 Fy oeddaf yn gweithio i chi i'r tynnol yn gweithio i'r ydyn nhw'n trafodol mewn dynol, o'i'r gweithio i'r ddefnyddio yn gyflwyneb yn ymwyaf. Mae'r ffrindiau yma yn ystafell, a'u'r hunain i chi'n gwneud ymwysig yma, yng Nghymru i'r Prifysgyn ni, Ifmwyfwysig Ymwyfwysig Ymwyfwysig Ymwyfwysig, Julia Soufriad Denco. We have with us also Congresswoman from Missouri, Second District Anne Wagner. We also have with us today Eric Cantor, who will be familiar to many of you from his long and distinguished career in Congress. He's now the vice-chairman and managing director of Mullison company USA. Bringing up the far left-hand side, we have John Morrison, CEO of the Institute for Human Rights and Business, ar gyfer y Gweithreit yma, mae genny oedd y rhan sydd y ryddion hynny ar gyfer y panel a gwybolaeth i gweithio. Rwy'n urch yn gwirio ar ardi, buddial indicatedr a'u lliffer yng Nghaerdydd, ei wneud y pethau sydd eu gwirio ar yr ysgwrdd yn ben sy'n gweithio ar godisiwn ym 40-odd ym 45 munud. Felly, ddwych i ddwy i fod, fynd i yn ei gweithio y Prifeddeu Cymru sy'n lawer o mwyaf i fynd ymLews â'r rharnau y Llywodraeth ymlaen yn yr Unedol? Thank you, First I would like to start, my speech was a words of thankful and to express my gratitude to all those countries to all those people that support Ukraine during this dramatic times. For, we are really grateful for this one who supports and put Ukrainian lives, know about economic and political benefits from Russia sy'n gwneud i Gwydr Basicallyn i gyd yn fwy o'ch gilydd ym economiaeth i Rysod, ond dyma'n gwneud cyhoedd gyda'r mwrdd cyhoedd eich lle i Gwydr Ystafell ar gyflogon i ddweudio Ilywyr o'r Llywodraeth i Gwydr I mean food, energy, resources, now it's treat the world with a world hunger, so that's why I think the action are intentional and sanction against Russia, there should be reaction on its weaponizing of everything. In general economic sanction used in the modern world like tools of pressure and in 2014 our partners they applied sanction against Russia but now we understand that it was not successfully and fully enough, that's for sure. So the current situation is totally different, so Russia wants to destroy Ukraine, so obviously they kill people, they kill children, they destroy the economy and they frighten the world with a world hunger that might appear. So that's why there is definitely no time for cost and benefit analysis, so we just need to cut Russia from the civilized world entirely. This is our main message that I would like to speak about and we appreciate the sanction that was applied by our partners but let's look at the number, let's look at the situation in general. If you look at the forecast of Russian economy you will look at that according to consensus analysis that Russian economy is going to be I think shrink by 10% of GDP till the year. But if you compare it with situation in Ukraine because it's also you know we have military front and we have economic front right now. If you look at the hour forecast I think the economy of Ukraine will be shrink by at least 30% of GDP till the end of the year. So that's why it means that we need your support more and we need more full scale sanction against Russia because economic front is not least front and you know army wins battles but economy wins wars. That's why we need your fully economic support to win in this war. So I think that together we need more support for Ukraine and more sanction against Russia. So even right now in Davos we don't have Russian delegation and I think that they should not be the part of global conversation and they should not be the part of global economy. And I think that it's time to unite the world and I think I also would like to mention you know China and India as well. They also should also provide sanction against Russia. The economic front actually even more complicated than the military front. For example there are huge efforts is made by our partners to provide the 6th package of sanction against Russia on oil and gas but in parallel there are some European companies that are opening account for paying for Russian gas. So that's why Russia capitalized in this case. Russia capitalized right now even on food crisis. Our black sea ports are fully blocked and that's why it's also another message I would like to send to you. We need your help to unblock the sea ports. Yes because even on right now Russia capitalized on food and you know the price for wheat even higher than what was previous at the previous years. So it means that it's a paradox that should be fixed. It means that sanction is not good enough. It's a paradox but we can fix it together with you. Last and not the least you know many companies announced that they leave Russian markets. There was many press release for this company but the real situation is following. So they announced but they still operating on Russian market and they have time to adopt to this sanction. That's why it means that we should think about the secondary sanction. How we can block it to block any circumventions. So that's why I think the government should be more proactive in increasing in enlarging sanction against Russian secondary sanction and the ordinary sanction. And the final remarks I would like to speak about it of course frozen Russian assets. It's time for Ukraine right now to think about recovery plan. All the recovery and possible recovery we have this frozen assets all around the world and we need to find a clear procedure and clear solution. How to send this money for this frozen assets on the reconstruction of Ukraine. And that's why I think it's also another item I would like to rise during this discussion and listen to your ideas and think how we can together find against this invasion as we understand that it's real full scale war. It's not a conflict and it influence all countries. That's why I think that to solve this problem we can just all together buy support in Ukraine, economic fund of Ukraine and by increasing sanction against Russia. Thank you so much that phrase. It's not a conflict it's a real full scale war is going to resonate with me and it would be great to get your response. America has been leading on the sanctions charge and to get the view from Congress is invaluable at this stage. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. Wonderful to be with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economics in Ukraine with my distinguished colleagues. I had the pleasure of serving with Eric Cantor for a number of years. And most of all welcome and thanks to all of you who got up bright and early to be here. I serve on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, number two ranking Republican and on the House Financial Services Committee. So we've had a lot of integration, especially vis-a-vis OFAC and others in terms of imposing sanctions. It was one of the very first delegations five days into the war that went to Poland and to the border of Ukraine with colleagues on a bipartisan basis speaking as one America. And I'm part of a delegation now that just left Moldova, okay, and are here and then on to two other stops. And this is a very top issue here. And I can tell you sanctions I believe are a critical tool in restraining the ambitious and destructive impulses of adversary states. They are very difficult to craft and to implement, let me just say. And using our economic tools effectively require a very clear, I think, and oops, pardon me, consistent message. Ironclad commitment to long-term implementation and an exhaustive attention to detail. Oh, I'm going to lose all my pages here to detail. But that just because they're difficult does not mean that we should not try. For example, genocide, nuclear proliferation are invading a sovereign state or country without reason or provocation are egregious effrons to the international order. And it is appropriate and it is right that states should work together to impose costs on those who would commit such crimes. Our post-war international system, which is founded on the rule of law and respect for universal human rights, benefits all of us, I think. But it requires active defense. Economic sanctions are an essential part of our efforts to safeguard international security. I should say the sanctions must be used to bring about a positive change in behavior. I believe that they are a tactic, not a strategy. And I will say that sanctions against Russia on the part of the United States of America and others, I wish that our administration had worked sooner. We saw the buildup of 190,000 troops on the border. I believe they could have been used to perhaps stop the aggression, the invasion, the now full-on war that we are seeing in Ukraine now. So, find that they're in place now. We should unify together. But I believe they should have been started much, much earlier. And I'd like to focus a little bit on the oligarchs. And you talked a little bit about the assets. And not enough has been done to impose pain, I don't believe, on Russia's elite. They are fully complicit in Russia's regime. And Western countries should coordinate to maximize the economic pressure on oligarchs and their families. The United States House of Representatives in Congress has passed legislation that the U.S. for them to be able to seize, okay, seize, not just freeze, but to seize those assets and use a proceeds to support everything from humanitarian assistance for Ukraine to military support also. So, and it's in time we hope the rebuilding. The Russian elite must understand that continued support for Putin is no longer in their interest. Next, I think we have to work together to end Europe's reliance on Russia, to enable tougher sanctions. I called for a U.S. ban on Russian energy imports for months. And I believe this was extremely important move to demonstrate to our partners that we have the will to follow through on economic sanctions on Russia in the long term. And now we need to accelerate Europe's efforts to transition away from Russian energy. They still have massive dependence on Russian energy and we should be working overtime to help our partners open up new sources. And I would hope that the United States of America could be very much a part of that in terms of unleashing our American energy supply in independence. I believe we're the Saudi Arabia of LNG and we should be selling it to Europe. It's 41% cleaner and these are the kinds of sources that I think are very important and it would be a cut off of a very important revenue source for Putin. We've got to make the sanctions airtight and impose tough penalties. And secondary sanctions I do believe are now in order. So those that aid the Russian effort by circumventing these sanctions, we must work in close coordination with our partners to identify and punish the sanction evaders and that is what I'm talking about now. And they should also be fully, not partially, not partially cut off from SWIFT. Last I would say that we must set up the political pressure on Russia also and the US and our allies have let me punishing sanctions. And I would say there they are costing an immense cost to Moscow but they need to be diplomatic costs as well. And that means leaving Russian officials and government literally from the outside looking in. I just passed a piece of legislation through the US House of Representatives. I hope that it will be moving swiftly through the Senate which is called the Isolate Russian Government Officials Act that would bar their attendance from the G20, the Bank of International Settlements, the Basel Committee for Banking Standards, the Financial Stability Board, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. I think that benefiting from these international and participating in these organizations including the ones in my bill calls for a basic level of commitment to our international order. And unleasing and launching is illegal and unilateral, unprovoked, unwarranted attack on Ukraine was Holy Putin's choice and his alone. So it's a choice now to bring Russia back into the fold, the International Committee community, by ending this war. That is the only way you should be allowed back in. And I look forward to working with you and our world partners to come together to make sure that these sanctions continue to be imposed. Go after the oligarchs, make sure that there's some energy independence, secondary sanctions I believe are in order and I want them isolated diplomatically and the world community must continue to pull together. So I thank you. Thank you so much for that overview of the view from the United States and for raising the issue of Europe to which I think we will have to return in the next round if you like. Eric, on this panel you are I think the eldest statesman in the room, spry as you are. And one of the sets of sanctions moves that America was involved in at your period in Congress was Iran. So what lessons do you see from that experience for our current situation? And we're saying that she wished that we'd moved sooner. Is that a lesson that you draw to? Well Adam, first of all thank you for having us and for everyone for being here. And I know you've written extensively on sanctions and have always said that we've got to bear in mind what the purpose of sanctions are. And I think it's relevant to the Iran discussion. But first I want to, as we used to say in the House, associate myself with the remarks of the general lady from Missouri that as usual I'm very much in sync with Anne Wagner and what she's saying as far as what the US position should be in support of Ukraine. But let me get to the question about Iran and then bring in what you have written I think a little bit from my take on what you've written about. And then number one the sanctions, the purpose of sanctions can be either deterrence, they can serve as punishment and they can also serve as rehabilitation which is like a change of behavior. In the case of Iran I think those would say that there may be a mixed bag on that. As you know we've been through successive rounds of sanctions first imposed by President Obama and his administration when he embarked upon the discussions with the regime in Tehran in search of this agreement, the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. There was a lot of consternation especially on the Republicans part in the Congress at the time when I was serving as leader was very much in opposition to that because we felt at the time that sanctions were actually working vis-à-vis Iran. And I think there are three reasons why those sanctions were working. One, there was multilateral support and there was a lot of work that were being done to give the credit where it was doing, the administration at the time to bring along our allies in basically blacklisting Tehran, its oil and gas exports and really trying to focus on getting a change of behavior. And it was very clear, that's the second piece, is what is the off-ramp, what are the reasons for the sanctions and how does the country get out from under these sanctions. And I do think at the time we're very clear about that as well. We wanted them to stop their pursuit of a nuclear weapons program and there were other things that I felt some of us wanted to see as a part of those sanctions as well about its maligned behavior in the Middle East, in the region with its proxies. But yet I do think they were very clear and then thirdly there was a mindfulness if you will about the stacking or the repetitiveness of sanctions. And at this point, after the Trump administration came in as you know and withdrew the United States unilaterally from the JCPOA, we put on even more sanctions. And I think at this point there are over 1600 sanctions against individuals and entities in Iran. And now we're sort of back at a point where I'm not so sure there's going to be success. I doubt there will be success in arriving again at JCPOA. I was never in support of it before. I'm not in support of it now. I just think that the behavior by the regime in Iran will not change. And so the question now is are those sanctions working? Well you can certainly see they punished the economy. I mean their inflation is running at 42%. Their currency I think has been halved in value in the last several years. Certainly their oil production is severely down although just as with the case in Russia the increase in price of the commodity has allowed that regime in Iran to recover some of its revenues because of the increase in prices and frankly their ability to evade sanctions. So when we looked to and where the Deputy Prime Minister talked about the need for enhanced sanctions here in the case of Russia, I'm for whatever we can to just tighten the vice. However I do think we've got to go back to those cardinal rules. We've got to have multilateral support. We are accused in the United States of weaponizing the dollar through these sanctions. And I'm mindful of that and I think we need to have a lot of discretion when we are using the tools that come with the reserve currency of the world. Because every time we use it even our allies and our friends start to wonder why is it that you can do this and how are we going to make sure we don't become subject to those sanctions. So I do think multilateral support, I think clear definition as to what these sanctions are for and how you get an off ramp and we've got a problem with this, this off ramp. Because just recently our Secretary of Defense Austin, our Secretary of State Blinken in the region and they talked about now we're not just trying to save Ukraine, we're going to win this war now. That's the goal. Now what does that mean? And we've got to tie that back in with the sanctions. And then lastly on the Prime Minister's comments about secondary sanctions, those are in place in Iran and the holistic set of sanctions on Iran been pretty effective in trying to impose those and enforce those. The problem is as we know now US-China relationship is very tense right now. What is the situation with China and others in terms of supporting these kind of secondary sanctions? If you look at the votes in the UN that went from condemnation of Russia back to pulling Russia and ejecting them from the Commission on Human Rights, there were like 58 votes that pulled away from that vote, which seems to me we may not get that multilateral support of secondary sanctions. So I don't want to make sanctions something that don't work and are not an effective tool so we'll have to work on that piece too. Thank you Eric, that was extraordinarily illuminating. Both I think in focusing on this question of, let's not call it the off ramp, but the end goal and the conditionality and what in fact the aim is. I think Deputy Prime Minister, you were very clear. We want this war to end. We need the aggression to cease. We need Russia to roll back. But also frankly speaking about the degree of politicization of this issue in the United States and this is a very interesting contrast between the extreme polarization over Iran between the parties and the extraordinary degree of unanimity that we're now seeing in Congress on Ukraine so far. Although Anne will tell you there are 57 members of the House of Representatives in our party that voted against the latest package and 11 members of the Republicans out of 50 in the Senate that just voted against. So I'm not sure that unity will last. John, on that fascinating moment, come on in. I mean what's really interesting and we're great to get from you is the sense also of the role of the private sector here because that's really your Metier, the business human rights dimension. And self-sanctioning by firms has been a big element of the story. Big element, yes. Sanctions bleeding into boycotts I guess. I mean first of all to associate myself I think is the term we're using with the Deputy Prime Minister. I mean as a human rights organization we stand with Ukraine, we stand with civil society in Ukraine, with human rights defenders in Ukraine. And I just want to say that unambiguously that there's an act of a complete breakdown I would say in the norms of the society in the world in which we want to live. But we are talking about economic warfare. Let's be clear. The Deputy Prime Minister said Russia uses its leverage like a weapon. We're having a discussion about how the West should use its leverage like a weapon. And the difference between economic warfare and warfare on the ground where you have the Geneva Conventions developed in this country 150, 200 years ago is there are no rules when it comes to economic warfare as we're hearing. I mean there are a sense of groundhog day. And I remember Iran, I remember Sudan, I even remember the McBride principles for Northern Ireland, I'm that old. And there's an element of us trying to find those rules and those benchmarks each time something comes along. And it's very important we do learn from the past and I'm going to try and take the long view here. You asked me Adam to think about it from the perspective of business. Well I think for business, business should see this in three buckets perhaps and the buckets are not watertight but they're associated with each other. First is in Ukraine itself. It makes a big difference as to whether you're in free Ukraine, occupied Ukraine or in areas of conflict. You have the Geneva Conventions which I've mentioned, humanitarian law and other things to consider if you're in Ukraine itself. The second bucket is individual sanctions and acknowledging McNitsky and everything that's developed over the past few years. A lot of work has gone in to create a sanctions regime around individuals that is clearly stated in human rights terms. That's very, very important. So we should build on that even in the context of the urgency of the moment. And then the third bucket is this broad-based sanctions around particular business sectors. And what I'm seeing also on some boards and some companies is withdrawal even above the requirements of sanctions. Companies are moving before they're being asked to move. Now the third thing really then to say is we need to gather the evidence. And it's very important and I acknowledge the work around war crimes research that the government is doing at the moment. And the first trial that's already underway in Ukraine now. That we get the facts, we document the abuses, the genocide, the international criminal violations that have taken place in the country. We need to create an evidence base for what our economic measures. But we're having over recent weeks in the Congress and all around the world, particularly in the West. Big discussions now around what it means to target individuals versus whole populations. Who are the real violators? Who are the innocent? Are there any innocent in the context of Russia? Gross violations versus serious violations? And essential goods and services, medicines and food, should they be exempt from sanction regimes? Now the short term I think is a clearer, the long term consequences of where we're going are less clear. A lot of this is trade distorting. Are we actually talking if we think about all of these measures and everything that's happening about the end of global free trade in the way we've discussed over the past 30 years at Davos and elsewhere? These broad-based sanctions, when do they become boycotts? When do we elaborate these rules of the road that boards and companies can use to decide when there's a fact-based approach to withdrawing from the Russian market? So I'll just end by saying three things. And I think Eric, you've said some of these things already. Be precise, the first thing. Be really precise. State the objectives, whether you're a government or a business, as to why you're disengaging from the Russian market. Sight your rationale within international law. Human rights, corruption. Be very clear about why you're doing it. The second is to measure and evaluate. Beware of unattended consequences. And Eric, you've mentioned the diminishment of leverage over time in the context of Iran possibly. How do we know in the medium to long term that the path we're walking down is actually having the purpose we intended? Magnitsky, again, allows us to measure the consequences in the terms of specific individuals. Broad-based sanctions, you're measuring the impact on a whole population. Beware of unintended consequences. And third for boards, for corporate boards. And today we launched a report for boards in terms of their impacts on affected stakeholders. Whatever your decision, make sure that you put at the centre the impact on the human being. So if you're withdrawing from the Russian market, make sure you're doing so responsibly. Responsible exit and responsible entry are key factors here in the discussion. Cutting and running, leaving staff and others in harm's way is no way to behave. So responsibility comes, whatever your decision. Thank you. Thank you, John. I'm not so far getting much flow of questions on the, not the gadget, the Slido gadget. So if you do have questions, please start winding them up. I see a range here. I'm tempted to just put one to First Deputy Prime Minister. And it's, I think, the question that hangs in the room in a meeting that we are having in Europe. And it's uncomfortable perhaps to talk about because we don't have a representative of the EU or in fact of Europe up on the panel here, but it's impossible, I think, to avoid the question. If we go beyond the formalities of cutting Russia out of the international system, if we're talking about concretely depriving them of access to the bit of the world economy that matters most, it is the European energy market that's decisive. And I don't know whether you feel free at this point to say something on that score, but I think it would be very good to get the message from Keith this morning on that issue that is being debated all over the continent. So I think actually it's essential for us. And there is no other answer than that we are insisting on providing sanction. It's, I know that I think the most old countries in the EU are prepared this second package of sanction. And there are, you know, discussion, very, very discussion inside. But we insist that this package should be implemented otherwise there won't be, you know, we're discussing, we have, you know, very complicated discussion and there is going to be some complex question, I think, in this audience. But the question is we will understand that sanction works just in case if this invasion will stop. Otherwise there is no sense to discuss this partial sanction like swift or partial sanction on ban of oil and gas. If the war is continuous, it means that sanction does not work at all. That's why we insist on the decision from EU side. We understand that it, I know from their side, they try to estimate how costly it's going to be for their economy. But from other side there is Ukraine. We're sitting in a good audience with you in a good room and in parallel there is war landscape. It's a real war and Ukraine economy loses every day and we lose our people. That's why I think that there is no other answer than EU should launch the second package of sanction and to ban the possibility to purchase oil and gas from Russia. Thank you for that. If I could add on to that because it is important. In short, our adversaries and certainly in this case Putin and those that we're targeting must understand that we are not bluffing in this. And the multilateral concept of everyone pulling together in this is absolutely key. We must have a commitment to impose severe cost to those who threaten our international stability and security. So messaging is important. It is, but the coming together is important. And as I said, in terms of energy, I mean it's tough. We look at the swift sanctions that are out there, but you look at those that are not included in that. Schwer rank or Gazprom. This must be a very holistic thing and we must find other sources for Europe. I believe the U.S. would be a wonderful source for LNG and for energy to Europe. So I offer that once again. I've got a gentleman here with glasses. Ken Roth from Human Rights Watch. I wanted to pick up on John's comments because I think it's very important that we distinguish between the Russian government, the Kremlin, the military on the one hand, and the Russian people on the other. Because if you look at what's going to stop the atrocities, what's going to stop the invasion, arguably the Russian people are the most important. And despite the censorship, despite the disinformation, despite the 15-year prison terms threatened, there have been anti-war demonstrations in 150 cities across Russia. Putin is terrified of the possibility of a color revolution. And so it's important with the sanctions messaging and the reality to make clear that the Russian people are not the targets. Because we want them to see that they can join with this anti atrocity, anti-war message. Second quick point is that the most targeted sanction is prosecution. And the most effective institution here is the International Criminal Court. Now, the U.S. government traditionally has said the International Criminal Court cannot prosecute anybody even on the territory like Ukraine, which is accepted at the court, if the war crimes suspect, if his or her country has not joined the ICC. Now, Biden has changed that with respect to Ukraine, said it's okay to prosecute Russians even though Russia has not joined the ICC. But legislation in the U.S. is still precluding full U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. And I hope, Representative Wagner, that you will join with current legislative efforts to allow full U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court even though theoretically the ICC at some point could prosecute an American or prosecute an Israeli. Those are not good enough reasons to block cooperation with the ICC today on Ukraine. Thank you very much, Ken, for that very pointed intervention. Could I ask whether or not, Deputy Prime Minister, you accept that distinction between the government and the people in Russia? Is that a logic that you follow in Kiev in your understanding of how these sanctions should work? Cos it's a classic, liberal version, it's an argument that goes all the way back to the sanctioning of Iraq, at least, and if not before. It relies on focusing on oligarchs as one of the main mechanisms or the political leadership. Is that, from your experience, as a country at war, a meaningful distinction at this point? We have in this room our deputies from Kiev and they write their hand and they would like to answer that question, Yulia Clyman, if you don't mind. No, I'm Yulia Clyman, co-member of parliament of Ukraine, and I would like to answer this question. When you're saying about the difference between Russian nation, which is destroyed by Putin, by himself, and Russian-Kremlin government, tell me the soldier that raped two years old kid. He is Russian or not? Yes, he is Russian, and he is a part of Russian nation. And the Russian nation should be responsible for the Kremlin that they actually elected and they are supporting. 75% of Russian supporting the murders of Ukraine. What we are talking about here. About what values economic development and growth in Europe we are talking about, if we allow 75%, it's an official post. It's not, I'm not taking it from my head, except and actually proof and they, how to say it, even agree with the killing of Ukrainians. This nation, unfortunately, will be destroyed by his own government and his own president by Putin. We are not destroying Russians, they are destroying themselves, and they will do it by the end, unfortunately. And we will fight by the end. Thank you very much for that powerful statement, which I think exposes a really quite fundamental conflict here. I would love to get your reaction and to the issue of the ISIS. I will say this, that the culpability, resqueryly unexclusively, especially in the case of Russian-Ukraine, and with other targets, with the regimes that would see their citizens suffer rather than risk the development of connections between the people in the outside world. We do these in a comprehensive plan to ensure humanitarian efforts are also out there, but they continue to be impeded. Putin is a man that is not only is bombing hospitals and schools and citizens, he has blocked the humanitarian corridors. It is unheard of in a war of this sort, to block those kinds of corridors. The war crimes are absolutely, I think, key, and I think it is often times, sadly, authoritarian regimes that will compound the pain of their people in denying them that kind of access. We look forward to seeing, I think, the first, we saw the first warm crime prosecution just maybe this past week, is that correct? Gentleman, yes. I'm going to take two questions bundled, so I'll come forward to the lady in Herigmong. Professor Tucson, resisting the temptation to ask you the question, because it's a question about the financial impact of the sanctions. Do we know how useful are the euros and the dollars the Russians are getting for European energy? Because as we know, the central bank cannot handle that money, so do we suspect, do we have reason to believe that Russia is creating slush funds, or is it useful to receive those euros and dollars just to stabilise the foreign exchange and avoid hyperinflation? I think this goes to the bottom line whether or not we should pass sanctions on the energy. Thank you. Thank you so much. I just want to talk about sanctions and take a step back and thank you for raising Iraq. I'm originally from Iraq. I wanted to ask about sanctions on Iraq. Iraq withdrew from Kuwait and the sanctions continued from 1991 to 2003, and the Saddam Hussein regime was removed by an American-led invasion. What lessons have we learned from how sanctions were used in Iraq and was that a strategy or a tactic? What benefit was it to the eventual end of changing character in how Iraq acted? And when we talk about, of course, the impact on international law and order and peace and security, what you think the impact of the 2003 decision in Iraq had on some of the dimensions we're seeing now with the Ukraine invasion? Thank you so much. I'm going to bring one more in Riccardo House by the front here, then we'll wrap and we've got an eye on the time here. Thank you for the fascinating panel. Thank you for your words and your courage. I have a question regarding energy sanctions. The world obviously is undergoing a period of high oil prices and people are concerned about energy security, energy affordability. On the other hand, Europe has been hesitant about being more aggressive and they've postponed, say, adjustment for some future, but the war is now, it's not in the future. You want to have an impact now, not later. So I have argued that the most effective way to sanction Russia is not to embargo its oil but to tax it. Russian oil needs to compete with oil from other parts that's not taxed, so they will have to eat the tax. And it shouldn't wait that it's just a matter of imposing a tax on Russian oil and to use that money for many good things, for the reconstruction of Ukraine, for helping the Ukrainian refugees, for many, for helping Ukraine defence. So just tax the oil and tax it now. I must say that I read recently in Reuters that Secretary Yellen was pushing for that idea in the G7, but I think that it should be put on the table. Tax, Russian oil now. Thank you. Can I ask, is that an option that would be attractive to Kyve as a solution? It has, on the one hand, a revenue-raising element. It has, on the other hand, a rather liberal feel in the sense that if you still wanted to buy Russian oil, you could. And it would be the Russians that paid the penalty. Does that do the work that you would like to see from sanctions at this point? Actually, I absolutely agree that for us, for sanctions, it's important to have impact right now. And we have our internal discussion, and we also consider this possibility to have double extra taxation on the Russian oil and gas. But from Kyve's point of view, from an official point of view, so I think that's number one, it's Ben, the expert of oil and gas. So it's our answer. We also have representatives of Nandegas, the CEO of Nandegas also, I think that he can comment, Yuri Vityanka, if you don't mind. Excellent, sorry. Just speak loud. Just speak and that's all. And a special duty, and again some kind of escrow count mechanism that can be implemented through financial sanctions, and I will explain what I mean. So there are countries that can afford the moment to implement a full embargo. For example, even like Germany, in terms of oil, they're saying, look, now we're ready for a full embargo on oil, but we're not ready for a full embargo of a Russian pipeline gas, for example. People will freeze. Hungary is saying, look, we're not ready for an embargo on Russian oil because, again, that's the only source of oil we can get because we don't have a seaport. So they can be a combination when, for example, some countries are saying, look, there is a full embargo, not some countries, we're saying as general rule is a full embargo. Then there are some exemptions as a transitional arrangement for those countries who cannot implement a full embargo right now. They have to use a special duty for, for example, pipeline oil, for pipeline gas, where it's really like the critical dependence. We will also test, by the way, if they are sincere about saying that they have a critical dependence, because maybe with a special duty we will all see that Russian oil is not just competitive, for example, in Hungary. So maybe some Hungarian firms, they just want a free ride, again, on this huge discount, for example, to Russian oil that we see at the moment. A similar situation, for example, with escrow count mechanism. We can say that even if you are buying Russian oil and gas, you cannot transfer all the money to Putin's regime. So at least some part of this money should be frozen, seized, again, it's a different story where there can be options, basically. But at least we should deprive Putin regime of these billions of dollars he is getting every day from Europe to finance this barbaric war. Thank you so much. Because when people are arguing about different options, it's an excuse for them to do nothing. That's exactly what is happening in the moment. We could spend all morning talking. We've had an incredibly rich and complex discussion this morning. We're out of time, but I feel it's entirely appropriate to leave the last word this morning to the Ukrainian voice. And so I'll ask you to thank all the contributors to this wonderful panel to join me in a round of applause. Thank you for being here. Thanks very much.