In 2025 there was a flood of intense transatlantic efforts to end the Ukraine conflict. Attention is now turning to whether an agreement that delivers a just and lasting peace can be attained and what security guarantees could be committed.
What can Kyiv with its partners aim to achieve on and off the battlefield?
This session was developed in collaboration with Politico.
This is a livestreamed session. Please arrive 15 minutes early as the doors will close at the scheduled time.
At Davos 2026, leaders and legislators debated whether peace in Ukraine will come through force or negotiated accord, converging on one principle: any settlement must be “just,” durable, and negotiated “with Ukraine at the table.” Kyrylo Budanov said Kyiv is already engaged with the Trump team and is “cautiously optimistic,” while warning that “peace tomorrow… is definitely not true” and that Ukraine needs sustained allied support to avoid negotiating “from a weak position.” Finland’s Elina Valtonen argued Russia shows no real readiness to compromise and that pressure must increase as Russia faces “economic decline,” alongside major European investment in “defense and deterrence.” Canada’s Anita Anand emphasized sovereignty and the “territorial integrity and sovereignty of states,” insisting “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” and highlighted Canada’s aid and leadership on returning abducted children. US Senator Thom Tillis called Putin “a murderer… [who] simply can’t be trusted,” urging specific terms and enforceable consequences. The panel also underscored China’s enabling role; Budanov described deepening economic-technological support and growing Chinese leverage over Russia. The takeaway: accelerate support and deterrence, tighten pressure on Russia, and design security guarantees that anticipate future violations.
Good evening and welcome. My name is Jamil Anderlini. I am the regional director for Politico in Europe. It's such a great honor to be here at this session, co-branded with the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2026. It's obviously a momentous occasion this year, possibly the most watched Davos of the last couple of decades. It it is a moment of great geopolitical tension, great geopolitical interest. We have Donald Trump arriving in a few hours time. We have Emmanuel Macron has just left or is about to leave. And those things may or may not be related. But the session we are having holding today is of on a topic of utmost importance to Europe, to the world, and I would argue also to the United States of America. We're going to be talking about Ukraine and the path to peace in Ukraine. Coming into this week, many of us in the media were expecting some sort of announcement on a peace deal, some sort of announcement on cessation of hostilities in Ukraine. However, the more we get closer to the arrival of Donald Trump, the less likely that appears and the more we hear about Greenland instead of Ukraine. So it's a really fascinating moment. I want to welcome everybody who's watching on the live stream, everybody in the room. I think we're going to have a fascinating discussion, a really, top notch panel that we have here today. I'll introduce them now, and then we will get into, some of this, discussion shortly. So on my left here, first of all, Kyrylo Budanov is the head of the president's office of Ukraine. Thank you for joining us, sir. Next to him is the foreign minister of Finland, Elina Valtonen. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Next to her, Anita Anand, foreign minister of Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, thank you for joining us as well. And last but not least, the senator for the great state of North Carolina, Thom Tillis. Thank you. Thank you for coming, sir. So I'd like to start with you, Mr. Budanov. Obviously, this is an incredibly important, fraught moment, for your country. Where are we headed? What is, the most likely outcome? And when, if at all, can we see, genuine moves towards peace in your country?
Good afternoon, everyone. I hope everyone can hear me. Thank you. This is a very interesting question. Where we are, as of today, as of now, I hope that we are on the path to a radical cardinal. Change a resolution to the war. And I would like to remind everyone that this is the most bloody and the most terrible event, the most terrible war in the territory of Europe since the Second World War. And this is definitely one of the bloodiest over the whole history of, the world, of the world after the Second World War. We are moving, and I can't say that we will have peace tomorrow. That's guaranteed. If you hear someone say it, it's definitely not true. But we are making a lot of efforts towards it. First of all, we are making an effort on our part and on the part of the United States. There are efforts, whether people like it or not, like it, but there is movement and, it is real and we are really moving. Will we be able to be successful in the short term? A lot will depend on the Russian Federation and you understand who we are dealing with. I don't think I need to, say more about it. Summing up in my introduction, I will say directly, we are moving and I am cautiously optimistic. And this is why the kind of phrase I would use in this particular situation. Thank you.
Thank you.
Minister Valtonen, if there's any country apart from Ukraine that understands, I guess, Russia and, Russia's history of aggression, I would I would argue it's probably Finland. And, we've seen, many, meetings in recent weeks of European leaders to discuss the conflict in Ukraine and where we're headed. What's your best guess for where we end up? And what that will mean for for Europe. Where do you think we. This conflict pauses.
Well, thank you for the introduction, but the only thing I have to correct is that, yes, we do have, unfortunately, quite some experience with Russia and Russian aggression over the course of the past, not only decades, but years, but hundreds of years. But I still don't understand Russia, and I certainly don't sympathize with the imperialistic ambitions of of that country that's apparently still, is is ongoing now. We would hope for peace. But for a peace to last, it needs to be, just it needs to be genuine. Unfortunately, we haven't seen any concessions on the side of Russia to reach a proper peace deal in Ukraine. And let's face it, it was Russia almost four years ago who started the invasion in the first place. And, it could be Russia yesterday, today, tomorrow to decide that there's no war. What we need to need to do now, collectively, is that we increase the pressure on Russia because we do see that, that country is in, economic decline and will be so, also long into the future. They won't have any strategic benefit. Over the course of the coming years. The only thing is, of course, that they are apparently willing to lose their last man and and use their final ruble on, on the war of aggression. But we can't allow that to happen. And I think, as the free world, we need to stay the course and keep on supporting Ukraine, ramp up the pressure on Russia. And third, and this I'm taking home to Europe in general. We should be massively now investing in our defense and deterrence. And I think the decisions made last summer in The Hague were exactly the right ones, and certainly also something which Finland has been, driving for for many, many years since we have taken our defense and deterrence very seriously. Always.
Thank you. Minister. Minister. Ananth, can I, can I, announce. Sorry, could I ask you? Canada is a member of NATO. Canada is the one of the closest neighbors to the United States. Obviously. How involved do you think NATO is at this point in the negotiations, in the plans to to end this conflict, or is it really just in the hands of the president of the United States?
Well, I, I guess I will. First of all, thank you for having me here. And hello, everyone. And obviously, I'm very happy that we're having a panel about Ukraine to discuss Ukraine, because, as you suggested, the attention is being diverted away from the potential ceasefire that has been on the table. And the very point. And I want to underline this, that there should be nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. This is fundamentally important, as we consider the 20 point peace plan, as we discuss, the security guarantees and the efforts of the coalition of the willing, the fundamental principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty of states is what Canada believes to be the driver of the negotiations and the outcome. Again, nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. And Canada has a distinct relationship with Ukraine, not just as a NATO member, not as the neighbour of the United States, but a distinct relationship with Ukraine. We have, outside of Russia, the largest population of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine. We have, put the largest per capita amount of, support, financial support towards Ukraine, military, economic, financial, infrastructure related support at $22.5 billion for a country of 40 million, where a country of 40 million people. We are leading, co-leading the effort to bring Ukrainian children home and have spearheaded that vis a vis, 20,000 Ukrainian children, will be holding a worldwide conference in the fall in Toronto to ensure that we're bringing countries on the return of Ukrainian children home. I just stress this to reiterate that our foreign policy vis a vis Ukraine is distinct and it will continue, and we will always be there in the short and the long term to ensure that the sovereignty and longevity of Ukraine is sustained and that the. I was a minister of National Defence in at the time of the further illegal invasion by Russia, of Ukraine. I saw from that perspective the incursions into the Donbas and the fall, of of of Ukrainian soldiers unjustifiably. How can we now the question is, how can we, in the coalition of the willing, in the sense of NATO allies, continue the work that we need to do, which is support Ukraine, ensure those security guarantees are in place, and ensure that Ukraine has the future that its people deserve.
Thank you. I'm going to press you, gently. I it's very admirable. And I understand Canada's position, but in the end, isn't it true that this decision to end this war will not be made in Ottawa? It won't be made in Brussels. It will be made by the president of the United States. How? And effectively, when this war is, is ended?
Well, with great respect, if one really adheres to the principle of territorial integrity and state sovereignty, those very principles upon which the international legal order is based, then one must admit that unless Ukraine is at the table, that the resolution would not be just.
And I think I think that is an excellent, excellent point. And I think, that is what we are facing right now is perhaps, a lack of respect for those principles that you're discussing. Senator, I'd like to turn to you. I noticed you're wearing, a pin. Could you could you tell us about the pin that you're wearing?
Well, as importantly, I'm wearing colors of Ukraine.
That's true.
So to. And that's intentional. It was an accidental. I brought this from the United States for this purpose. So, I wasn't in Denmark before I arrived here for two days. And, I.
Guess you're not in Greenland.
I'm sorry.
You didn't go to Nuuk.
Are. Not yet. But the, but to to really indicate that that, that I and a number of other members have made it very clear that the way that we're going about projecting power in the Arctic is costly, divisive and unnecessary. We'll have a different panel discussion about that. But with respect to Ukraine, I completely agree with the minister. I've said from the beginning that there can be no, resolution. And in Ukraine without Ukraine at the table and actually without Ukraine's criteria for their freedom, for their, for their territorial integrity, those are all decisions that have to be made by the president, his advisers and the Ukrainian people. The United States may be able to play a facilitating role. But I think that other NATO members and other European members should also have a say in that, because let's face it, we're talking about European security. We're talking about the security of a country that has a 1340 mile or 40 kilometer border. Now, thank you, Vladimir Putin, for letting us add Sweden and Finland to the mix. Look, Vladimir Putin is a murderer. He's a liar on his best day. And what we're seeing in Ukraine are his worst days. I was in Bucha. I was in Kyiv, in Bucha last year after the Munich security conference. You can't trust him. We have to have beyond Ukraine, in the United States. We also have to have eyes on it from NATO allies, particularly those in the area, to make sure that we have a lasting and fair peace. But I think we we have to look at everything that Vladimir Putin says and run it through a truth, filter because he simply can't be trusted. So this agreement has to be very specific, and there have to be consequences for violating it.
Can I ask you very directly, do you think that all the noise around Greenland, the threats of tariffs? I know we're going to talk about it in other settings, but do you believe that that all of this talk about Greenland is to distract from the fact that there was hopefully going to be a deal announced this week, and now there isn't?
Well, I can never get in the minds of people advising the president, but it certainly hasn't distracted Congress. I think you'll see an appropriations measure in place that will demonstrate financial support for Ukraine, that will move through the Senate and the Congress in the coming weeks. And, you know, in the United States, this president forces us all to be able to walk and chew gum. We can't just be focused on one issue. And I think in this case, we have to continue to focus on the real threat. There's no threat in Greenland, which is why I think it's, it's it's something that we need to deescalate, something that we need to advise the president on a a peaceful, more unifying path to achieving his goals, which which, we can talk about separately. But here are the focuses on Ukraine. I think the American people still continue to support Ukraine. And this is an election year. Those who veered too far away may have electoral consequences to deal with, frankly.
And that's what I love about the fact that you're on our panel because you're not running for election this year.
Yeah, but.
As I told.
The minister, as I told the minister, if you check my record and the first administration, I was equally outspoken. Here's the point. This is where it's very important. I, I support the majority of President Trump's policies. I'll give you a good example. In Greenland, I support the what being able to project power in the Arctic. My goodness, anyone in NATO should understand that as a priority. We had Russia and China, actually in military exercises in the Arctic for the first time, large scale military exercises. So clearly we have to have a power projection platform in Greenland makes a lot of geographic sense. But you're talking about a territory that has offered for a dollar, one of their military bases. At the height of our relationship with Greenland and Denmark, we had 17 military operations there. We have one today for anyone to suggest that in order for us to be present in Greenland and project power, that it requires some financial transaction, which, incidentally, as a fiscal conservative, would be more costly than we need to to achieve the president's aim. And I think over time, hopefully we will get to the president to recognize that and have the policy that that's commensurate with that.
I suppose the argument is that, in a world where China, with Russia as a somewhat client state rising in its power, if the United States does not own that territory, they could get very severe and serious pushback from a Europe that is wavering between, between the United States and a very, very powerful China. Anyway, that's, Yeah, but.
But but again, if I can just briefly a part.
Of please weigh in as well.
A part of what we have to a part of the reason that we're here is President Trump's justifiable frustration with some of our brothers and sisters in NATO, who came far short of their investment in our mutual defense. Over the last 20 years, I've been the Republican leader of the Senate NATO observer Group for 20 years. Collectively, $2 trillion with a T has not been spent to achieve the minimum that our colleagues should have in NATO. Can you imagine what deterrent effect there would have been if every member of NATO had actually invested the $2 trillion over 20 years? What would that have done for modernization? What would that have done for the industrial base? So I think a part of the president's frustration, and no one can doubt that everyone paying up to the minimum now and now achieving 5% limits. Anyone credit anyone other than Donald Trump has not been following current events. Every past president in this century attempted to do it, and they didn't. So I think he's frustrated by that. But that frustration should not transcend into the current policy posture. With respect to Greenland. I think we have to deescalate it, but I hope that this is an important lesson learned by those of us who care about NATO and believe it's the most consequential and important treaty in the history of man. Let's make sure that we don't drift again, or we put ourselves in the same sort of vulnerable position that we find ourselves today.
Could I could I just emphasize the importance of focusing on Ukraine, which is what this panel is about? We have, heard from someone from the president's office. In fact, the president of Ukraine's office, Zelensky's office, about the importance of security guarantees and the importance of Ukraine deciding its own sovereign future. And I think the onus is on us to ensure that we are supporting Ukraine as it enters, you know, yet another year. We're almost four years on since the further illegal invasion, and we need to seek a resolution and we need to ensure that Ukraine is at the table in that process. So the real question, if this is truly a panel about Ukraine, the the real question is how we can support this process. I agree with you. We don't hold the levers to ensure that a ceasefire occurs ourselves, but that doesn't mean that we withdraw and do nothing. In fact, what it means is we search for the means by which we can assist and ensure that the rule of law and that territorial integrity, meaning the geographical boundaries of Ukraine, remain intact.
I agree completely.
I'd like to turn to Mr. Budanov, and, bring the focus back as you as you rightly, say we should, would it be fair to say that today Russia is winning the war? Debates?
Look, look. No, we cannot say. We cannot state that Russia has won or is winning, because otherwise we would not be talking about it. If there was the fact of its victory, we would not be talking about it. But we can all see that the negotiations are ongoing. I would like to, make a comment. As regards the previous, speeches, I think you're not quite correct when you say that Ukraine should have a place at the negotiating table. We are in the process of negotiations. As I said in the very beginning, I have come here today from Miami, where we were doing preparatory work with the staff of president, Trump, with whom I don't think I need to remind you this. We are in the process, and this process is, thank goodness it's not happening without us. But going back to the issue of Russia, we need to remember that we are not able to kick them out from this process. We have tried it didn't work. And this is, almost year four. In fact, year 12 of this war. We need to understand there are some unpleasant people and very, some very unpleasant countries, but we are not, going to just close our eyes to it and it will go away. Unfortunately, we have to deal with them. Unfortunately, we have to deal with them. We have, had to deal with them and will have to deal with them again. I'm grateful to the United States and to the states of Europe and Canada. Don't think that I'm ignoring you. Or to all of you have been helping us all of these years and are helping us. We will need your help. We will, really need your help and your support. Because without your participation in this process, our position will weaken further. And then we'll be in a weak position. Will be very difficult to speak from a weak position. Impossible. So please stay with us and let's put aside some of our disagreements that we have between some of our countries that have been helping us all of this time. We need to join efforts, we need to mobilize, and we need to finish the job. We need a just peace. That's true. We need security guarantees. We need a plan for the reconstruction of Ukraine. But, any arguments within in our midst will not help this. That's my answer.
Ask you a follow up question, which is that, What is it? Do you think that Vladimir Putin will be satisfied with some territorial concessions, a cessation of hostilities and a promise that Ukraine, in the foreseeable future will not join NATO? Or do you think that will be a holding position for Russia to, and embolden Vladimir Putin and his administration to restart, the hostilities at a at a future date not too far in the future.
It's a matter for negotiation again. Yes. Let's first of all, secondly, as regards NATO, it is clear that for the Russian Federation. It is the most used argument that they have been using all of these years. Once again, this is 12 years now, and they have been justified their aggression against Ukraine with this. And it all started with the occupation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, when their main justification was, two two justifications. First, it is the deep ties with the Russian nation which just sounds so strange. And the main one they were, emphasizing it's to secure, the Russian Federation from NATO to protect the Russian Federation from NATO because they had, according to their propaganda, there were already plans for NATO forces in Crimea, and they were forced to annex Crimea in order to stop this. Then they went into the Donbas. They used the Anti-nato rhetoric in a more superficial way, but they did. And then, we went into the stage of the large scale invasion in 2022, when one of their main justifications was the reason. Well, they were stating that they were saving Russia from NATO enlargement to the east, which, according to I, Ukraine's accession and according to their logic, their rationale, it this was an ideological existential threat to the Russian Federation. So will Russia insist on preventing Ukraine from joining NATO? Of course they will insist. What will come of this? Well, let's see any kind of negotiation likes quiet. But of course we will all see the outcome.
And I want to ask, you, your your analysis on, Vladimir Putin, I know you are going to tell me who knows? And you can't understand the Russian perspective, but what do you think is ultimate goal? Is is it genuinely the reconstitution of the great, you know, great Russian Empire, the Soviet empire? Do you think that, if he achieves, at least some of his aims in Ukraine, that, the Baltics could be threatened next?
Well, I guess he has been quite outspoken about his goals. He published his writing. Was it back in 21? And that certainly not only was about re-establishing the Soviet empire, but certainly also limiting, also the posture of, of nature and all this. But I have to say, because Russians, typically use this narrative of NATO being a threat to them, which obviously is completely bollocks. If you.
Technical term.
Yes. If you now think about when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, three years ago, there hasn't been less troops behind the Finnish border to Russia in the past three years than basically for decades. If NATO was such a massive threat, why have the troops in Ukraine? Why not bring them back to the border? So of course, that is simply a narrative that that Russia has been pushing to justify this and that, that they operate, which is fully against the UN charter. And what comes to the previous discussion? I actually do agree, both with Senator Tillis and, Minister Anand in this. Well, yes, we need a just peace for Ukraine, but at the same time, we need to be fortifying NATO. And that is because I'm not seeing the threat of Russia going away with any peace deal, especially if it's not a good peace deal. The Russian threat probably will be there, for, I don't know, for the foreseeable future, and it will be affecting the entire transatlantic alliance. We do see the Russian threat, certainly from the Arctic. They active in Africa. And of course, they are active where, you know, they they have the possibility and the interest to do so. But together, if we invest decisively into our defense and deterrence, then then certainly there's nothing, that that can keep us from winning. And also finally, on the question whether Russia was winning on Ukraine. Certainly, no. I mean, if you were winning, you wouldn't be abducting children or having people freezing their apartments when it's -15 outside. They are certainly not winning. And I think Ukrainians have all the right, not just, to assume that they will have the freedom that they have been fighting for, but that will come. I'm more than certain about it.
I've been having some interesting discussions here in Davos last couple of days, and one of the arguments I've heard is that, NATO is is done, NATO is over. And that, we are seeing the, the just dissolution of this, as you say, very important, treaty that has lasted since, you know, for, for a long time. And, that we're seeing the birth of something new, maybe, call it a Board of Peace. Call it what you like, but, how, how much do you think that that argument rings true to to any of you on the panel? So.
Well, Canada is a founding member of NATO, and maybe I'll just start and I'm sure others have, valuable things to say, I will admit, there is no doubt that NATO is facing challenges now as it seeks to ensure that there's unity in NATO, as well as the concept of collective defense and deterrence is actually effective in practice. That doesn't mean that NATO dissolves. It means that NATO rises to the challenge to meet the moment. And I have been continuously pressing the point that NATO, as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, needs to not only have a focus on the eastern flank of Europe, but also on the northern and western flanks, because, as we all agree, the threat from Russia in the Arctic and beyond, is undeniable. And if NATO is going to meet this moment, it needs also to develop the strategy to do so. And that's what my conversations with the Nordic five and Mark Russia, the secretary general, have been about. What is the strategy to meet the moment NATO needs that strategy?
Feel free to to weigh in on this topic of NATO, defunct or not. I'm going to throw another question in there. And I'm going to address it to you, Mr. Budanov. What how important, from your perspective, is the role of China? Because, if you listen to the US administration, but if you also look at the facts, I've talked to the heads of several intelligence, Western intelligence agencies who say that if China was not supporting Russia today with technological, military, logistical support, Russia would not be able to would not have been able to continue to fight up until this point. So how important, from your perspective and others can weigh in, is the role of China in this conflict?
Thank you very much for this question. Your question? I guess, is more philosophical in nature, to be honest. How now, in 2026, can I answer the question, what things would have been like if China wasn't there or if it had a different role? I think you will agree with me now as regards the real role that China is playing in this whole process. I'm going to give you a few examples, and I will let you make your own conclusions. If we think back the very start of the large scale invasion after 2022, in the world media, there was a lot around springtime, a summertime 2022. There was a lot of articles and a lot of videos, a lot of opinions as to how from China to Russia, there were military planes and they were bringing washing machines, computers and other items and all of this apologies. And all of this was happening because all of a sudden there was a a critical requirement for all kinds of microchips and controllers. And at the very start of the war, China was installing them. And that's a fact. Then later, China understood how this can be used, and Russia, as the aggressor, found itself under more sanctions than before. And they were looking for, solutions. And obviously they were using business channels. And of course, there was a silent agreement from above and they were able to find a reliable partner for, these, reliable channels of supply of electronics and electronic components. Then they had, all kinds of, manufacturing machines, manufacturing materials that they use to make various components for weapons. So this cooperation was intensifying and Russia was paying huge money for it, much more than any other country would have paid before. But they had no other option. And, China started taking advantage of this situation. Can you blame them? Well, I guess it's a philosophical issue. They had an opportunity to make these windfall profits after this. There was a political part. They started having even more influence over the Russian Federation. The stricter the sanctions outside the the further Russia was moving into the embrace of China, which can now be seen with the naked eye. What are we going to do with this? Now, that's the issue. That's the main issue because now we they are exchanging military technologies. Russia is providing military technologies. China, by the way, has not given them, even a single unit of military equipment, whether you like China or not, they have not, handed over to Russia a single unit of military equipment. That's a fact. Have have they used it, to, for profit for their country to increase the influence of the Russian Federation? Will they do it? Will they eventually absorb the Russian Federation? Yes, yes, this is happening. And it is very painful for the Russians to, acknowledge, but they know it very well. I hope I answered your question.
Yeah.
I, well, first off, I won't get into details because it was a question back.
Russia is losing, the reason why the Russians are at the table, Putin is at the table is because we've proven that NATO technology is superior to them. We've proven that there are non-commissioned officers are inferior, and going to take a decade to actually get back to the level that we enjoy every day in NATO and in the United States. So I think that that's very important. China, in many respects, is the number one winner. If Russia wins in Ukraine, Russia does want to recreate the empire. Putin is afraid of losing relevance. He's losing relevance because he's a failure and he's failing the Russian people. He's failing in Ukraine. China is, I agree, not, supplying material, but they're supplying support. And they know that a successful Russia probably has an end very similar to what was suggested here. The, the, the the Chinese people are also taking advantage. I know we're going to stay on, on, on Ukraine, but they're taking advantage of this moment with NATO, the tumult that we're experiencing in NATO. There's it's not a you know, it's not a secret that they have an open door to someone from your neck of the woods just recently to talk about economic ties. I think that that was probably an appropriate discussion to have, among world leaders. But make no mistake about it, that's just another economic tentacle that China wants to spread across the globe to, ultimately not democratize the world, but to see see the world evolve into their end state. So I think that we have to be just realistic about it. We want good, strong economic ties with China and with other nations, but we also have to recognize them for what they are. They are cheering Russia along, at least silently, and are hopeful for the day that they succeed there. And success. Success in Ukraine immediately threatens Moldova, the Balkans. And we know that. We know the game plan. This is fairly straightforward. I'm going to be traveling to Moldova after the Munich Security Conference. We have National Guardsmen there. We have a relationship with Moldova. Thank God they won the elections there. Russia tried to do everything else through hybrid warfare that's occurring across the globe. They did everything they could. It's a very positive sign that the Moldovan people got what they wanted out of their election. But make no mistake about it, Russia's malign influence with China being a cheerleader is an everyday occurrence. Since February of 2022.
I want to give the audience a chance to to ask a question. Maybe I'll go to the very back to to you, ma'am.
Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. Great. I'm from Ukraine. The only one Ukrainian representing global shapers here. Davos 40. I have the question. First of all, thank you for being so supportive. Thank you for standing with Ukraine. That's something we need very much. But the question is about how or what should Ukrainians I don't know, office of the president use community NGOs still do to mobilize this international support. I mean, to reach real therapies, because I'm, of course, questioning if this might be a real one. I'm sorry for being a bit critical. I wish it would be.
So, the question is, how should NGOs, how can international.
In terms of reaching real fairness?
Okay, would you like to answer?
I would say from the international community.
Okay. Do you have any suggestions?
Well.
Yeah.
Let's start with you. Please, please, let's start with you.
Yeah. Well, I didn't want to hijack the, the the answer, but, well, today, for instance, I've used every bilateral. I've had to also rally support for Ukraine and at the same time rally support for the UN charter, the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of nations. And I think, depending a little bit, how you put it with the partner across the globe, you should discuss it with. I think it's very easy to find friends for exactly these two principles. And even if you add the freedom of people or human rights, that's of course not interpreted the same way everywhere around the world. That's certainly that we that we should be doing. But unfortunately, we have seen that over the course of the past four years. And Russia is really making use.
Can some something away from the sort of the feeling of urgency to help Ukraine. Whereas again, we saw last night with the strikes in, in so many cities across Ukraine. I mean, the, the, you know, the need is there now. So I think it's an obligation not just to Ukraine but to the global community to rally support.
Yeah. Please.
Okay. I'd like to add a bit more. Look, if we proceed from the fact that we are a civilized country, which Ukraine definitely is, if we live in a human centric paradigm where life of freedom, of a human being are above all, and then everything else come after, everything else is subordinated to that, then we begin to understand everything that we heard in your, request. It contains the answer. You represent civil society and you ask, how can we help, etc., etc. please help our community. I mean, Ukrainian communities exist exist in every country of the world. As a member of intelligence, intelligence Service, former member, I can give you a lot of numbers, but, I'm sure you know them already. Work. Unite them. Ukraine needs help. That's no secret to anybody. We need help with everything. We need donations for weapons. We need donations for help for the wounded. We need, support for the people who have lost everything in this war. And of course, ending with. Maybe this doesn't sound pretty, but we need influence from these communities who have been living in these countries for a long time. We need influence from these communities over the policies of this of these countries. This will help us.
Thank you very much. And I think that is the perfect moment on which to end, this fabulous panel. I want to thank my excellent panelists, for for your contributions. I want to thank those of you watching on the live stream and everybody in the room and, happy Davos. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Thank you. Thank you. Good luck with the next year.
Yeah.