 And we turn now to Ana Palafio, former Foreign Minister of Spain who will help us to define Europe's position. Well, I will switch into English now. I will elaborate on what Mr. Leike has said. And I would say that speaking late, it's just like, it's difficult because you would like to respond or to back certain many of what has been said. So I will try to take another position. We always face these two poles, power and rules. And we have heard this morning several times that what these us take is a rules-based order, this liberal international order. And it is, and it has been mentioned by different speakers. I mean, it's not adapted to this reality. This post-World War II order is not adapted to the new reality of shifts in powers of just private actors or plethora of actors. And this change in instruments, law is not what it used to be. It's not just treaties but so-called. But what is today very striking is how it is contested. And I will just mention the UNGA, the 76th meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. It came from different geographies with different voices. So I will elaborate on this and I will take again a kind of taxonomy in the end and French biculture. So I would not in three, but in five. We have here the actors. And this is just the complementarity with your actors. These are the rules-based order. We have the Europeans. The Europeans have no doubt the standard bears, the standard bears of the rules-based order with internal problems. I mean, it has been mentioned by Bogdan externally, but also internally. We have to agree on what is the interpretation of Article II or to agree that the interpretation of Article II of our treaty is for the court. And we could go there, I leave it. We have the ambivalent, which is the United States. Ambivalent historically, the United States created this order but has always been ambivalent about participating. The United States just signs but not ratifies. And we have seen this from the inception of the 20s, before even the... We have then the smooth operator and this is China. And if I would mention this, it was very clear and this gives you an answer to this issue of Cold War. For me, the most expected intervention, which was the intervention of President Biden, was loaded by the insecurity of this nation that is broken of this country that needs healing of this society that is polarized. In 1989, they asked us Europeans to be whole and free. We asked them to be healed because unless we have that, it will be extremely, extremely difficult. But President Biden said, hey, we don't want a Cold War nor... He insisted on that. I cannot just quote but I'm paraphrasing. Why this excuse? We don't want, we are not pursuing a Cold War. Why this excuse? Xi Jinping took it. And China is the smooth operator of this rules-based order. The smooth operator in bringing certain concepts that are completely alien, like the harmony concept and taking advantage of this weakness of the United States. And then I would say that there is the world. And again in UNGA, in the General Assembly, it was extremely interesting to listen to other actors. I will mention Iran. Iran opened with an aggressiveness. You have mentioned about this aggressiveness about China. Iran was brutal. Starting, there are two events that have marked this year. The attack by the people against the Congress in the United States and then people dropping from planes in Afghanistan. Afghan people dropping from planes in Afghanistan was brutal. But for me, the most salient in this complex was Lavrov. Lavrov made, in cause general, a general indictment against the rules-based order. It's a speech that is worth reading from first to last word because it's extremely well done. And as I say, it takes this position that makes Russia a disruptive, but a disruptive strategy. So we have the standard bearer. We have the ambivalent. We have the smooth operator. And Russia has a clear strategy. And it is a disruptive strategy, but a strategy nevertheless. The quotes, we should quote all this speech with references to Crimea, with references to the United Nations. Last but not least, and this is hope. It's the intervention by India. I could mention other interventions by Africans that were extremely interesting, but I don't have time. India. India, Prime Minister Modi does something which is extremely interesting. He dissociates democracy from the heritage of colonialism. He said at the beginning of the speech, I'm speaking on behalf of the mother of democracies because democracy is a tradition in India for 2,000 years. And then he says, it's our 70s. We just celebrated our 70th anniversary of independence. So with all that, what do I mean? And I conclude here. We Europeans, we have a role to play, to play by convincing the United States that it is in their interest to update, to keep what is important. And there are many important things about the international rules-based order, but to adapt it. And in this adaptation, we have to give voice to other visions of what democracy means. When you listen to Prime Minister Modi, you say, but what democracy is he speaking about? When he explains it, we need to be open to other cultures, to other other formulations that do not weaken the basic pillars, but adapt this rules-based order to the world of today. Thank you, Anna.