 Good afternoon. Welcome to the session on securing and insecure world. Of course, I'm biased, but if it is one session, and that was your, you should go to, it is this one. So you've done a good choice. And with this panel, I think we're also going to get enlightened. We are faced with the most complex geopolitical backdrop in any Davos, this is in the last decades. And I like the title how we can make an insecure world a bit more secure. On my left, I have Annalena Berbach, federal minister of foreign affairs, Germany. Then we have His Highness Faisal Al Saud, minister of foreign affairs, Saudi Arabia. Then we have Sandra Chris Coons from the US, Delaware, the former seat of President Biden. Then we have Yousef Tugar, minister of foreign affairs in Nigeria. Welcome, minister. How many days have you been in the job? Sounds like forever, but only since August. They say being foreign minister, one, they're dog years. I think dog years is like seven, is it? So then we go also to the Finnish foreign minister, Elina Valtonen, welcome. And then I think it doesn't need that much presentation. Jens Doltmerg, the secretary general of NATO. So give them an applause. So we start on a little bit of a positive note. We will have to touch on the situation in the Middle East, the danger of escalation, latest development in the Red Sea, but of course also the ongoing war in Gaza. We will also have to touch on the other war in Ukraine. We'll also have to touch on what we just heard this morning, China's premier and the G2 US China, but also the order that we left is gone. The post called war order. We're between orders. So we don't really know what the new order will be. Hopefully not the jungle growing back, but something based on international law and the UN charter. So we will also touch on that. And then I think 45 minutes are gone. So without any further ado, Your Highness, Minister Faisal, where to start and end? How worried are you about the situation in the Red Sea? It's one of the major transportation canals of the world. We're seeing no ships going around Africa instead of in the canal. Was it necessary to take the steps? We did know. Are you supportive of them? And you have been trying to reign in the Houthis for quite a while, haven't you? I think we are incredibly concerned for regional security in general. And of course, freedom of navigation in the Red Sea is something that impacts all of us. And we think the priority needs to be de-escalation, de-escalation in the Red Sea, but in the entire region. And we are going to engage to make that happen. And part of that, of course, is also making sure that we engage with all stakeholders. How connected is this with the war in Gaza? I mean, it's clearly connected, given that it's coming in that context. And in any case, we need to focus on the war in Gaza, not because of the Red Sea. We need to focus on the war in Gaza because of its impact on the Palestinians first, but on regional security in general, and on the risks that it poses for further escalation. And we've seen now close to 30,000 civilians killed in Gaza. We continue to see civilians being killed every day. We continue to see restrictions on access to material aid. And frankly, we don't see any real sign that any strategic objectives that Israel has claimed are becoming any closer. So we need to have a ceasefire immediately. We need to set the ground for a credible process that enables the Palestinian Authority that allows us to have a process towards peace in the region. This will resolve many of the challenges that we have in the region. But continuing as we are now, continuing to see the suffering that's happening in Gaza, is likely to lead to continuing cycles of escalation. I think many of us were a bit relieved that it did not escalate the situation in Gaza to Lebanon. But what we're seeing now is it has escalated to Yemen and has impact on the navigation in the Red Sea. You also, in the kingdom, had the rapprochement with Iran. Are you surprised of the role in Iran when it comes to this situation and with the escalation with the Houthis, or are they not that involved? I can't speak for the Iranians. But what I can say, again, I just want to make clear that our priority and our emphasis is on finding the path to de-escalation. And that is primarily, in our view, through a ceasefire in Gaza. That is through serious engagement across the region. But we need to focus on the immediate crisis. The immediate crisis is the suffering that's happening in Gaza. We're continuing to see that going on. We don't see any real prospects for that ending. And I'm somewhat heartened to see that the international community has been moving more in the direction that we have called for since the beginning, which is calling for ceasefires, which is calling for more humanitarian aid. But we need to do more. Clearly, not enough has been done because the killing continues and the suffering continues. Minister Berbock, I think you visited the region, Israel, and the Palestinian areas also four times since 7th of October. You heard what His Highness is saying, that we need a ceasefire. We need to de-escalate. What's your take on what the minister just said? Well, also the two of us, but with many colleagues and friends, we have been in constant contact in the last three months because in my assessment, this is a total disaster. It's a disaster for Israel. It's a disaster for the civilians in Gaza. It's a disaster for the whole world. And we are working nonstop at foreign minister level at the moment to prevent that just a spark could burn the whole region. And not only the region. I mean, we feel the consequences also in Ukraine. We feel the consequences that in Europe, media is not reporting about the most heavy attacks from Russia on civilians in Ukraine since the start of the Russian invasion. We feel the consequences. I traveled after I've been last week to Israel to Gaza, rougher border crossing, and also to the neighboring countries. I went to the Philippines and Malaysia. We as Germany feel the consequences there, because in Malaysia I'm being asked, so do you have any sentiments against Muslim countries? Because you are not calling for a ceasefire in the wording my dear colleague and friend, Prince Faisal, has put in it, we are calling for a sustainable ceasefire, because I believe that a ceasefire, unfortunately, doesn't fall from the sky. We can only reach a ceasefire if both sides are ready. That's a suffering for oneself, also and it's a suffering from the others. And my assessment, and actually not only assessment, I'm really emotional about this, because we are speaking about children still in hostage with Hamas in Gaza, one year old child. We are speaking about a boy I just saw in Alarish Hospital when I was there. When I went from Gaza crossing Rafa to the hospital 10 kilometers away, at the same moment, a five-year-old boy came by ambulance waiting for weeks that he could come to Egypt to be treated in the hospital. I just entered only with his mother and his baby sister. The whole rest of the family have been killed. And the discussion about the ceasefire sounds so technical, but it's about saving these children. Those children still being hostage, those children suffering under the humanitarian disaster. And I believe the problem we are in is actually we know the solution. We can only come out together on a plan, on the ceasefire, on a plan, on a two-state solution. But at the moment, we are stuck in a vicious circle, because the vicious circle means you cannot say, but you have to start or you have to start. It has to come all together, the freeing of the hostages, the ending of the humanitarian situation, the question, and this is where we might disagree, that there has to be the call from the whole international community that Hamas has to lay down its weapon. So Israel is not threatened from Gaza anymore. And obviously, and this is what others are asking from us, like Germany standing with Israel's right to self-defense, obviously this includes also a change of strategy that not so many civilians are dying in. At the moment, we are stuck in this vicious circle, and we have to find, and I think this is our obligation, as an international community of those who believe in the rule of law, to find the solution, to come out of this vicious circle. Yeah, and this is why I'm traveling. Many colleagues are traveling all around the clock to come to peace, not only for the region, but I would say for the whole world. Well, thank you. Isn't it the danger that the humanitarian sufferings in Gaza will just continue and continue until there is a political solution? Because at the two former, during the two former Gaza wars, there were conferences after where there was a lot of money pledged and one rebuilt Gaza. But I guess the international donors don't want to rebuild again if there is a danger for total or destruction in the few years. And then I'm looking at what are the realistic scenarios. One scenario is the Seattleists just stay. So we're on, like, a pre-2005 situation before Israel pulled out. Then we can see a situation where the PA and Fatah takes over the rule of Gaza. I guess they will be quite reluctant. I don't know what Abomasin says in his discussions with you on this. And then the third one could be Fatah Hamas. But I guess Israel is not very open for that solution. So what is now really the most realistic outcome for Gaza that can also bring humanitarian relief and bring us on the path, as you mentioned, for a two-state solution? I believe the only way out is a two-state solution. If everybody recognized that Israelis can only live in peace and security when Palestinians live in peace and security, but the other side is also true, Palestinians can only live in peace and security if Israelis for the future are guaranteed that also they are capable of living in peace and security without any rockets flying anymore. So actually, I would say the answer is there on the table. But the problem is the bridge over the other side of the river. We cannot walk together, because on the concrete measures right now, it's always this tit for tat. If this doesn't happen first, then this cannot happen. And we have to end this blame game. And I believe, again, it needs actors, different countries, which come together and say, this is the way how we bridge it, and maybe change our course, not asking the question on which side are you on. We are in a black and white situation also in our countries. Yeah, we are so divided on it. If we ask it from the point of the people, and I mean human and foreign politics, it's about the people. If we are, what do the people of Israel, what do the people of Gaza need? And they need, obviously, in Gaza, humanitarian access now. So the question, how do we come to the political answers, is that we have to change course on the humanitarian situation. This is why, concretely now for me, German foreign minister, I was saying loud and clear that the access to Gaza has to change. I believe that it's highly important that Ashtodport and RS can be used as border crossing as well. Obviously, there was checks, but I was standing there besides estimated 3,000 trucks waiting to enter Gaza. People are starving there, and here's the food. So the food and the water has to come in. On the other hand, and this is what I'm discussing with our friends and colleagues, we cannot ignore that the majority of the hostages is still in the hand of Hamas. Some people think, well, the hostages have been freed now. No, the majority is still in the hand of Hamas. So while speaking about humanitarian access to come in, because of the people, we have to say together, and this is my call for other countries who haven't addressed it so clearly yet to call on the freeing of the hostages, so without any conditions. And if we do both together, I believe this could be the step which we need on then further question of the role of Fatah, the role of the PA. I was there, I was speaking about the question of reforming, about the question of holding up elections. I mean, this was also a discussion before that we need, obviously, elections also in the West Bank. But then you can end up with Hamas winning in the West Bank too, can't you? Well, this is interesting. And this is why I'm, at this moment now, I'm rejecting white and black and black and white discussions. I mean, this leads nowhere. And when I was in Israel this time, I also spoke to researchers. And there were interesting findings. In German media, it was reported that an assessment which has been made in Gaza and in the West Bank, it was reported the majority is now for Hamas. In Gaza and the West Bank. When I spoke to the researcher in Israel, actually, the finding was it was a majority. If you ask all the people, but it's always the same with polls, the question is, how do you ask the question? And the question, if they would support Hamas in this kind of situation, it was not about 50%. So it was not the majority. Many people obviously said, we don't know. And actually, the increase from the support of Hamas, at least to this poll, has increased only by 4% to 6% over the last three months. So the rhetoric, which is also there in German and Western media of saying, now there's a big push for Hamas. This is not the finding from the people. Because obviously, the people are also suffering under Hamas. I mean, they are being misused as a human protection shield. So I think, again, not black and white. We have to address, again, a question for us international players to find a solution. We have to also think, and this is what we are discussing, the day after. So how can we hold election? What would be the precondition? My precondition, obviously, guaranteeing the right of Israel and guaranteeing the right of the Palestinians, live in peace and security. I mean, these are the international rules the Charter of the United Nations was founded on. And the worst thing we could do is just wait and see. For me, this is no option at all. Obviously, it's very difficult to move one step further. But wait and see, we saw now in the last three months, just leads to further escalation. And therefore, I'm really thankful for the exchange here today. No, thank you very much, Senator Kunz. In the Arab peace plan, if there was a two-state solution, the Arab countries were guaranteeing also for Israel's security. It was a Palestinian state. But it was a broad regional understanding, based also on the global understanding. Listening to Prince Faisal, also the German foreign minister, how can, is there a possibility at all to break the current impulse, both in Gaza? When will the war end? How will it end? And also on the two-state solutions, because there is like almost 30, is more than 30 years since the Oslo process now. Yes, I am optimistic that there is a possibility of peace along that framework. Two months ago, a group of 10 senators, five Republicans, five Democrats, went to Riyadh, met with the Crown Prince, went to Tel Aviv, met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the war cabinet. And other leaders in Israel went to Cairo and met with President Al-Sisi. And the possibility of that regional peace, regional reconciliation with a real path towards a Palestinian state is still there. But the conditions on the ground have gotten worse every single day. The suffering of civilians in Gaza has gotten to an unacceptable level. The refusal to deliver humanitarian assistance at scale has become unacceptable. And the continued holding of hostages by Hamas. There was a encouraging period. Qatar helped facilitate the release of some hostages. There's just also been the delivery of some medicines. But we are a long way from resolving this. And making any positive path forward requires a change, both in the sentiments and the leadership in Israel, as well as the sentiments in the region. The United States canon should play a central and a facilitating role. But we cannot make peace where there are people who are not willing to or committed to. This is a shattering moment for the people of Israel to re-examine whether a strategy of having both Hamas and Fatah in the West Bank in Gaza was wise or unwise, whether or not there is a guarantee of security returning to that, and whether or not it's sustainable globally for Israel to continue this conduct of the war in Gaza. I would argue it is not. There is also a regional actor we have to be clear about. It is Iran that is providing the drones and the missiles that are killing civilians in Ukraine. It is Iran that has provided a lot of the training and the support that makes Houthi drone attacks and missile attacks possible, Hamas attacks possible. And we have to be clear eyed that there is an accelerating trajectory of difficulty. The DPRK and Iran have provided critical resources to Russia for which they will be rewarded with technology that will make the world even more dangerous. So I think we need to be decisive. I think we need to be engaged. And I think we need to be clear eyed. We have talked for a long time about a Palestinian state without making any real progress. And so I think this is a moment for bold action. I agree with much of what the minister had said about a sustainable ceasefire, but the conditions for creating that are going to require some real changes. Our Secretary of State has been throughout the region tirelessly, so too have many other American leaders. I am actually hopeful that this is possible, but hope is not a strategy without significant investment and real change. Is that possible with the current Israeli government? Prime Minister Netanyahu has made a career for a long time of opposing a two-state solution. This is not recent. This is not news. So I think it falls to the Israeli people to decide as a democracy what they see as the right path forward. But there's also very short time. There is a short window before the American political election season squeezes out any possibility of us ratifying or engaging or supporting a new security arrangement in the region. There's also many elections in other places. This is the year of many complex and challenging elections. And so I think the time is short. But for those, if there is an agreement, we saw that the JSPOA was just terminated by Trump. So if he was to be reelected and the Biden administration made deals now, could we count on the new administration continuing? The United States rarely ratifies security treaties, but when we do, we keep them. We have just enacted our Defense Authorization Act. It includes a provision that passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. Our ratification of the NATO treaty decades ago was silent about whether or not an American president could unilaterally withdraw America from NATO. It's no longer silent. We have amended the statute. An American president can no longer unilaterally withdraw us from NATO. Why was that done? I think it's clear. Before I have a follow-up question about on a different topic, Senator Coons, but Prince Faisal, short reactions from you, from what Senator Coons said, and also what German Foreign Minister said? I think what's important to note here is that there is general agreement. And what we need to do is translate that agreement into concrete action. Minister Behrbock very eloquently discussed the fact that peace and security of Israel is intimately linked with peace and security for the Palestinians. And that's something that we have supported in the kingdom since 1981, the Faisal proposal on peace. So we are fully on board with that. We agree that regional peace includes peace for Israel, but that can only happen through peace for the Palestinians through a Palestinian state. And I hear from Senator Coons exactly the same sentiment. And this is something that we have been, indeed, working on with the administration, the US administration. And it continues, I think it's even more relevant in the context of Raza. The fact is that what Israel is doing now is putting the prospects for regional peace and security at risk. There is a pathway towards a much better future for the region, for the Palestinians, and for Israel. That is peace. And we are fully committed to that. But again, the first step for that is ceasefire. And I will say that a ceasefire, of course, means ceasefire on all sides. But that can only happen as should be a starting point towards a permanent, sustainable peace, which can only happen through true justice for the Palestinian people. Thank you. And I think also the kingdom has said, in that context, it could even be recognition of Israel from the kingdom if that was part of a bigger political agreement. Certainly. Senator Coons, we had Premier of China speaking this morning. Second largest economy in the world, 20% of the global economy. US 25% of the global economy, almost 50% all together. I think one of the few bipartisan topics in DC is the view on China. But following President Biden's and Xi Jinping's meeting in San Francisco during the APEC meeting, there is no broader understanding, at least, established a kind of a floor. So where do you see the relationship between the US and China in the next decade? Will it be, as your president have said, extreme competition, but also agreements on areas where there is common interest? Or will it not only be de-risking, but also in certain areas going into decoupling? Well, I think, to a great extent, that will depend on the outcome of our presidential election. I do think President Biden made some real progress in reducing the risk of military encounters in the South China Sea, of profound misunderstandings. We have fundamentally different systems and values, but we are deeply interconnected economically and reopening military to military lines of communication to reduce the possibility of an unintentional conflict is a positive step. I believe Xi Jinping also heard, there was a delegation of senators that went and he dedicated a great deal of time to a respectful engagement and heard about fentanyl and its consequences in our country where it is killing huge numbers of Americans and that has been driving some of the anger at China is the nationally shared sense of grievance that the PRC was taking no significant steps to reduce the production and export to the United States of Fentanyl. Substantive steps have been taken and that is a positive sign. We need to now figure out how it is that we can find areas of cooperation, whether it's on climate change or on pandemics or on research, while recognizing that we will vigorously compete. We are each taking steps to constrain the other in terms of technology that are raising some concerns in conversations I've had here. But I think it is also worth being clear that in terms of the international rules-based order, China continues to do things in the economic zones of regional neighbors, in terms of constraining freedom of navigation, in terms of their view of the international flow of data and the theft of intellectual property that causes us some concerns and some issues. I also think that she watched closely the world's response to Putin's aggression against Ukraine. And it's important that we in the United States continue to meet our commitments to Ukraine, that we continue to work in partnership with the 50 other countries that are determined to push back on the invasion of a neighboring sovereign country, and that we continue our work together to find a way that we can derisk this relationship in a positive direction for the world. Thank you. We're discussing Middle East, but we're also discussing East-West. But North-South has also been a prominent topic during the last three years. There's been lack of trust between the South and the North. Some people would say it started with, not necessarily, but it accelerated during COVID, where you saw that Global South did not have access to the most effective vaccines. And the Global North was then seeing vaccination third, fourth times. And it all started to vaccinate children. And there were vulnerable groups not having access to vaccines in the Global South. So Minister Tugar, Nigeria, one of the really big powers in the Global South. You'll listen to the discussion, of course, so far. But is there a way that we can see a reconciliation between the North and the South? And what has to change from the North? Is there anything that has to change from the South? And what would be the fundamental fundamental that these, this cooperation, the pillars, that this cooperation will be built on? UN Charter, is it international law? Very interesting to hear also from the new Nigerian administration on this, Minister. Well, what we have to do is to collectively practice what we preach. So the values that we uphold, democracy, rule of law, need to be practiced. And we need to see them being practiced in the very decision-making bodies or entities for the planet. So to begin with, the UN Security Council, it needs to democratize. Clearly, it is not fit for purpose. Nigeria, you mentioned, is a large country. It is the most populous country on the continent, on the African continent. It has a population of 220 million people. It's going to be 400 by the year 2050. It belongs in a UN Security Council, for instance. And there are several other key decision-making bodies. With or without veto power? Permanent seat. But no more veto powers, huh? We should do away with the veto power. Clearly, it's clumsy. It's not working. And again, when you look at the global security architecture, it is impacted upon by such undemocratic entities that influence decisions. Again, you have a situation where, in the past, when we had a bipolar world, we had neutral ground for diplomats to engage, for diplomacy to be allowed to resolve issues, to preempt conflicts, and diffuse them. We don't have that anymore. We no longer have Austria the way it used to be, or Switzerland where we are today, Scandinavia. When I was studying international relations many decades ago, we even had the term Finlandization, and all of that. That no longer exists. So we're increasingly seeing a situation where diplomats and diplomacy are taking the backseat, and disagreements are being securitized. And security chiefs, defense policy makers, are taking the front seat. And of course, for the guy with the hammer, everything is a nail. So we end up with increasing conflicts. So we need to allow for, of course, some of these things have to do with also the global financial situation, problems to do with the economy. So if a foreign affairs ministry is not deemed to be a revenue generator, then one that maybe produces weapons and cells and has more revenue generation takes the forefront. So we really need to allow for diplomats to play a more sort of important role when it comes to dialogue, when it comes to engagement between countries. And that is missing. Thank you. Thank you very much, minister. Jens Stoltenberg, first we'll come back to Ukraine. But I asked Sandra Kunz a question about the US and China, but also the West and China. And last year, Secretary General of NATO spoke about China. That was the first time I've heard. So I think NATO is, of course, first and foremost, transatlantic treaty organization looking at defending its member countries. But I think you also have enlarged also the things that you do address. And how do you rack to what Sandra Kunz said about US relationship with China? And how do you think the West should deal with China? So first of all, you are right that NATO is a transatlantic alliance, Europe and North America. And we will remain a regional alliance. But the transatlantic region faces global threats. Security is not longer regional. Security is global. So what happens in Asia matters for Europe. And what happens in Europe matters for Asia. And therefore, of course, we don't regard China as an adversary. But China's heavy investments in modern military capabilities, including more and more advanced nuclear weapons. China's way of behavior, especially in the South China Sea. And the way China is actually violating core principles for NATO, democracy, the rule of law, journalism, freedom of expression, as we have seen in Hong Kong. All of that matters for NATO. And we also have to understand that this is not about NATO moving into Asia, but it's about the fact that China is coming closer to us. We see them in Africa. We see them in the Arctic. We see them trying to control a critical infrastructure. Not so many years ago, we had a big discussion about 5G. And many allies said this is only a commercial issue. No, it's also an issue about our security. So therefore, for all these reasons, of course, NATO has to address what happens in Asia, not because we are a global security alliance, but because what happens there matters for us. And vice versa. I visited Japan and South Korea, close partners of NATO. They are concerned about what happens in Ukraine because they know that the more success Putin has in Ukraine, the more likely it is that Beijing will use force. So we have to have a global approach, even though we are regional countries, regional organizations, the world is interconnected. And of course, NATO has taken the consequence of that. Thank you. We were at the session together this morning with President Zelensky. Are the Ukrainians winning, or would you say not losing, the war in Ukraine? The situation on the battlefield is extremely difficult. The Russians are now pushing on many front lines. And of course, the big offensive that the Ukrainians launched last summer didn't give the results we all hoped for. And we see how Russia is now building up, how they are acquiring drones from Iran, actually building their own drone factory to produce their own drones in Tartarstan with help from Iran, how they get ammunition and ballistic missiles from North Korea. And they have also demonstrated a high tolerance for casualties. So overall, Russia is pushing hard. And this is serious, and we should never underestimate Russia. Having said that, I really believe that there is also a cause for optimism. First of all, we have to remember where we started. When this war started with the full-fledged invasion back in 2022, then most experts believed that Russia was going to take Kiev within days and control Ukraine within weeks. That didn't happen. The opposite happened. The Ukrainians pushed back, liberated the Northeast and the South Haesong. They have made big military victories in the Black Sea, opened up a corridor. So now they're actually able to export grain and other stuff through the Black Sea. And we have seen how they've been able to hit both the Russian Air Force and the Russian Navy. These are big military victories for Ukraine. The most important thing is that Ukraine has survived as a sovereign independent nation, which is a big win for them. And Russia is losing, meaning that Russia has lost what they wanted to achieve with the war. And that was to control Ukraine. Ukraine, the people of Ukraine, have never trust Russia less than they do today. And they want to be part of the West, of the European Union and NATO, and they're closer to us than ever before. And this is a big loss for Russia. We have to support them. And I'm also quite confident that NATO Allies will continue to provide support. Because support for Ukraine is not charity. Support for Ukraine is investment in our own security. And therefore, Allies have provided unprecedented support. Now we are ramping up production. There was just an agreement now to acquire close to 1,000 new interceptors for the Patriot batteries. One example of how Allies are stepping up to refill their own stocks, but also be able to support Ukraine in the future. So we just have to stand by Ukraine. And some stage, Russia will understand that they are paying a too high price and sit down and agree to some kind of just peace. But we need to stand by Ukraine. Thank you. You're also a Secretary General of NATO. You're on top of all the juicy intelligence. We heard this morning that Russia has lost more than 200 soldiers, half of their tanks, in your 300. You said that again? 300,000. 300,000, yeah. And half of their tanks. And of course, also having severe impact on their economy. It's said in the morning it's a war economy. So you can then use the traditional measures. But with what you're hearing also as Secretary General of NATO, are the Russians aware, you think, that this war did not go as planned and are aware of all the casualties? And for a nation that has lost half of their tanks and 300,000 soldiers, that's not a minor thing. Is there something happening in Russia, or is it just not? I'm very careful predicting about both how the war will develop. Wars are by nature unpredictable. And I'm even more careful about predicting what will happen inside Russia. We saw progressing last year, surprises may happen. But we don't have any indications where any big change inside Russia. But of course, there can be surprises. Again, I think what really matters is what we do. And we just have to do whatever we can to increase the price for Russia. And of course, when they had lost 300,000 soldiers or casualties, thousands of armed vehicles, hundreds of planes, this is something that matters for Russia and for ordinary Russians. Their economy is struggling. They are paying a high economic price. They are paying a high political price. They are more politically isolated, also in the near and broad in Caucasus and Central Asia. And so what we can do is not to predict with certainty what will happen. But what we can do is to just maximize the likelihood that at some stage, President Putin will understand that to continue this war, we'll have a too high price. And then at some stage, he has to sit down and negotiate some kind of just lasting peace where Ukraine prevails as a sovereign independent nation. And the paradox is that if we want that to happen, a peaceful just end to this war, the way to get there are more or is more weapons to Ukraine. So the more credible we are in our military, military support, the more likely it is that the diplomats will succeed. Because what happens around the negotiating table with diplomats is so closely linked to the situation on the battlefield. There are no indications that Putin is planning for peace now, but he will when he realized that we will not give up, that we have the military strength to support Ukraine and then he will sit down and the diplomats can take over. Thank you, Jens. In the morning meeting, someone also said that Putin is the father of the modern Ukraine. But Minister Elena Valtanen of Finland, I guess Finland would not have become a NATO member if it wasn't for Putin's war on Ukraine. Yeah, probably not. We never kind of saw the need for that, even though, well, personally, I have been in favor of that for decades, but not all of us Finns. And we thought that we would be able to defend ourselves and deter Russia based on our strong own defense forces. But I have to say, I mean, in this narrative, and perhaps also what my colleague from Nigeria referred to, I'm not hugely proud of the Finnish piece of history of the Finlandization, and that's got nothing to do with diplomacy. It was enforced on us. I mean, living next to a huge neighbor who is not only unpredictable, but very aggressive, and we've had our past where we have had to defend our country against the aggression and the invasion from back then Soviet Union. Luckily, we were able to remain independent. Never were part of the Soviet Union. But those few decades where we really had to constrain our sovereignty in order to remain independent, that's not based on the UN Charter, right? I mean, every sovereign nation has to right to decide on themselves, or more precisely, those people living in those democracies, they have the right. And that is exactly that the Ukrainians are now fighting for, because they decided, more than 10 years ago, the Ukrainian people, they want to have a European future. They want to have a future where each individual counts, they can decide on their own future. And that's why we need to assist them, because nobody wants to have a world where only the strongest, the most powerful are to decide. And I'm sure that applies to Nigeria just as much as it applies to the 5 million people of Finland. And only just finally, NATO does not enlarge by force. It is the free people in democratic nations who choose to join. And that goes for Finland and Sweden, just like anybody else. And we didn't join, because we wanted to threaten Russia. Come on, 5 million Finns threatening Russia, come on. It's never happened in the future. Don't believe that narrative. We are there in order to protect our values and stand up for the UN Charter. You just told me that you had to close the border again towards Russia for another month? That's right. Well, yeah, we've experienced, especially after the summer, some increasing, so to say, harassment from Russia. So now there's this hybrid operation going on where Russia has not only let third country citizens enter Finland, cross our border without valid documentation. But they have also been, or we have evidence that they are actively mobilizing those people, also direct from their original countries. And that's obviously not something we can accept. It's part of our sovereignty and territorial integrity. And plus Finland is obviously not only protecting its own border, but also that of the EU and NATO. Many of those people who have entered our country well are criminals or have even wore criminal records. And many of them stay in Finland. They have all of them seek asylum. But many also continue on towards the rest of the Schengen area. And of course, we can't have that happen. Time is up, but Minister Tugar, I think you wanted a short reply. I would have loved to continue another half an hour. But I learned, though, in my political past, that you should always end when people still want you to continue. I'm not sure all politicians stick to that. But Minister Tugar, I'll do a very, very short closing. Yeah, so real quickly, not a reply, just a reaction. I spoke about Finlandization within the context of a bipolar world and ways to avert conflicts. And in this case, nuclear annihilation. So perhaps that was the price that we had to pay. It was regrettable. But the point I was trying to make was the need for there to be neutral ground for diplomats, for countries to engage with each other to avert conflicts. But I couldn't agree more with the minister with regards to freedom of self-determination. Because what you described could apply exactly to Palestine. They have the right. They have the right to self-determination. The same way that Finland, so we could. But I don't want us to keep on nitpicking and picking and choosing which conflicts to highlight. What is important is also that we pay close attention to proxy wars and actions and the use of proxies to formant conflicts in third party nations. So this is something that is happening that we see increasingly. And unless the diplomats engage with each other, you cannot diffuse such tensions. But we need to roll that back as quickly as possible. No, thank you very much, minister. I feel extremely privileged to have had the chance to moderate such a panel. Great leaders in their different fields. The title was, as I said, the beginning, securing an insecure world. I think we took a small step forward in at least establishing some potential pillars for what a more secure world could be. And to you, minister from Nigeria, also on the diplomacy. I think we need more diplomacy and not less diplomacy and both in Gaza, Ukraine, US, China, North, South, East, West. It doesn't hurt to talk. It doesn't hurt to have a dialogue. And that is what we're trying also here in Davos. I'm being asked three times this morning about people that are invited to Davos. Why did they invite her? Why did we invite him? We don't agree with them. Exactly. That's why they're here, because we can have a dialogue. If you only then deal with the people you agree with. Then there will be conflicts. There will be no further understanding. And of course, that's part of the whole disinformation agenda. If you look at something, the algorithms just make sure that you look even more at something that is even more extreme than you look at. Maybe it wasn't extreme at all, but it was a little bit edgy. So thank you very much to the panel. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Give them a big applause.