Explore how national priorities and community pressures are reshaping global strategy, uncover why local forces now drive geopolitical outcomes at Davos 2026.
At Davos 2026, leaders argued that geopolitics is increasingly shaped by domestic pressures, driving a shift from globalization toward “strategic autonomy” and “modern mercantilism.” Poland’s Radosław Sikorski framed the transatlantic bond as deep and durable—anchored in NATO, troops, and missile defense—but warned peace in Ukraine requires “pressure on the aggressor and not the victims of aggression.” He urged “strategic patience,” doubting Russia and Ukraine’s red lines yet converge, and cautioned Europe’s slower, confederal decision-making limits its ability to become a true defense actor.
France’s Jean-Noël Barrot emphasized the “growing conflict between the US and China” as the defining challenge, pushing Europe to reduce dependencies exposed by Covid-19, Ukraine, and questions around security guarantees. He argued the US is not merely being more explicit about interests, but “chosen to change their approach to multilateralism,” potentially at its own cost. For investors, Bridgewater’s Nir Bar Dea said geopolitics now “big time” drives markets: diversification away from US concentration, a gold surge reflecting declining comfort with dollar assets, and growth boosted by an “arms race” capex cycle. Mina Al-Oraibi noted oil’s diminished geopolitical sensitivity and a more “transactional” US role. On the Israel-Palestine “Board of Peace,” participants welcomed momentum but flagged legal and legitimacy questions.
To this session. All geopolitics is local here in Davos. I am managing director at the World Economic Forum. What we are trying to capture with this session is, really some of the seismic shifts that we're seeing in global geopolitics. I think it's undeniable that we are living in a more contested, more competitive world. At the same time, doesn't mean everything stops. So you are seeing, of course, the conduct of foreign policy. But if you look at it, national security considerations, considerations around sovereignty are just playing a bigger role. And I don't want to zoom everything around this week. And we should have a larger, bigger picture discussion this afternoon. But you could say that both of these the more competitive, contested world, as well as how do you actually get things done, maybe through new means and ideas where both, on display here this week. And so I'm joined for this discussion by, great leaders, thought leaders, political leaders, business leaders. So let me introduce you. I would like to, welcome Jean-Noel Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France. Welcome. Thank you. I'd like to welcome, Radoslaw Sikorski, deputy prime minister and minister of Foreign affairs of Poland. Welcome. I'd like to welcome Mina Al-oraibi, editor in chief of the National. And you're also Mina, chairing our Global Future Council on Geopolitics.
I'm a member. Yes.
You're a member of the Global Future Council on Geopolitics. Not not yet, chair.
Not a COO yet.
And last but not least, warm welcome to Nevada, chief executive officer at Bridgewater Associates. So warm welcome. I'd like to start with you, Deputy Prime Minister, if I could go to you, Poland, has had a such a strong relationship with the United States and has, the transatlantic relationship is very important. Also, the security relationship is very important. So if you were to, again, kind of step back and look at the big picture, if you look at the past year, for example, what are the things that, you think are staying in place and remain the features of that relationship? And what are the things that maybe give you a pause to think.
Well, the relationship, of course, is much deeper than, than this. You know, when communism fell, it was the United States that helped us make the transition from a command economy to a free economy and from dictatorship to democracy. And also our anchoring in NATO was a US, project which then helped us join the European Union. And we paid back by being, in Iraq, in command of the International Division, central, South, Brigade. And then, of course, we rallied around in Afghanistan, where we Poland alone lost 44 soldiers, Europeans over a thousand altogether. And, and we're very glad to have, 10,000 US troops on our soil. I signed the agreement on the, US missile defense base, which is now being completed. And, and the United States says it's staying and is in fact, building up its, presence in Poland. And we want to keep it that way for at least as long as Russia is a threat. So Poland's, stance is to be, at the same time, a good ally of the United States and a loyal European. And we will we will do everything in our power to, to to glue the two sides of the Atlantic together for as long as, as as possible.
Are there any things that give you thoughts for pause or reasons for pause?
Well, we would have wished for the US to continue with the supplementals to, to keep sending the at least the ammunition for the, that would defend Ukrainian cities from what Putin is doing. And we also hope that, there is clarity that to end, to get a deal, you need to put pressure on on the aggressor and not the victims of aggression. And, and also that this, you know, President Trump was saying we have a beautiful ocean. Yeah. But for us, you know, a Putin victory in Ukraine would be a threat not just to Poland, but to all of Europe. So what's at stake is the future architecture of Europe and also Europe's status on, on, on the global stage. You know, we have a constitutional problem. We are a confederation with slower decision making, whereas, you know, others have unity of command. Europeans to, to change that, to become a defense, player. We would have to change the Constitution. And the trouble is that that which is necessary is politically impossible. And, and that worries me.
Thank you. Maybe just, in this first round, one more thing. We have President Zelensky here today. He had a speech in the plenary. I understand he had a meeting with President Trump. Do you feel. I mean, you have so much experience. You are, of course, neighbors with Ukraine. Do you feel that we're getting into some kind of territory where we have really the line of sight of a sustainable peace agreement?
Well, that's what Steve Witkoff was saying at the Ukrainian breakfast this morning, and I hope he knows something I don't, he's, he you know, the working groups have put together various papers and so on. But I personally don't quite yet see the red lines of the two countries meeting. And therefore we should be strategically patient. Ukraine has a pledge of €90 billion for two years. Putin is not quite hurting enough to make a deal that Ukraine can live with. It would be my judgment.
Thank you. I'd like to go to Jean-Noel Barrot, foreign minister of France. Similar question on first on the transatlantic relationship. Again, as I said this week, there have been quite fast developments. But again, if you were to step back, does it still remain a source of strength for the world and also for Europe?
Well, I think that, despite of all of what has happened this week, the, the key, the main geopolitical challenge ahead of us that has local implications is the growing conflict between the US and China. That that threatens to drag us into this conflict or to pick sides in ways that, countries like France, but also other countries in, in Europe are not willing to do. And so the key question, I think, is how the rest of the world is going to adjust to that. And the way France and Europe have started to adjust is first by developing their strategic autonomy, a line that President Macron has expressed almost ten years ago and that I think has become widely adopted, after the Covid 19 exposed some of our dependencies to very, very basic goods, you know, even such as toilet paper, with shortages throughout Europe that led us to realize that we were in certain very basic things, dependent, or two dependent of others. Then there was February 22nd, where this war of aggression led launched by Russia and Ukraine, raised major questions on our energy and food sovereignty. And finally, I think the recent, statements and, and, and announcements regarding the territorial integrity of, one of the territory of a European territory under NATO protection is, again, raising the question of our dependency with respect to security. And in the past few months, we've seen this strategic autonomy agenda, being delivered with, you know, measures, historic measures taken to protect the steel industry from unfair competition that was threatening the ability of Europe to produce this essential component for industry. We've seen, European preference embedded in some of the finance, defense funding instruments that the European Union has decided to establish to grow a defense and technological, industrial bases. We've also seen as just as I just said, for the second time in its history, the European Union decided to issue €90 billion worth of bonds on international markets to shelter Ukraine against any financial difficulty for the two years to come. And to place Ukraine in a position of strength should genuine negotiations start. But now, of course, we need to accelerate on this, just like many other countries in the world are doing. And as President Macron said, and as Prime Minister Khan has said here in Davos this week, while we're building a strategic autonomy, this doesn't mean that we're going to, you know, sort of, disappear from the global scene to the very contrary. We're seeing a lot of interest by regions of South Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America that themselves are not willing to be dragged into this growing conflict between the two superpowers and that are seeking partnerships and coalitions to ensure their strategic autonomy, but also to solve some of the issues that, reach beyond borders. And, Europe. That is probably one of the most advanced political coalitions of all times, has a lot of to offer in this time where people are trying to rebuild something to the interests of their people.
Mr.. Do you think that the, not only the developments this week, but, maybe even some of the other recent developments, do you think this is going to be putting the, efforts around, European defense capabilities in an overdrive? Is this going to accelerate? Do you expect new measures on the policy side as well as on the industrial side as a result of these developments?
Certainly, we've seen this agenda accelerate after Covid 19. We've seen it accelerate after the launch of the. Well, let me back up the, after Covid 19, the EU, launched the the first bond emission in its history to fund a major recovery plan that has allowed this, our economy, to sustain the shock after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, we have sat down in Versailles, the city where I live, in March 2022 to draft, strategic autonomy agenda for a number of sectors that are critical to sustain shocks like these ones. So I'm expecting that tonight when the leaders of Europe meet, they will discuss the lessons to be drawn by what happened this week, where, you know, Europe has shown some calm but also some strength, which speaks to its ability to deter, you know, threats to its interests. But also, I guess, the path forward in terms of, you know, building this strategic autonomy, including in the field of defense and security. And there is hope, because when I look at what happened in Paris two weeks ago, when the coalition of the willing got together, at the leaders level to endorse the military planification, involving more than 30 countries, in close cooperation with NATO. But outside of NATO, given that the security guarantees for Ukraine are a continental size problem, but that could not be solved in NATO, I think there is a room and space for hope that we Europeans are able to take our own security in charge, but also to be security providers, because we've shown this in recent times.
Thank you. I'll stay with the transatlantic relationship. I'll go to also near and Mina on that, and then we'll touch upon other issues. If I could go to you near so now it's become fashionable to say that geopolitics is, is material to business, and that it is really driving a lot of business, strategies. Is it true? And then if it's true, are developments that we're seeing, for example, this week here really materially impacting how you make your business decisions.
So the short answer is yes, big time. And let's step back for a second, because I think you have to kind of process everything beyond what's happening here this week. You know, Bridgewater, our goal is to understand how the world works. This is what we've been doing for the last 50 years. And we'd say that we're going through probably the most dramatic period of change that we will go through in our lifetime. It's one of those periods of change that happened once in 100 years. Basically, you can split it in many different ways. Let's just cut it in two, because it's kind of what the conversation has been here about. One is geopolitical macro. 180 basically going from decades and decades of globalization, we're kind of marching down that path. And then in a minute, turning around to what we call a Bridgewater modern mercantilism, which is instead of being focused on globalization and efficiency, being focused on self-sufficiency, national interest, it's just a whole new architecture, dramatic change. It's happening at the same time where we're going through a technological disruption that is hard for us to process. And I'm not even talking about the speculation of what's going to happen with productivity, what's happening now. We're in the middle of a technological arms race, the biggest powers in the world, Nations and companies are spending like their lives depend on it. And those two things are already the main drivers of markets. So one could look from the far and say, well, it doesn't look like it's changing, but it's changed tremendously. If you look under the surface, what's happening really, is that the one phenomenon is currently offsetting the other, meaning the impact of modern mercantilism, the tariffs, the questioning of US exceptionalism is being offset by policy, expensive monetary and fiscal policy. But more than anything, a massive CapEx cycle, the biggest that we've ever seen. And just to give you a taste of it, under the surface, look, if you look at last year, I heard many times people say, look, but the S&P, it all looks the same. It's not the same. The S&P did well in dollar terms. In global currency terms, it was the first time in 15 years that the US equity market underperformed global markets, meaning it was the first time that it didn't pay off to be completely concentrated in the US. Another great example is gold. People talk about the gold rally. Gold has doubled since 2024. But when you ask yourself why? What it really means is that people that were holding their wealth in either dollars or dollar denominated assets don't feel safe enough to be that concentrated. They're migrating to gold in a massive way. And lastly, the even the a lot of conversation the last couple of days about the strong top line US GDP numbers, they're strong. But underneath the surface, more than half of that number is that CapEx arms race. You take that out. It's sluggish. So people are not processing what is really driving the economy. It's exactly what everybody here is talking about. It's secular forces that combine policy and economics much more currently than kind of the boom bust cycle that we used to be inflation growth. And it's here to stay. It's only going to get bigger I think, over the next couple of years.
So are you saying that. And we've heard it here as well that beyond the short term, on the economic side and the market side, beyond the short term, maybe positive positive outlook or more positive than people thought we should watch out.
Say it again, ask a question again.
Are you saying that because you were implying that we should be looking beyond just the GDP growth numbers? So are you saying that there are headwinds that we may be not pricing in right now, not only with regard to the US economy, but overall with regard to the world?
Yes. I'm saying that to be a good investor now, you have to wrap your head around these secular changes. You have to ask yourself, the world is transforming from a globalization macro framework to a different one. How is that going to work? What is Europe going to do? What is China going to do? What is the US going to do? It's happening at the same time that they're all battling a must win technological battle. What is that going to do that that is today the single most important thing you have to wrap your head around. And it's a massive change. If you were sitting here two years ago, people would be talking about inflation isn't like, is it going to? Inflation is not going to be what's going to happen with growth and not growth or not. They wouldn't be talking about these things. So yes, that is a dramatic change and something that the entire financial sector is extremely focused on right now.
Thank you. Mina, I think you wanted to come in. I have a question for you, but why did you come in?
Well, I wanted to come in because another trend that we always took for granted was oil. And the fact that all these geopolitical developments that are happening haven't raised the price of oil because the market's actually flooded. So it's really interesting to see that even making the five year, ten year assessments that business leaders were doing globally, including in our part of the world, it's not the same because geopolitical turbulence isn't affecting oil prices in the same way that they used to. In addition to that, that nexus of energy, capital and political will to be involved in this AI race. I mean, we're seeing again in the Middle East, importantly in the UAE, what's happening with Stargate. These are changes that are a turning point. Some are very troubling and some are positive because it's actually allowing newer players, smaller players, to feel that they can take an opportunity and carve out a place for themselves. So it is worrying. But I'd also say on the on the on the business side, you're seeing new actors and players have a role.
Thank you. I heard there was someone from, not from Europe who said that, the Europeans should just calm down, that maybe there's just too many emotions around what's taking place. So you're, you're based in the GCC? And if I look at recent history, there has been, of course, a certain view on, on, on the conflict in Ukraine, for example, etc.. So, how do you think the GCC is looking at the current transatlantic relationship?
I think there's a pause when it comes to what does the US want and what role does the United States wants to play internationally for the GCC, for the wider Arab world? There were a number of moments when they realized you can't rely on the United States. The US is an ally. They have good relations, they have interests, but it is purely based on interests. Many of us didn't buy into the fact that the US was working for a value based order, a values based order. It was hard interests, and unfortunately, I think we're really seeing that come to life. I think sometimes people hear, those from the GCC, from the Arab world speak almost that they're, that they're being crude or they're but, but but they say at least with this current presidency, things are much clearer and much more transactional because they were previously transactional with other parts of the world. And unfortunately, we're seeing this play out in Europe. And I would say on the issue of Ukraine, there was a lot of misunderstanding, almost as though in the GCC there wasn't concerned about this. There is concern about that. I mean, I live in Abu Dhabi. I speak quite often, not only to UAE officials, but officials from the GCC, where it's clear for them that the issue of sovereignty is hugely important. And the world order we all got very comfortable with is important. And of course, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. We had the Prime Minister of Qatar here on this stage yesterday say that much of the troubles we're living with in the region can actually, in part, be traced back to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, but also the continued occupation of Palestine. We have this saw on international humanitarian law and international law in general that we have suffered from for decades. UN Security Council resolutions no longer mattered because the resolutions on Palestine are violated every day. And so now when we see it's it's a conflict in Europe. There are concerns. Absolutely. But it is. And, you know, people talk about double standards in a flippant way. It's not about double standards. It's to say like a constitution, if you violate it once, it becomes almost impossible. So there's view on the transatlantic tension, but there's also hope that it doesn't lead to further action because we don't need more conflicts.
Thank you. Minister, I think you wanted to come in on this.
Yeah, I, I actually disagree, on the way, this, this thing is presented because we've heard I've heard it as well here in Davos and not only by yourself, this idea that basically the US were doing something without saying it, and now they're doing exactly the same, but they're, they're basically not shy of saying what they do. I think this is not what's happening. I think the US have chosen to change their approach to multilateralism. Not I'm not saying that multilateralism was perfect, that international law was always respected, that was not biased, that this was not politicized. But there was something deep into American politics that was committed to multilateralism. And why? Well, some will say for values, I would say for interests, because the US drew maximum dividends from multilateralism, dividends in terms of security. They were able, through the peacekeeping operations at the UN, to outsource part of their efforts to secure the world. And the same thing happened in large part through through NATO, currency dividends, the exorbitant privilege, the fact of setting through Bretton Woods the dollar as a currency of reserve, created or lowered the cost for the US to finance their economy and their budget trade dividends through the WTO. Imperfect as it may be, they were able to export their, digital and their financial services throughout the world and, of course, open their markets to the exports of their partners. But they drew extraordinary dividends from multilateralism. They are making a different choice. But it's not clear at all that this will be in their interests. This can be questioned. And this also has implications for all of us and our own approach to multilateralism. And as I said earlier, countries like France and I think Poland and in Europe, we still think that multilateralism or pluralism or coalitions are valuable to defend your own interests. And that, of course, values matter and that you should avoid at all costs double standard because, at some point in history, every country in the world needs to needs the protection of international law. So if you've been a faithful protector of international law, then you can hope to be protected by international law. But anyway, that's a separate discussion.
Thank you. Just a quick reaction, very reaction.
I wasn't say saying the US is doing what it's always done and it just sounds different. Now, clearly this is a marked deviation from what they wanted, but it's more the idea that now we're seeing it play out in other areas and we've suffered from some of that.
Thank you. We've touched. I think some of you mentioned China. If we could speak about China a little bit, Deputy Prime Minister, I think, if I'm not mistaken, you you, I think in September met the foreign minister there. But overall, what do you how would you describe the European approach, foreign policy wise or trade wise, if you want to comment toward China and has it has has it been clarified? There was certain nervousness. Maybe, a year ago, two years ago, around the trade relationship. Has it dissipated or is it still something that is top of mind for European leaders?
So for a few years, until a couple of years ago, China was doing wolf warrior diplomacy. It didn't work. Now it's the United States turn. In my previous job, I was a member of the European Parliament, and I co-authored the Parliament's position on China, which to to be succinct in a slogan, collaborate with possible compete when needed, confront when necessary. So it's a much more complex relationship than the one between the West and the Soviet Union in the past. And, China is of course, our biggest, actually biggest trading partner, mostly deficit, but still, and so it is a challenge. But we need to respond to the to to to to this extraordinary rise of this great civilization. I mean, the number of engineers that they have, the number of fast trains, the, the domination of, of various markets, but also to an attempt at blackmail. I mean, China's China tried to do to us what, the United States tried to in, in terms of critical materials, what the US has tried, you know, to do in, in the area of chips. But you know, that they that they would even consider such a move, should be a wake up call.
Thank you. Could I go to you as well on China? There is, a lot of interest in understanding the Chinese economy from an investor's lens. How would you evaluate it? Is it more investable than two years ago? Less investable.
So I'll make two comments, because I also want to refer back to some of the comments that have been said here before about the Middle East. But, I would say two things are important to keep in mind. What happened. The way we got here is the the entire world was on a path of globalization. Like I said before, China was always playing a different game. China was always playing the game of a state driven economy where protecting national interests, in one way, we're all now playing China's game. The conversion is kind of and it's classic game theory where you need everybody to collaborate because it's enough that one person is, you know, trying to stick it to others or just working within their self-interest. And the kind of the entire game starts to shift. So they're better at playing this because they've been playing this for a long time and pretty successfully. That's kind of one thing to keep in mind. And then on whether it's investable, I would say China and Asia more broadly play an incredibly important role in people's portfolios. And they're almost always underweight for many, many reasons. So in a world that is fragmented, that has such a US concentration, which is built up over decades, China is actually and again, broader, Asia is one of the best diversifiers that you can have. Bridgewater has been in China for 40 years, including onshore. We're the largest foreign manager onshore. And even through the last couple of years where, you know, people could say China had had its struggles or found their returned north of 30% per year. Definitely investable definitely plays an important part in people's portfolios. Can I make one more comment on the things I've said before? It's going to shift to a different topic. I have to, so, first of all, on the history lesson on the Middle East and Israel, the, the UN made decisions in 48 that were contested not by Israel that started this entire fight. So the way to work through our differences, which are important because I totally agree on the suffering, is terrible. Also the suffering, the suffering of October 7th, the suffering of hostages that have been held for years, and the suffering in Gaza. Terrible. We can't always choose to start the conversation from the place that's most comfortable to us and and to step back. I'd say that about the world more broadly a little bit, because these changes are so massive. The biggest question is not whether things are going to change. It's whether it's how are we going to come out of this on the other side. It's going to be better, it's going to be worse. And I would go to the 1930s not because it's the same, but because these changes happen once in 100 years. I think it's a good way to kind of look at we had disenfranchised people, disenfranchised nations that made political choices to challenge the world order. By the way, we had a backdrop of a technological race for nuclear capabilities that promised world dominance and ability to set the new world order. And it ended with Bretton Woods and the nuclear bomb at the end of the World War, and start an era that lasted up until now, because what's happening now is again disenfranchised people within nations, disenfranchised nations are saying, I'm going to make political choices that are going to change the world order. Again, we have the backdrop of a technological arms race that promises world dominance and the ability to set the next world order. And the question about whether this is going to end up in a massive war. I'm the grandchild of a grandmother that lost her entire family in the Holocaust, is up to the people here in Davos. Are we going to manage it well? Are we going to let it get out of control? And for that, we both have to put each other in the shoes and say, we owe this to so many people that rely on us not to just argue our position, but to say, how do we manage through change? Well.
Can I respond? Because it wasn't a history lesson? I'm a student of history. It would take us much more than 45 minutes for me to go. through the history of the Middle East.
I actually want to go to another diplomatic development here, which is the, Board of Peace that was, launched here. Maybe I could start with you, Mena, and you can all come in if you want. So how do you look at it? And, how does this then relate, in your view, to the chance of sustainable peace? Between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
I mean, look, I think it's best for Israelis and Palestinians to talk about what the chance of peace is, because ultimately, it will be for them to decide. The Board of Peace comes after much suffering, but also comes after much failure, failure of all the processes. I mean, the peace process became something that was managed. Meetings were held on a regular basis just so that somebody could say, oh, we're trying to solve this. And nothing so good for anyone who thinks we're going to come up with a plan and we're going to pull people. You know, you had people on stage there from various countries, some immediately affected and some surprising. You wouldn't expect that they're involved. So I think that's important to get that buy in to get and renewed energy. Whatever you think of the Trump administration, when they want to put their mind to something, they can pull people together. So let's try something new. But it was interesting that the Palestinian voice that we heard from Doctor Ali Shah, who is highly respected, came through video conference for whatever logistical reasons. And it would be interesting to see how they're going to be able to implement on the ground. So I, for one, think we have to give it. It's the only game in town, so you have to give it all the support possible and also try to bring people to the table to, to to deliver after the phases that we know about to get to eventual real peace. And I think that is what's fair for the Israelis, the Palestinians and the wider region. But I think to write off the Board of Peace, just because people don't like the style of the Trump administration or the way that it's happened, would be wrong, because we need it to succeed.
Thank you. I'll go to all of you on that. Minister.
Yeah, we we've worked a lot over the past year on, on this issue alongside Saudi Arabia and a number of other friends and partners. This, this work has culminated with a declaration, a text that, that indeed, led all of us to step in each other's shoes. And that says, basically, beyond the ceasefire, the humanitarian help and and the liberation of hostages, that Hamas should be called for what it is a terrorist organization condemned for its crime and excluded for any future of governance. In, in Palestine that, there should be an integration of Israel and the Arab countries that would lead them to stand into regional organizations such as the one we've seen grow in, in, in Asia or in Europe. And there should be a right to self-determination for the Palestinian people in a Palestinian state that would be demilitarized and that would be democratic. This declaration that was adopted at the General Assembly at the UN on September 12th at a huge at a, you know, overwhelming majority of nations, 142 against ten, opened the path, I believe, to the US led efforts that, came together during the high level week at the, at the, at the UN leading to the peace plan that.
This legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people to to statehood in the same way we've supported the and, you know, the the resolution of the Security Council that gives a legal basis for the Trump peace plan, and we've committed to support it in as much as we could and in many different ways. And what happened today, was positive in the sense that we're seeing movement from phase one to phase two of the plan. We've heard that the US team announced that the Rafah passage might open. We've heard the US team mentioned repeatedly, repeatedly that the coordination and contact with the Palestinian Authority was live, which is all of what we need to avoid. You know, this phase one of the ceasefire, to come at a standstill. And so now we need to go, we need to go further. If there were reservations, they have nothing to do with the Trump team or or or the style or anything. No. There was one question raised about the charter of the Board of Peace, its connection with the UN Security Council resolution that created the Board of Peace and its focus. This morning, the inauguration of the Board of Peace was focused on Gaza, which is what we were expecting, and I think this is the right direction.
Thank you. Well, almost at the end. So, near and then I'll close with Deputy Prime Minister Nir first.
Super quickly. I totally agree 100%. You you cannot overstate the the positive impact. President Trump Wyckoff, Jared Kushner have had on the region in delivering outcomes, not preaching, but actually delivering outcomes, starting from the Abraham Accords that even through an incredibly tough several years, have held up. And now in bringing people together. So I think it's really important to focus on the problem and the people that are actually making progress towards solving the problem and preventing suffering. That has to stop. And and it is important to get behind those people that have been delivering outcomes and call that out. So we totally agree on that.
Thank you, Deputy Prime Minister.
Well, we appreciate the intention. Poland supports a two state solution. We've recognized, Palestine for decades. We also believe in Israel's right to secure existence within internationally recognized borders. But, as Jean-Noel mentioned, the charter of the, Peace Council is a very unusual document. And, it requires study. And also its status is not yet clear to us. So, for example, in our constitutional system, it would require full ratification. And I understand it will not go to ratification by the US Senate. So, so, you know, this is very fresh. We need more time to study.
Thank you so much. All of you, for a actually a discussion, which I like. So you were reacting to each other, I hope, of course, we could go on for a long time, but at least we touched upon some of the key things that are shaping the geopolitical landscape. So thank you so much. I'll give you the applause if I could.
Thank you.