 Sure. Okay. Wonderful. Well, my name is Medea Benjamin with Code Pink, and I'm joined by other colleagues here from Code Pink, Ariel Gold, we have Marcy Winograd, Shae behind the scenes, thank you for all the help in setting this up, and we have our wonderful guest who I'll introduce in just a minute. But I want to say how urgent this moment is, and I think all of you who are on here understand this urgency. We had just last week, a lot of emphasis coming from the White House and the State Department that negotiations was the way forward, and that the way to negotiate, they even had this on their State Department list, that the way best way to get negotiations to be successful was to deescalate. And then all of a sudden we see the Biden administration saying that there are now 8,500 troops on high alert to be sent to the region. They're talking about sending more war material to the region. And we have in both the Senate and the House, both from the Republican and the Democrat side, new pieces of legislation that are getting tremendous support that are authorizing new huge sums of money to go to Ukraine. The Republicans called for 450 million and the Democrats said, oh, we better up them, and so we're calling for 500 million. And they're each putting in their list of sanctions against some aspect of the Russian economy, or even those who trade with Russia, meaning our own friends, our own allies. And so it is really getting very, very dangerous. And we will be on this webinar, for those of you who've never done this with us before, we'll be hearing from Larry having a discussion. We'll get to some of your questions that you can post in the chat. In the meantime, put all your comments in. Be nice to Larry and me, and you don't have to be too nice to the administration, but let's be civil. And then we're going to thank Larry and take action. And we hope you will stay with us to take action. Marcy is going to lead us through that, as she does on our Code Pink Congress action ours. And that means we're going to call the White House, we're going to leave messages, email, and or your representatives. So she'll walk us all through that when that time comes. But please don't leave us so we can take the actions. There's just not enough reaction from the peace side of this country that can be heard by the White House and needs to be heard by Congress. And I also see in the chat that people are sending good articles that they've found. And that's very helpful sending links to videos or articles. And we will save the chat and have that available to you afterwards if you would like. So with that, I want to introduce our speaker, who is Larry Wilkerson. He is a professor at the College of William and Mary. And he was the Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and has since become one of the leading voices in this country for sanity. And by sanity, I mean a leading voice against unbridled militarism. And that is the reason we thought it was so important to talk to him today. So Larry, if you could start out just by giving us your overall sense of where things are at today, why we're at the point we're at. And then from there we'll start talking more about what are possible solutions. So thank you very much for joining us today, Larry. Well, thank you for having me and thank everybody for tuning in. You can't talk about this problem without at least for a minute or so going back. And you have to go back to William Clinton. And what you go back to is you go back to a political move and a move to satiate the military industrial complex, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, other stellar members thereof, by expanding NATO. And violating what was a promise from H.W. Bush, President H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, Jim Baker, to average over Nazi, Baker's counterpart in the then Soviet Union, later Russia, and Mikhail Gorbachev, affirmed to Boris Elton later. We just violated that and we did it so we could sell missiles and bombs and other things, airplanes, F-16s, the Poland and other countries, and expand the profits of these people. We also did it for political reasons. Bill Clinton was facing re-election and he wanted something in foreign policy that would give him some so let's just expand NATO. A tragic mistake, as Putin himself said, he didn't care that much about Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, not even that much about Poland and maybe one or two others. But when we started coming into his country in his vision, Ukraine has been, Catherine the Great, the breadbasket of Russia. Indeed, some of its tank foundries, its cannon foundries for artillery, some of Russia's are in Ukraine. And when we started talking about Georgia, my president went to Georgia and essentially in public announced that Georgia would be a member of NATO. You may recall that right after that Putin invaded part of Georgia and he hasn't left yet. If I were Putin and I have no reason to like Vladimir Putin, but if I were he, I'd be doing exactly what he's doing, just out of sheer strategic necessity. Now what we've done of late though is exacerbated majorly with our media, just breathlessly running headlines about how Russians are here, Russians are there. By the way, all those Russians are in Russia. Now they might be close to the Ukrainian border, but they're in Russia. It's kind of like we were exercising in Texas. And Mexico said, ooh, an attack is imminent. An attack is imminent. I mean, that's how ridiculous this is and illogical it is. At the same time, Putin has figured out that our media and Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken and Joe Biden are very, very influenceable. That is to say, in our democracy, all you got to do is scream holler and look like you're going to do something bad, move a few nukes around. And all of a sudden you have got people quivering in their boots and media running headlines, imminent war, imminent war. That's exactly what Putin wants, because every headline that gets run and every time he moves a troop from here to there or puts some more up in Russia, for example, he's got Ukraine surrounded on two sides right now, from the north and from the east. Every time he does that, the media runs another tentulating headline and Biden gets more frightened and so does Sullivan and Blinken, two of the rankest amateurs I've ever seen try to execute diplomacy in this very dangerous world. And in this dangerous situation, there are even more. So now we're flooding Ukraine. Yeah, right. We don't have enough troops to flood Ukraine. Our entire army couldn't match the troops that Putin has in the vicinity of the Ukrainian borders. NATO, take a look at NATO. Take a look at what we've done. This is not very smart. I mean, I don't want a war. I certainly don't want a war, but it's not very smart to make moves like you're going to have a war and not have the weather with all to back it up. And don't tell me that anybody else does other than maybe Germany and look at what Germany's been. Very circumspect. Germany's not joining in much of this hoopla about Mr. Putin and about his maneuvering your troops. I don't blame him one bit. No one knows Russia nor Russia know anyone else better than Germany, Russia, Russia, Germany. They've had lots of relations over the last 150, 200 years. So they are staying relatively, the Germans are staying relatively calm. So should we, this should be settled with diplomacy. And we should be willing to say in private at least some maya culpas and say, we understand now your concern. And let's see what we can do. And the solution for Ukraine is what I said it was six years ago with Jack Matlock, what others have said it was by the way, the last ambassador to Moscow and Andy Brains studied neutrality. What do we mean by that? We mean that Ukraine, one of the most corrupt governments on the face of the earth, whether you're looking at the Russian side, the neo-nazi side, the so-called democratic side, they're corrupt. They're, they beat us. And that's a feat. They are corrupt as heck. So give Ukraine 15, 20 years and help them with government council, with finance, with economics, with political help and stay away from them for any other reason. That goes for the EU, that goes for NATO, that goes for Russia, that goes for China, that goes for the United States, studied neutrality. Ukraine is a neutral country. In the meantime, get ahold of the Minsk agreement, expand it a bit and see if you can't work out something that will last longer than say 10 or 15 years of a sworn neutrality. This is the only way to handle it diplomatically, in other words, and quit all this warmongering. This morning I heard we have three people pushing for an AUMF. We all know what AUMFs do. They give the president an endless writ to wage war wherever he wants to wage war, in this case, on the European front. An AUMF. Yeah, can you just explain what AUMF stands for for those who don't know? Yeah, it's an authorization for the use of military force, which we are still beleaguered to be operating under because of 2001 and 9-11. We can still strike any terrorist anywhere on the face of the earth that he raises his hand without going to Congress. Of course, we don't like to go to Congress as presidents anyway, but at least that was a performance check on the president. There is no check on the president. Now he can go anywhere he wants to, till anybody with a drone he wants to under that AUMF. Meaning in the Congress, some good people in the Congress, on both sides of the aisle, been trying to get rid of that for the last decade. They don't seem to be able to do it. We do not need another blank check for the president to use military force, in this case, anywhere in Europe he wants to. Well, that's it. No nutshell. So what you didn't bring up in terms of solution was NATO and Ukraine being able to go in. Now, it seems like the Biden administration has gotten itself in a bind and NATO by saying there's this long-standing open-door policy, but Ukraine wasn't about to go into NATO anyway. What is the saving face? Is it saying that there would be a moratorium on expansion of NATO for like 10 or 20 years or what could it be? Yeah, neutrality would have to have that as a come call me, Tom. You'd have to say with neutrality comes no membership in the EU, no membership in NATO, no membership in anything. You are a neutral. You do not belong to anyone. Now fix yourself. And once you fix yourself, maybe we can begin deliberations over where you might best fit into the European Union. NATO is a moral bundle. That's one of the reasons we're so desperately trying to keep it vital. It is not vital. It died when the Soviet Union died. And ever since, we've been searching for a new mission for NATO out of very operation. So imagine this, if you will. Article 5 is the most salient part of the NATO treaty, an attack on once and an attack on all. Well, how was article 5 operating? Thank you very much, in Afghanistan. How was it operating in Iraq? How was it operating in Libya? That's NATO's essence. And yet it didn't even have an applicability to those three out of area conflicts. So we're stretching this. We're making a mountain out of a molehill. In fact, the molehill doesn't even exist. And we're doing it for what? Profit. Profit. Profit. And this is profit from the military industrial complex once? Absolutely. And not just, we're not just talking, you know, the military industrial complex is a narrow framework. We're talking about ExxonMobil, the largest seller of fossil fuel. And the largest consumer of fossil fuel on the face of the earth is a single entity is DoD. If it were a country, it would rank in the list of 200 countries right there with Portugal at 55th. So the military industrial complex is a lot bigger than what Eisenhower thought in January 1961. And what are the oil companies want out of this? Well, they want more customers and they want to essentially take out Russia as a competitor. Now, they're not going to do that, but they very much like to take out some of their more potent components like Nord Stream 2, for example. And look at what just happened. Here's how conniving this business really is. My power company here in Virginia, Dominion, the second largest power company on the East Coast next to Duke Power. My power company was building a $12 plus billion investment, LNG terminal on the East Coast. Yes, who killed that? Yes, who wanted it did. Because how do you give the Germans and other Europeans an alternative to Gazprom and Nord Stream 2 best? Well, you let Iran put its pipeline up. No, we hate Iran. Can't do that. Iran's pipeline has been ready to go for some time. It stopped because of us basically sanctions. This East Coast pipeline would have given another alternative to Germany and other Europeans. We killed it. We killed it. Why did we kill it? Trump killed it. Why did Trump kill it? Was Trump working for someone? And the environmentalists jumped on that because bees in West Virginia were threatened by the pipeline. Okay, that's fine. We killed it though. And that was going to give an alternative for Europe in terms of energy. If we keep on going like this, Putin's going to have a walk on much of Europe because he's providing all of there. And if it's a really cold winter, this is important, especially to the Germans. He's providing all their heat as well, their energy. So here we are in this very dangerous situation. And are you following what Congress is doing? And how do you feel about the role of the two parties in this right now? And what are they trying to get out of this politically? Well, you got it right in your opening remarks. The Democrats are trying to outdo the Republicans. When you take something like this, a serious national security issue, and you've already in the press and elsewhere hyped it so much, and both Democrats and Republicans have. In fact, I have to say, Democrats have hyped it more than Republicans really, because they see it as the national security issue over which they can bash the Republicans. Because you do have a few Republicans run around saying things like, we should be doing this. We don't want a war. We don't want a war over Ukraine, in particular. I don't see too many Democrats doing that other than what I would call the usual crowd from the progressives and from the caucuses. I see Schumer, Pelosi, Hoyer, and others like that being as big a war hawks as anyone else. And that's a real problem when you get both parties, leadership at least, about parties willing to do, because willing to do war because they don't want to seem weak. They don't want to back off. That's how you get the buildup and the momentum for a war that you don't need for sure. So why was there this very quick turnaround by the administration that was really first focusing? It seemed on diplomacy. They said that U.S. troops are off the table. And now it just seems like this is turning around in a very dangerous fashion. What do you think happened? I mean, they're blaming it on Putin and saying Putin won't back down. I think Putin has read us rather well. Now, ultimately, it might be to his own disappointment and even danger. But I think he's read us rather well to this point. And he knows that when he does things like move troops around, announce this or that maneuver, announce that there are tactical nuclear weapons in the vicinity and so forth, he really gets our media stirred up and headlines start going. Not only does that help him with his own constituency in Russia, which is becoming a little less, shall we say, in favor of him. He doesn't have the polls that he used to have. It also helps him in terms of frightening our leadership so that he gets more and more effort going in that direction. The more he frightens the leadership, the more he plays on that fight. The more he puts things out to increase that fight, the more he then plays on that fight. And they're playing right into it. I hope. I don't have a moment's confidence that what I'm going to say is accurate, because I just haven't seen the competence. Not out of Sullivan, not out of Blinken, not even out of Biden, and I thought better of him. But they just might be doing this because they're coming to a point in negotiations that I know nothing about except that they're happening, that they feel they need maximum leverage and Putin feels he needs maximum leverage. So they're both playing this game. And once both have figured that they can't get any more leverage, they've got all they can get, then the diplomacy will happen and we'll have some sort of solution in room or maybe midterm. I hope long term, but I doubt it. That could be happening. And if it is, I withdraw all my remarks about them being neophytes at diplomacy on both sides, Russia and the U.S. And I will applaud, but I just don't have that confidence. Well, as somebody just said in the chat about playing chicken with nuclear arms states, it could easily spin out of control. So what is the other scenario? Well, the other scenario, of course, is the same one we're looking at. And I think even more dangerously with China and Taiwan, and that is that we actually do start something that begins with everyone assuring themselves will stay, start and stay conventional. That is to say, no nuclear weapons. And at some point in it, one side or the other will get to the point where it feels like it's desperation as such that it has to turn to nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons first, of course. So Russian doctrine now says that Russian doctrine now says that if there were an incursion into Russian space, that they would hit the point and the flanks of that incursion with tactical nuclear weapons. That's one reason why we responded with INF Treaty gone. And we're now building our own weapons to do the same thing in reverse. Very dangerous world we put ourselves in here now. That's another thing we've done that was just horribly stupid. We've dismantled, starting with my president, George Bush, George W. Bush, and the ABM Treaty, we've dismantled all the painfully arrived at hard work to get to arms control treaties that we had. The only thing left is this new start. And with this kind of brouhaha going on, I don't see new start surviving much longer. I think one of the things you said has been confusing to some people. I see it in the chat. Why does Putin want to frighten our leadership in the media? Isn't this dangerous? What does he gain by it? Well, he gains, as I said, first of all, more traction with his own people because he's losing that traction to a certain extent. And he's always got to be worried about what group of oligarchs is going to get to the point where they take him out. That's his domestic reason. His international or strategic diplomatic reason, if you will, is that he really, and this is what Matlock is so good. Ambassador Matlock, the interview he just did, there's a transcript online. It's about page 30, 31, 32. He talks about this is serious. This is very serious when you brush away all the rhetoric and you say, okay, who has the real threat in his heart? Putin does. This is not a threat to the United States. Whether Ukraine is a member of NATO or not is not a threat in any fashion or form to the United States either way. What is a threat to Putin is Ukraine being antagonistic to Russia. That's what's important. And he's willing to go to war over that. So there's also a question about US companies that operate in Russia, especially in the energy industry. Don't they want to tamp down this conflict? You would think so. You would think so. But those people sometimes get caught up in the political rhetoric and in the political movement and don't have the influence they otherwise would have. I would hope that there would be all kinds of energy people who would be talking right now and saying, we do not need this. We do not need this at all. We've got huge problems right now. If I'm ExxonMobil, if I'm Royal Dutch Shell, if I'm Total, if I'm any of these bigger oil magnets, I'd be talking about things like climate change and what the market is doing to my ability to market some 20 to 40 trillion dollars of stranded assets. You know, Saudi oil minister once said the Stone Age didn't end because the world ran out of stone. The implication is clear. The oil age won't end because we run out of oil. And no one must be left with those quote stranded assets, unquote, of trillions of dollars because we forced the market to move rapidly into renewables. I'd love to see that happen. I don't give a damn about the oil companies, but I do care about the workers and the jobs and so forth. So it should happen over time and it should happen with reasonable replacements in the market for what's being lost in terms of jobs and profits. So I want to see that happen on a logical time frame, but it's got to happen. And they know it's got to happen so that they don't want to force things that will make it happen even faster. And no one's more worried about this than Muhammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia. I mean, he's embroiled in a war he's losing, and he's got all kinds of assets that are going to be stranded. There's just, there's no way around it. They are going to be stranded. So we have somebody who wants to go back to the role of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and I guess Victoria Newland and the 2014 coup. Is there something that it can you kind of briefly go over the US role in that? Now, if I were handing out culpability awards at the lower end of the scale, I would hand out one to the top end of the scale. As I said, I would hand out for expansion of NATO. But at the lower end of the scale, I would hand out to CIA money ammunition and support for neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Okay, that's the only people we could find. Oh, okay. You have to back the neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Give me a break, please. We have to do better than this. The whole apparatus, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, you name it. There have been so many attempts at so-called color revolutions or flat out coups as against Maduro in Caracas, that we have abysmally messed up, failed at, made a mess of the country in which we were doing it. It's hard to assess the blame except to say, shame on you, United States of America, and in particular, shame on the CIA. But that's what we've been doing. There's no question in my mind we were behind this effort in Kazakhstan. Now, that might have operated indirectly to our advantage because Putin, in going into Kazakhstan, in the sense that he's now backing that brutal leader in Kazakhstan, may have overextended himself a little bit. You look at his map now, and he's got, he's got commitments in places that he simply doesn't have the power to enforce. So if someone were to call them all at one time or most of them at one time, he'd be in trouble. He'd be in big trouble. Maybe he knows that, or maybe that's one reason he's trying to focus on this one, which he seems to be able to manage simply because he's better at chess than anybody on the other side. So I want to say that we've got over 500 people on this webinar. And for those of you who are anywhere near the D.C. area or can get you there, we are having a protest in front of the White House on Thursday at 1 p.m. You can, if please come and join us, tell your friends in the area. We need to have some showing of an anti-war movement. We're also going to be taking action in a couple of minutes to be calling the White House and our Congress people. But I just want to go to a few more questions, Larry, that we're getting from people in the chat and some sending it to me. One is asking if you could speak about the divisions in Europe over this, and might it be hopeful that some countries like Germany have more at stake in this and would be more of a rational voice? Yes, and that gives me some hope. France, too. Macron has made some statements in the last 24 hours lead me to believe that he probably doesn't see the situation quite like Berlin, but is close enough. And to get France and Berlin on the same sheet of music dealing with Russia is a major achievement. I think they're saying voices if they'll be allowed. And that's another thing that worries me about this guy that I've known for years who's supposed to be an expert at policy and not showing it. I don't know if it's age. I don't know if it's politics. I don't know if it's desperation because his polls are dropping. But right now he's not showing me the skill that I know that Joe Biden I knew when he was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has. He needs to find that skill again, and he needs to start using it. And he needs to put some harnesses on some of the people around him who are more aggressive in what they want to do. I read an article this morning suggesting that we put Putin on the state sponsors of terrorism list. I put Moscow on that list. And the rationale for the article was this is one way to really isolate Putin. While that has some attraction to it in terms of a non-military solution to a problem, at the same time it shows I think a lack of understanding of Putin. I think Putin would take that as take it personally. And that's what you don't want to do to this professional KGB, FSB, NKVD, GRU type individual who ultimately acts like that as Prime Minister, Premier, President, whatever. I mean, he doesn't seem to come out of that cloak. He doesn't seem to come out of that world. That's the world he's operating in. Well, it's very beneficial for him when he's up against a bunch of people like like we've got right now. But at the same time it's very dangerous. And if he thinks that at the end of the day, we won't eventually stand up and do what's necessary. Should he actually put some kind of force into Ukraine, he's thinking wrong. Now, I don't think he is, but I can't be certain. So we have a, I think maybe we'll have two more questions. One here, is there any locus of power, political power in the US that would logically be against war in Ukraine? It's helpful to know which are the centers of power in favor, but it could also be helpful to know which of the powers like industries might be against. So any ideas on that front? I think I'm not an expert on this. So I'm sort of just guessing at this, but it's an educated guess. I've read enough in the last week to understand that there are a lot of people in this country who are, one, aghast at what we're doing. That is to say they can't believe we're doing it. And these are people in industry. These are people in business. These are people at high tech firms and so forth. And two, that they don't know what to do. They don't know how to weigh in with the current group of people. One of the things we've done is to try and give them some ideas on how to weigh in. But I don't think the bulk of the American people, no one listens to them anymore, but I don't think the bulk of the American elite, other than in the, and it's a huge complex now, the war complex wants war. I don't think so. And here's another thing that Matlock brought out. And I'd read it somewhere else yesterday in a fairly competent authority, I think. The Russian people don't want war either. 75, 76, 77% have been on who's poll you look at. They don't want war. So this is crazy. We've got two leaderships that are playing with fire while basically their people and some of their elites, money deletes, don't. This shouldn't be happening. What about the people of Ukraine? There's a question there about what do they want? It depends on who you're talking about. Are you talking about the Russians or are you talking about the Ukrainians as it were? Are you talking about the ones who are neo-Nazis or are you talking about the ones who are basically former communists and would welcome perhaps Putin? There are all kinds of elements in Ukraine. I think it's fair to say that the majority of Ukrainians, even some of those who are fluent Russian speakers and feel more affinity to Russia than they do perhaps to Europe, don't want war. And they're frustrated. They're frustrated at what is happening. At the same time, if you look back at World War II and you look back at what the Nazis did in Ukraine and around that area, you look at the agreements between Tito, for example, and partisans and leaders in Ukraine. You look at how the Nazis spent tens of thousands of soldiers in that area and really didn't accomplish very much. You can understand how that could devolve very quickly into a Balkans-like times-10 guerrilla war and really suck a lot of people in. And I don't think anybody wants that. You've got a surface pioneer, the neo-Nazis and others who would love it, but you've got the bulk of the people who don't want that. And here we are again, marching the war against the wishes of the bulk of the people on all sides. So I see in the chat, there's a lot of people saying, where else can we go to protest if we're not in the D.C. area? And yes, there should be protests all over the country. If it's too late to get something together in your area this week, then you can do next week, but we need to have protests all over the place. So whoever's on this call, you're already in the vanguard of saying no to war and we need you to organize in your community. And for those of you in the D.C. area at the White House on Thursday at 1 p.m., we would love it if you would come out. There's a question, Larry, that says, do you think that Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul could get together and maybe start something in the Senate that was opposed to this Menendez on the Democratic side and Rich on the Republican side that are both war hawks? Menendez and Rich are two of the worst senators I've ever met in my life. The one from Idaho who is brain dead. And the other one, I don't know about Bob anymore. I mean, I tried to work with him on the Khashoggi murder and I just backed away. It's impossible to work with him. You got to find people like Bernie and you got to find people like Ron Paul in the terms of being opposed to war and like Mike Lee from Utah and in terms of being opposed to war. But I don't know how you stirred them up on this because I think Mike Lee is probably on this one going to be on the side of the Warriors. This is a different war. Yesterday, I was told by an individual that we are right on the verge of getting the votes in both houses again to pass the War Powers Resolution legislation that we passed with Trump and Trump vetoed to get us out of the war in Yemen and that we may see that. Unfortunately, I think this bruja over Ukraine and all the tempest around it may derail that at least for a while. But I don't think Biden would be able to veto that like Trump did, even if it just barely passed. I don't think he'd be able to veto it and survive. So anything you can do out in the hustings is helpful. I recently saw several people join the climate causes. I said, why did you join the climate causes? Well, I went home to my town hall meeting and my people were concerned about climate change. Whoa. So you're not really committed to fixing the climate crisis as best as possible. You're just responding to your people. Well, yeah, but that's how you do it. I mean, people went home to Harris County in Texas, for example, the county around Houston, and they found a lot of people who were really energized over climate change with regard to what had just happened to them with the flooding and the hurricanes. Now they're members of the climate caucus. Oh, well, okay, let's do something like this has got to be a lot faster. But it's got to be, you know, let's get these people concerned about what their constituents are telling them from Houston, Salt Lake City, Detroit, and so forth. Absolutely. And I think that's the perfect note to end on, which is that we have to make our voices heard, whether it's in the streets, in front of the White House, in front of your local state house, in front of the media, or contacting the media and complaining about the coverage. There's all kinds of things that we need to do. And we're going to start that right now by having Marcy lead us in an action. So don't leave, we need the hundreds of you who are on here. But we do Marcy, do you think we can, with all these people, unmute to say goodbye to Larry or should? Sure, let's do it. Thank you so much. Unmute to so everybody can give you big applause, Larry. And thank you so much for emotionally folks can unmute on the webinar. We can all unmute, but so we'll do it in everybody else's honor, which is to say thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for the work that you're doing for the rational voice you present to us and for inspiring us to take action, which is what we're going to do right now with Marcy. So thank you and bye bye to you, Larry. We appreciate you. Bye bye. And it's I that should be thanking you.