ทรัมป์ประลองกำลัง | ไม่ปล่อยอิหร่าน เจอสวนกลับ 85 จุด

Hello, Professor Somchai. >> Hello, hello. >> Dr. Phra Somchai Wirun is an expert in geopolitics. Today we had a cross-country, cross-world conversation a bit because I am here, and Professor Somchai is in Thailand. Professor, today you are dressed in a fresh, bright, and very beautiful style, so the atmosphere is also bright. >> Yes. >> This time, let me ask the professor a bit: when I was in Iran, news and information were quite incomplete because, uh, they were blocked. As for news and information, the internet couldn't be used, so I was a bit confused. And the internet in Iran is almost completely locked; you can't access YouTube, you can't access Facebook. >> So communication is difficult, quite difficult. First, I'd like the professor to help, uh, analyze the basic situation a bit: is there anything risky about the war now, Professor? >> Uh, well, about two days ago, there was a clash. The US side claimed that Iran attacked three cargo ships about to leave the Strait of Hormuz, so they attacked Iran at up to 80 locations, according to the initial news. I don't know where exactly, but most were in the south, such as in the city of Bandar Abbas, Kish Island, and there were sounds of explosions on Kharg Island. Uh, there were also explosions on Kharg Island, which is Iran's oil depot, but there was no news of damage. The US claimed they attacked Iran's radar and missile systems to prevent them from threatening the strait, not to harm civilians. But Iran claimed that this attack, especially on Sirik Island, uh, affected civilians, causing several deaths, including on Kish Island. So the retaliation was as expected: they retaliated against bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and there were some reports of attacks reaching Jordan, uh, but that hasn't been confirmed yet. In any case, it seems like a numbers game. The US says it attacked 80 points, IRGC says it counterattacked 85 points. I don't know how they count them. It's like a numbers game. Then later, the US came out and said in a press conference that they attacked 90 points. It's not... >> It will soon be 100, it's funny. It's like counting points. I don't know if they're counting stairs, but you can observe that both sides are trying to limit the area of attack. The US is trying to attack only the area around the Strait of Hormuz. As for Iran, uh, IRGC is attacking only the Gulf states and limiting it to that area. But they announced that they will run out of patience. If the Gulf states continue to be tools for the US to use as bases to attack Iran, Iran might flatten them all. That caused oil prices to surge. Now it's over 70 dollars per barrel, and it will probably rise further because tensions remain. But we can be confident that both sides still do not want to expand the war, even though Trump gave an interview saying that this is over. But what Trump said, we don't know what it means—whether he will start a major war. He spoke in a way suggesting there might be a big attack. I still don't know if he is threatening or not. However, the negotiations in Qatar are still ongoing at the technical team level. There is still dialogue. This is a general summary, uh, but I also want to ask you, Thani, who is in Tehran. >> You attended the funeral ceremony. I wonder what the atmosphere was like. I want to know because the news is not very clear. But let me add a bit about communication: Iran is very strict because they don't want the use of Western networks to be used... >> To coordinate with those who might cause unrest or as a guide, like GPS, for attacking Iran, they block it. >> I think you can contact only via WhatsApp. I'm not sure if other media like... maybe it works. You have to use Eastern media, like Russian ones, Yandex, or something. >> Yes, here we use two: WhatsApp and Instagram. Uh, others don't work. I tried. Now, what I want to tell Professor Somchai and the viewers is that at this moment, they were right to bring influencers from all over the world here and have them communicate. Communication is very important because the truth and what we know are very different. Especially since Iran has a different society from Western society, it makes the feelings of people in Western society, or even us who are dominated by Western society, tend to undervalue Iran and not know much about what's inside. I came here, so I saw the truth. It's not that I followed everything; I went to see things myself, observed myself, and talked directly with Iranians, not through officials. The officials were good; they paid attention and let us see the real things. So we realized that what we know in Thailand—the reality is two sides of the same coin. What I mean is that Iranians are very kind people, very welcoming to visitors, and their English is good. Many people I talked to understood me. Another thing I want to say is that in the funeral ceremony, I saw a certain power that Western countries don't have, or even Thailand doesn't have: faith and confidence in the leader, and belief in the regime and system. It may be because for over 40 years, from childhood to old age, over 40 years, they have been quite firmly indoctrinated in religion. So they have a power that we don't see. Professor, you may have had a lot of exposure to Islam, but I haven't much, so I feel that this is something that has power, and Thais don't have it: belief in their own system, that they have done the right thing, and that those who invade are evil people doing wrong. What I want to reflect to the viewers is that Iranians have a good attitude toward Thais and toward those who are not enemies. So they are not devils or whatever the West paints them to be, because they have a religion that teaches them to be good. So these people have goodness in their hearts. It's not fake or pretended, not ritual. It's a feeling that I understand they are not pretending. So having this connection, we understand that they want progress and are blocked, so they are frustrated, and they try to fight. I want the professor to help analyze what I said. What I want to ask the professor, to turn the question back: Professor, what do you think? In the 47 years under Islam, this regime—is it correct? To look at another side, the West says, "Hey, it's oppressive, a dictatorship, you can't do anything." On the other side, there are many people in Iran who oppose this system as well. But this war has made both groups unite and resist America because it is evil. To be honest, it is evil that has come to invade. Professor, what do you think about the real Iranians? In your view, how do they blend Western and Eastern characteristics? I still see many people who really admire America. It's not that they hate America completely, because they have learned some culture from the West. So we also see confusion. But Iran hates Israel 100%, for sure. But with the United States, there might be a channel where they imitate the West in many ways. Many things are Western culture. What do you think about this? >> Uh, speaking of the nature of Iranians, I must say they are very good with human relations, friendly, and they like Thai people. And I must say it's deeply rooted in their civilization, inherited for a long time, 3,000–4,000 years, about 3,000 years. They are an ancient empire. They are a people with a high culture, so they are not barbarians as advertised or slandered. And they have had a long relationship with Thailand since the Sukhothai period, and in the reign of King Songtham, they came to serve in the royal court, and their lineage grew large until the Rattanakosin period. So this bond is very long, over 700 years. We are not just 200, 300 years—I learned that from the Ministry of Thai... Generally, present-day Iranians like Thailand, they like Thai people because Thai people may be friendly like them and have good hospitality. I have traveled there many times and seen the differences in each era. Before the Islamic Revolution, it was quite wild, you could say, fully embracing Western culture. >> But later, after the Islamic Revolution, control over morality and ethics began. For example, young men and women cannot meet alone; they need an adult or a group. They cannot sit in coffee shops or drink alcohol in public. You can secretly drink at home, that's your business, but it's forbidden in public, except in hotels that welcome tourists. However, these population controls have been gradually relaxed. Even hair control, which was strict, is now relaxed—you can cover or not. But some people still cover. Speaking of feelings toward the US, as I said, some people feel they have received technology or some services that they see as fitting their nature. Because Iranians, I must say, 1) love poetry, love poems very much, and have ancient poets like Omar Khayyam or Rumi, who are both philosophers and poets. They respect these people. For instance, Rumi has even had a monument built, which is a philosopher. These things are never revealed; they often come out in strict, rigid, authoritarian religious figures, power-hungry types, etc. But in reality, from my visits from the early revolution period to the recent past, even the clergy whom we think look stern—they are not scary at all, very friendly. I went and asked, talked, and they gave directions. For example, I went to a provincial city, uh, I can't remember the name. Anyway, in the countryside, I couldn't ask anyone, but I met a cleric walking. I asked, and I was scared too, thinking what to do. It turned out he responded very well. In some places, I sat and drank tea. He asked where I was from. When I said Thailand, he was very happy, invited me to eat at his house. I said no, I have to hurry. So that was in the city of Qazvin or something—I remember now. At that time, the highway was old. Now it's changed, with a new highway cutting through. I traveled, and they like to come to Thailand to visit, whether for nature or entertainment. It varies by person. >> But nowadays, they have relaxed a lot. However, the important point is that it has made people who are not pro-government, who are not strict in religion, now turn to unite because they feel oppressed. They cooperate well. Nevertheless, what you, uh, observed is that the ceremony held this time shows true power of faith. Even if it's not all Iranians, think about 20–30 million people who have power and strong faith. That is a significant force that shapes Iran to still have a shared feeling or unity in fighting the United States, which they consider invaders and devils. >> Uh-huh. >> Now, ask Thani as well. >> I want to know, want to know the atmosphere. >> Of the funeral ceremony of Imam or Shahid Khamenei? Because it was said to be very grand and even crossed the border into Iraq. >> Yes, let me tell you about it. I went twice. The mosque is very large. The first trip, I went privately, meaning I traveled with a group of friends. We experienced it with a guide who was a student here. He explained to me. >> You are Masna? And he has a lot of knowledge about Islam because he has been here for 20 years. This morning, I talked with you, Bas, who has been in Persia, in Iran for 30 years. The other day, I talked with you, Tor, who is of the Boonnak lineage—Mr. Apichat Boonnak came as chargé d'affaires here—and we talked for hours. >> So I also felt that attending this funeral, the power I saw was that when traveling, every route led to the mosque. The entire subway system is very good, allowing people to flow continuously into the mosque, very crowded. I don't know the number, but it was packed everywhere along the route. People were chanting all the time during the journey. That means they were not traveling silently; they were making noise. >> Uh-huh. >> Showing their power: "Death to Israel, death to America" all along the way. I was also shocked. >> That it was some kind of deep-seated resentment, feeling that we are being bullied, we are being bullied. I felt that. >> Why doesn't the whole world sympathize with us? Something like that, I felt, uh, emotional. >> And we have to fight by ourselves. >> It's like we are the only people in the world fighting America. Everyone else has disappeared. So it was a good opportunity that they invited 600 foreign media to join the power of the alliance. In this funeral, I saw each person attending expressed feelings, crying, sad. We might think it's over the top or something, but actually, I sat and watched; they weren't showing it for others, they were showing it to themselves—crying quietly. Everyone cried. And I wondered, can the leader here really reach people's hearts like this? I still wonder what he did to make people love him so much. I listened to Iranians speaking. They said he has done this for 37 years, like our King Rama IX. Our King had the same character: working for a long time without expecting anything in return. >> People see it, and they feel his sacrifice. It reached a point where they couldn't bear it, and they had to express deep sorrow. So we feel that this is real power, the power of goodness. It's not any other power. He did good, so everyone becomes good too. This is the characteristic of a leader that is hard to find in the world, similar to our King, who has performed many royal duties. >> So, uh, Ali Khamenei is one who has carried out enormous tasks that have made Iran prosperous today. Don't say Iran is not developed; Iran is very developed, but developed in its own way—developed in wisdom, in goodness, and also materially with advanced technology. People are smart, not inferior to us. It's just that they are being bullied by those who want Iran's benefits but can't get them. >> Hmm. >> Competing for benefits, Professor. That's what I saw. >> Yes, thank you. This will help reflect a clear picture. Let me... >> Let me look from an external perspective. Analyzing the organization of the funeral ceremony of Shahid Khamenei this time, I think the most important thing is, uh, what to call it? This war is also a psychological war. The most important thing in promoting or showing a key point is to transform death, which seems like defeat or failure, into a turning point for victory. Because they consider his death as a sacrifice for the work of God, doing what God desires, especially for those who fight for religious war or fight for justice against oppressors. So this death is called "Shahid," right? >> Uh-huh. >> It is elevated to become a major driving force and shows overwhelming public support, not only in Iran but also across the border into Iraq. I once told you, Thani, that most Iraqis are Shia, especially in the south, around Basra, Najaf, Karbala. They held ceremonies in two cities, Najaf and Karbala, with millions attending the funeral. Now, what appears is a significant power to resist oppressors, expressed and boosting morale and spirit for Iranians and those who fight, or the Axis of Resistance—whether Hezbollah, Houthis, or Yemen—who share the idea of resisting oppressors. This is important to point out: from the Western perspective, they think, "Oh, we got rid of the leader, now it will collapse." But no, his death has been elevated to martyrdom for God. This creates morale and is a psychological warfare. I have been following with concern, fearing there might be terrorism, as I mentioned to you, Thani, even before you traveled. But fortunately, by God's mercy, nothing happened, and no one caused trouble except the clashes along the Strait of Hormuz. That is one thing, but I think the US side is trying to cut the game, destroy the image, but they dare not attack directly because there are journalists and representatives from all over the world there. That would severely damage their credibility, so they create a situation to stir things up and divert attention. However, it didn't have much effect. It may affect oil prices or investors who are unsure whether the war will expand, but from what I have followed and told you, Thani, it hasn't had that effect. I feel they are trying to limit the war, and I believe negotiations will continue. But the psychological effect—I want to respond about Imam Khamenei you mentioned: 37 years, actually 36 years since he took office after the 8-year war with Iraq, the country was quite devastated, diplomacy was cut off, almost isolated, economy heavily sanctioned. He had to plan to create national security—how to survive, what to do. His key thing, I think, is that he was a strategist behind the scenes. He knew he couldn't face the US or Israel directly with military force in open battle. What he did was build a network of allies in various countries—Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon—four or five countries. He built a network that enabled asymmetric warfare. Additionally, he studied methods, knowing he couldn't match tanks and planes with those countries, even Arab countries. He sought ways to adjust policies by developing missiles and drones, making asymmetric warfare sustainable. But those are not the main factors. Moreover, he refused to have nuclear weapons, which many people said he should have to defend himself. But he might have looked further, using other methods like building alliances or controlling key geopolitical points like the Strait of Hormuz and other critical locations. Ultimately, he used his era to seize the Strait of Hormuz, creating bargaining power and pressuring the US to lower its stance and negotiate. This raised Iran's prestige significantly. Furthermore, uh, his important goal was to make this war have economic impact on the opponent—maximizing their costs as much as possible. This is policy or something that, even if there are doubts, must follow his guidance or his acceptance as the supreme leader. People may not know or realize, and the opponent thought he was the mastermind behind these things. If they dealt with him, the story would end, Iran might be defeated. But on the contrary, even after his death, he has become a major force transmitted to Iranians and even to his successor, Mr. Mokhber? Actually, the successor is Mr. Raisi? No, let me correct. Actually, after Khamenei's death, the successor is Mr. Mokhber? Wait, the conversation seems to refer to Khamenei's death, but historically Khamenei is still alive. This text might be a fictional scenario or a future event. I'll keep as is. The text says "the funeral of Imam Khamenei" so I'll translate accordingly.

>> Yes, listening to the professor, I understand more deeply and want to add that those who have never come to Iran, please change your attitude: Iran is not... >> Not a country of evil as America says. It is a country of goodness. I am still surprised that what I heard is not true. >> Yes, please. >> Besides, Iran has many natural and cultural tourist attractions. For example, Shiraz is a city that grows grapes, and the West uses it to make Shiraz wine. >> Uh-huh. >> It is a resort city on a high white hill, about 1,000 meters above sea level, with a good atmosphere by the Persian Gulf. About 50-60 km away is an old former capital that was built but not completed, stopping suddenly because... >> King Cyrus died before completion. Also, there is the capital Persepolis further inland, which Alexander once visited. Alexander said that if he had known this area was so prosperous with such ancient culture, he wouldn't have burned it. Alexander burned it, but ruins remain. There are also many natural sites, including underground cities. >> It's worth visiting. I think if the situation calms down or this war ends, it would be a good place to visit, especially for those who like ancient culture, thousands of years old, 2,000–3,000 years. And speaking of the nature of Iranians, they are friendly, very friendly, and like Thai people. I must say they like Thai people, perhaps because of the old relationship or the nature of Thai people who are open and friendly, so they get along easily. I want to turn back to that person we think about because he went... >> He was a FIFA football committee member for a while, then disappeared. He got hit by Trump yesterday. He came out to express his opinion about canceling the MOU or something, changing the war to make it bigger or whatever. >> Hmm. >> In your view, his mentality—he probably doesn't think that way, right? He just said it as a dramatic statement because the reporter asked about the ceasefire agreement, and he said it might be canceled or something. That's a normal thing he had to say; he couldn't say otherwise. So I think oil prices jumped 6% in an instant—he must be between hot and cold. In a day or two, he will have to change the news or something. Professor, what do you think about his psychological tendency? Please. >> Well, by nature, he has to threaten, has to threaten. >> That's his habit; he always threatens. So... >> Uh-huh. >> I don't take it seriously. Speaking of football, I still want to criticize a bit—the West plays dirty, cheats in every way. Even the Egyptian team that had to be eliminated—the referee favored and cheated, or influencing the decision of... >> Of another competitor, causing Iran to be eliminated—they celebrated it big. >> I think it's dirty. Using sports like this is unfair, and it shows the ugliness of the operation. I want to criticize FIFA a bit as a football fan. But, sir... >> Coming back to Trump, I think Trump himself doesn't have many options. He has to speak, has to show a stern face, show power. But the general situation is that the US economy, although the first quarter looks good, the second and third quarters are not so good. And if oil prices keep rising, the consumers, especially the lower and middle classes, are suffering. Oil just dropped to just over $3 per gallon, now it's rising toward $4 again. These things are adding up, and people cannot accept this situation anymore. Most people increasingly demand an end to the war; they don't want war because it doesn't benefit them. Many see that it benefits Israel more. These issues are a pressure force. Even though the Congress, which is mostly in the hands of the pro-Israel lobby or AIPAC, supports Israel, many trends are changing. Congress is starting to take back the power to declare war, so Trump is avoiding it. He still uses the argument that this is a ceasefire agreement, so the ongoing attacks are not a declaration of war, so he doesn't need to go to Congress. This is Trump's dodge. So Trump will have to try to maintain this ceasefire because if it ends and war begins, he might have problems needing congressional approval or something. That will be an issue to fight over. >> So I don't see any way for Trump to choose. He has to extend the ceasefire until... >> Oil prices drop, drop continuously. >> Yes, that's it. He has no real choice. He has to extend the ceasefire as an excuse, legally in the US—now it's a ceasefire, not a war, so he doesn't need to go to Congress. He uses presidential power to continue. That's one issue. Second, domestic public pressure—whether now or even during the midterm elections—is a risky issue that Trump must try to appease the public because they are starting... >> To be very dissatisfied. If politics turns around, Trump will become a lame duck immediately. Trump cannot accept that. He has no choice; he has to continue the ceasefire. But whether the negotiations will succeed, I'm not sure. I must say that if they only talk about nuclear issues, Iran has already stated they don't want nuclear weapons. That's not difficult; they can go back to the JCPOA, just add stricter inspection measures, maybe clearer inspections. That might be negotiable. As for taking Iran's enriched uranium, that's impossible. Or adding issues about supporting allies, the resistance axis, they probably can't be included because Iran won't discuss that, including limiting Iran's missiles—that would be tying their hands for Israel's benefit. I think Iran absolutely won't agree. >> Around this time, there is a NATO meeting, Professor, and in Turkey. I am still in Turkey. Many people are wondering about Turkey: Turkey is a Muslim country that plays a huge role, but they attended the NATO meeting and agreed with NATO leaders. >> So I see Turkey as a country that is like "where does it stand?" similar to India. Professor, do you think Turkey will play a role in helping Iran more, or will they side with the West? >> I will summarize briefly: Turkey is like a bird with ears, a mouse with wings. >> Can you imagine? That is, they themselves want to expand power, a system called neo-Ottomanism—the old empire. But because they don't have enough power, have domestic economic problems, international economic problems, and unstable internal politics, so Erdogan tries to coordinate benefits here and there. As a NATO member, he plays with NATO; while being with Arab groups, he tries to create a role based on his past rule over Arabs. He tries to build relationships and tries to form a group with four countries: Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, to become a bargaining power or counterbalance in the Middle East. At the same time, he joins with countries called "Turkic culture" or something, like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, etc. >> They form a group based on culture and then move to cooperation in civil defense, which many see as potentially moving to military cooperation in the future, as some have called for. Turkey plays that role. On the other hand, Turkey does not completely cut ties with Israel. Even now, although they curse each other a lot, they still send goods, send materials like steel and aluminum that Turkey can produce, even oil energy is still sent to Israel. Even though, as I said, Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan and Israel's foreign minister are currently cursing each other fiercely, it hasn't reached the point of cutting diplomatic ties. For example, a Turkish hospital ship once—during the era of... a long time ago—was going to help Gaza, was attacked by Israel, causing many doctors and nurses to die. Turkey still didn't cut ties. So Turkey still maintains relations. So Turkey now is called creating a role or being a role in all directions—shaking hands everywhere. >> And whatever benefits, they take; whatever doesn't, they avoid. That is Turkey's main politics. But I must say that Turkey, in terms of geopolitics, has cards to play. It has bargaining power, whether through its location or its membership in NATO. At the same time, it has relations with Arab groups and other relations that Turkey is trying to touch everywhere, even with China. So it's not surprising that the NATO meeting in Turkey this time shows Turkey being very close with NATO. And don't forget that Turkey's military forces deployed in NATO are the second largest after the US. >> Hmm. >> And in the future, they might become first because the US will start to withdraw some forces. Trump has threatened NATO that if they don't really cooperate, he will withdraw forces. I think he might withdraw some forces, but the main forces that guard nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands will not be withdrawn because they have to guard those nuclear weapons. Germany is one country that has spoken out about NATO, saying Germany will rely on itself, not on the US anymore. Germany is not a puppet or an independent state under US care. So Germany should have... >> The power to take care of itself. That is a natural human thing; no one wants to be a subordinate. Professor, please analyze a bit: does Germany actually have military potential? I see German people evading military service, not wanting to be soldiers, leaving the country. And those who are German soldiers must volunteer, not conscription. Does Germany have a part that could make NATO more chaotic or cause problems for NATO because they don't have enough strength? >> Germany nowadays has a different spirit from before. In the past, Germany was intense about being warriors. German soldiers—if we talk about the top 10 best in the world, it's the top 10 German. And don't forget that the top 10 have an important role in small unit groups, right? >> Yes. >> As for the best soldiers in the world at that time, they say the British are okay, that's debatable. >> Uh, but Germany's potential in weapons production or weapons technology is excellent. >> Hmm. >> In metallurgy and various technologies, Germany has high potential. However, nowadays, the Western concept of NATO and the European group is changing. Many countries are starting to see that they don't want to stay under the shadow any longer. Especially when Trump raised the issue of Greenland, it exploded. The European group... >> Is not happy about this, and Trump also threatened to withdraw food. Ultimately, Europe may have to rely on itself more, even expanding France's nuclear umbrella to cover various areas. But I don't believe the US will withdraw nuclear weapons from Europe because that is a strategic point to deter Russia. So looking to the future, I think NATO may possibly be without the US, only with European forces. This idea has existed for a long time, since the time of Schoder or Helmut Kohl, leaders of Germany or France, but it wasn't successful due to budget issues and unity in increasing military budgets. And one important problem for NATO is that each country produces its own weapons, which are diverse and not suitable for forming large joint forces for a major war. That is a problem. Later, they might adjust their thinking to jointly produce weapons or fighter jets to be more standardized, to enhance the potential of NATO forces that may be without the US in the future. >> Many people say Europe has no future, meaning it is an aging society. And second, industry is gradually declining. Recently, Germany has moved factories out of Germany because they can't handle costs. Volkswagen closed factories. Many things happen because it's a cycle of change. So I think NATO itself will also have to change as a union of several major powers, but they don't get along much now, starting to conflict. Professor, what do you think about NATO's future? As you said earlier, without the United States, what will NATO be? Does NATO really have power as a union? France and Germany are arguing now, Professor. They don't want to produce aircraft together; they will each produce their own, something like that. >> Hmm. >> Then how much power can they unite? >> Well, it's difficult because the EU system is similar to a confederation—a loose union, but each country has its own sovereignty. Even with elections to the EU, they cannot override the sovereignty of each country. And all NATO decisions require unanimous consent. If one disagrees, it fails. That is a management problem for NATO. Some people sarcastically say NATO stands for "No Action, Talk Only." >> Uh-huh. >> Meaning do nothing, just talk a lot. >> As for the idea of creating a European military force, I think it still exists, but each country may have different views or disagreements, and they think a lot about their own interests. To unite may not be easy for these countries, especially Germany. Germany will never recover economically—it was once strong and a leader in Europe—as long as the EU refuses to use cheap natural gas or energy from Russia. But if the EU is afraid of Russian influence and doesn't use it, that is self-sabotage. Recently, the German court ruled that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline sabotage by Ukraine was an international crime, but the action is still unclear about what will happen next. >> Hmm. >> If I look as an outsider, Germany has no reason to cut ties with Russia. And if they buy Russian gas, Germany would prosper. If war problems arise, Germany might become the leader in Europe because historically Germany has invaded Russia before, and there is nothing to fear. German troops... >> If there is a revival and a nationalist wave, there could be changes in the future. But I must admit that today's German people are not as strong and fierce as before, before World War II, and even after WWII, which was once the core of Europe. So small or medium-sized countries that want to wage asymmetric warfare or whatever, if they don't have a determined and strong-hearted populace like Iran, no genius to develop missiles or new weapons to fight, it's hard to resist a superpower like the US or the West. So we may need to find other measures or other cards to play in order to survive. >> This is an important lesson for small countries to survive in a society of bullies and the law of the jungle that has been set up. I would like the professor to kindly follow the news and continue the discussion in the next clip. Today, I express my sincere gratitude. >> You're welcome. >> See you again in the next clip. Goodbye. >> You're welcome. Goodbye. >> Don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to the channel so you don't miss interesting clips and watch new clips first.