends helmets. You neither want to sell weaponry to go and actually confront the Russians nor do you say to the United States, listen, we can't tolerate this kind of war. So you go in middle, you send helmets. I mean, you know, we need the people of Europe to be much more forthright, to come out there and say, no, Basta, not anymore. And I hope people will be in Madrid to say Basta, not anymore. Yeah, I think that we need, for that we need another ingredient because like war and conflicts from this NATO country sounds like very, very far away. Like we can talk about Libya. That's very awful. But we need to set up a common agenda, a common agenda from the, of the peoples that connects north and south that connects all regions of the world. And I think that this is a very good opportunity to think about security, to think about it in this context with the pandemic, when we have to rethink our social structures, the access to public services to health, to, I don't know, the dignity of the labor workers. So I think that it is very important to understand that war is not something that happens outside. It's something that connects us all. And when you were saying that what are your governments doing? Well, I don't know about our governments, in fact, the NATO country governments, I don't know if you know that they are going to expand or expanding already the 3% of their GDP in NATO. That means that all that money doesn't go for what we need to fulfill our life secure. So I think that we need to think together on those Saturdays, on this Saturday show. And also on this P summit process that I think it's a small step towards what you were saying, BJ. What is the relation with our own lives? What's the relationship with these words for energy or for minerals? What's the impact on ecology? So I just wanted to say, we cannot think that war is far, far away. This is our life's stake. This is the planet's stake. And so I think it's important to elaborate on the connection between war and our daily lives, right? Well, but you know, even Libya, the war on Libya is not far away. Look, you're in Madrid. The distance between Madrid and Kiev is about 4000 kilometers or the Russian border, you know, it's about 4000 kilometers. I'm not guessing, but I think it's roughly that the distance between Libya and Italy is about 1000 kilometers. And so too with Spain, the destruction of Libya by NATO opened up the quote unquote refugee crisis for Europe. And what did Europe do? Europe has militarized the Sahel. You know, France started a program called G4 Sahel with countries like Mauritania and Niger and so on, and they moved Europe's border from north of the Mediterranean to south of the Sahara. They've totally built like, you know, French foreign legion outposts. The United States has built the largest drone base in the world in Agadez and Niger. In that sense, Europe has just gone and captured North Africa. So it's not that far away, in fact. And this whole, you know, use of drones in the English Channel to prevent refugees crossing and so on. And the violence in the Mediterranean, conducted by European countries is directly related to the NATO war. But again, the problem is that nobody wants to connect the dots. All as if they are all different things. There was a war here in 2011. There's this refugee problem. Then there is the problem of, well, European culture. God knows what European culture is. You know, guys, European culture, when Europeans got into their old ships and went to the Americas and when they went to, you know, Africa and Asia and so on, were they bothered about, you know, disturbing other people's culture? No, they didn't give two fucks about other people's culture. You know, now suddenly somebody shows up from Africa to Europe and they're like, sorry, you're destroying my culture. Well, fuck you. You came to my country. You destroyed our culture. Now, suddenly you're all worried about, well, the homogeneity of, you know, Scandinavia or whatever it is. I don't care, you know, deal with it. Yeah, we are going to deal with it in this Saturday show because we need to talk about this Europe fortress process, the double militarization project that we have in the region, the situation of the migration crisis. Those are all topics that we are going to deal with it because we have to deal with it also as organizations as a unitary process to speak up because this is not okay. The Mediterranean Sea once was a myriad of culture. It was a precious moment in history that connects us all and make us all cultures develop. And now it's a huge grave and we don't want that. So this is a hugely important topic that we are going to address. And please, we know that a lot of people is commenting on stuff in a more like different things. We are noting things down because we are going to see each other more times, hopefully, 20 times more before the Madrid summit. But I don't know, Francisca, if you feel that we can have some time to answer some of these questions. I actually think we do better addressing these stuff because we erased exactly as we expected. We erased all these different points that I think deserve to be looked at very, very specifically and very like in depth. So looking at the militarization of the EU, looking at the non-aligned movement, et cetera, et cetera, I think these are very complex questions. And I would suggest because we are actually over our 30-minute limit for sure, I would suggest that we call it quits for today. But first of all, if we don't, if people need more, I think we should mention that there is more to read and see from VJ everything that TriContinental does. We'll put the chat, I mean, obviously we can put the link in the chat. There's VJ's latest, I think it's the latest publication still Washington Bullets or something has something else come up that I'm not even aware of yet. Can we still call it the latest publication? Sure, yeah, great. Look at that Nora has it with the little bullets. Exactly. If you want to add more, if you want to add more sources that people should be looking at specifically VJ, please feel free to do so. And I also, before you do that, I also want to say, because we were already talking about how we need to take our own governments hold them accountable, et cetera, et cetera. We want to point out that our Belgian comrades from Intel and Vrede are having a mobilization today. So hey, for people who are near Belgium and who can make it to Brussels by two, I definitely suggest you join them in there. No war in the Ukraine and no money to NATO protest. We'll put the link to the event in the chat. I think it's really important to show that, yes, people are moving and people are moving in Europe. And that's definitely like we want to show them some solidarity here in the show. But sorry, VJ, I cut you off. Give us some, if there's more sources where we should continue to read and study, let's put them in there and then we'll go and prepare for the next show. Yeah, please, you cannot say capital by Marx. Okay, we need another kind of reading. Okay. Also, well, all I was going to say is that, you know, there will be a peace summit in Madrid, and a lot of material will be produced in the lead up to it. There'll be documents and so on. And I mean, I hope people just pay attention to that summit and and what comes, you know, in the preparatory phase what comes out. So, more than that, it's really important to go and talk this up. This whole problem of, of mendacity and lies and all this garbage, you know, because, you know, you'll do these shows that's fine you'll develop a viewership that's great. But the viewership is your is in a way your megaphone. Everybody who watches a show like this should tell somebody else what they've learned tell 10 people, you know. Remember those poison pen letters, where you get the letter and it says if you don't write this send this to 100 people you'll die. Well, we don't believe that we're going to say to people who are watching this show who do watch it later. Please tell at least 10 people about no to NATO this breakfast show. And if you don't do that, we may not love you as much as we normally do. On that note, I think come and see us next Saturday and tell your friends, drink coffee. I don't know, or whatever it is you drink. You can make a mug also like Francis can I with our beautiful heart that is shaking hands with everyone in the world for peace. Cool. Thank you. Bye bye. Have a wonderful day. Thank you, Vijay. Bye. Thank you, people. See you spud.