Kiev : la pire attaque russe de toute la guerre｜LCI

Thank you very much to our teams mobilized on the ground. It's time for the big story. Welcome to LCI with today this deluge of fire on Kiev, the awakening of Putin. Has the wounded beast indeed awakened? We will tell you about what is quite simply the worst attack on the Ukrainian capital since the start of the war. Strikes in the sky of Kiev. Helicopters trying to extinguish the flames, residents in the metro, rescuers in the rubble. You will see that what is impressive is not just the scale of the strikes, but also the nature of the missiles used. It's the entire Russian arsenal that has been deployed, or almost, day after day. You know that we are wondering about a Putin who would be on his knees. Almost a sign of the times. But here, with these strikes. A desperate gesture or a real demonstration of force? Is this just the beginning of the revenge? Another story with us is that of a Russian sea behemoth that reappears, that of Admiral Nakhimov, which is coming out of the docks after having spent 30 years there. It holds the most important arsenal for a warship. So why bring it out now? What message and what use? You will see that things are heating up at sea. Greenpeace ships repelled, armed tankers, ghost ships too. And by the way, since I'm talking about ghost fleets, you will also see how Russia has used them to send drones to spy on nuclear sites in Europe. How will Trump position himself in the face of this acceleration of history? We will see that together, but the American president knows one personally, an acceleration, that of the explosion of his fortune, between real estate, golf courses worth several million dollars, and cryptocurrency investments. In 2 years, his fortune has almost tripled. We will talk about that too. But first, the big story, the deluge of fire on Kiev, the awakening of Putin. Let's go. Listen, watch. Russia will continue to increase pressure on the Kiev regime in order to achieve the objectives we have set for ourselves. This morning, during his daily briefing to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the Chief of the General Staff reported on the results of a vast retaliatory strike carried out by the Russian armed forces against Kiev. Strikes which, of course, exclusively targeted military or paramilitary installations, and to understand everything, to decipher everything, I am delighted to welcome Samantha Bendern to this panel. Hello, hello, and thank you very much for being with us, a researcher at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Thank you very much to Admiral Alain Coldesfi for accepting the invitation. You are a former Inspector General of the Armies. Hello to you, Lucas Manger. Delighted, of course, to see you again. You are a senior journalist, a specialist in international affairs. Xavier de Jacomoni, thank you also for being here, of course, international editorialist for LCI, and we will be with Alain Bower in a few moments, who will be our special guest today. We will see him in a few moments. I would like to show you first these images of Volodymyr Zelensky, who went to the center of Kiev, to the site of the strikes, in the rubble. A day of mourning. Tomorrow, in fact, in the capital, the city reportedly suffered the most massive attack by the enemy. About ten dead, a significant number of injured. Images of strikes, of damage, of terror. We will look at that together. Lucas Manger, I'll take you with me. So Lucas, the images of this attack are impressive, and they show, one can say, the hell that was unleashed on the Ukrainian capital. Yes, it's a hell that Ukrainians, in Kiev, have not known since the beginning of the war. The attack, the first explosions were heard around 9:30 PM and lasted all night. Dozens of drones, dozens, hundreds of drones, dozens of missiles. To measure the power of the explosions, let's look at a sequence filmed from his window by a resident. It's this one. We see the flames starting to... I think we can even listen to the sequence. I suggest we do. With pleasure. Look. meters. And so, tell us, this is a few hundred meters from where this resident is. So that means it's really in the center of Kiev. The strikes hit the city center, residential areas, about thirty civilian sites were hit. Almost all the districts of the capital. What we see here are really images from the center of the capital and of a hotel, the City Hotel, which is a hotel where many foreigners, journalists, sometimes stay. I've been there myself, it's very close to Independence Square. It's a 5-star hotel in Kiev. And then we will see some last images showing a building that has just collapsed. This was early this morning, shortly before Volodymyr Zelensky's visit that we just heard about in this neighborhood. For the residents of Kiev, however, unfortunately accustomed to it, it was a very particular night of terror, Lucas. Some say they had never known anything like it. But yes, Zelensky had warned, but even if he warns because they have information, intelligence that allows them to know the scale of the attacks a little in advance. So Zelensky and the mayor of the city had said, be careful, the night will be terrible. That's what happened. These images we see, they remind us of the beginning of the war, it was even worse last night. It's apparently a sad record. More than 50,000 people took refuge in the metro, including almost 5,000 children who spent the entire night in these immense tunnels of the Kiev metro, which is about the safest place, and they did well because despite that, the toll is very heavy. So, the latest toll from Agence France-Presse this afternoon is 21 dead and almost 90 injured. But this is obviously a toll that will evolve. What we see here is a woman being carried out on a stretcher, from the rubble, excuse me, on a stretcher, and rescuers at work. We will listen to the testimony of Ukrainian women who have been victims of this attack tonight, which is said to be truly the biggest attack since the beginning of the war. Fear. I prayed for all my missing friends. I prayed to God. I prayed to everything that could be prayed to. I just prayed to make it to the shelter. What can you feel at that moment? I thought it was my last day, honestly. I find myself without an apartment, alone with my child. Look. My apartment just went up in smoke because of Putin. Thank you very much, Lucas Manger. We will now head to Kiev to meet you. You are on site, Clara Marchaud. Thank you very much for being with us live. Clara Marchaud, you are in the middle of the rubble. Explain to us, describe to us what you see around you. Yes, you see especially behind me, it's rubble. This is where the biggest strike was yesterday, last night, during the night. As you can see, rescuers are still trying to find people in the rubble. There is a lot of dust and everything. I don't know if you will see it on camera, there is noise. And next to me, you see, I see residents who are right next to me and who are waiting, trying to find out if they will find someone because there would still be people under the rubble. So, yes, that's what it is, after this night of horror, what awaits the residents of the capital is to wait and to know if people have survived or not. We are talking today, at this hour, about 21 dead. Thank you very much, Clara Marchaud. We will meet again in a few moments. We will also talk about this incident of a Ukrainian command center that was reportedly hit. It's causing a stir. We'll talk about it in a moment. But the question is this, Samantha de Benberne, the wounded beast, as I said in the introduction, Vladimir Putin, what would Vladimir Putin be if he woke up? I don't want to call him a wounded beast. He is a beast that attacked and is being bitten by the one who attacked him. Putin clearly wants to intensify the strikes on Ukraine. He claims it's in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russia, but there were no Ukrainian strikes on Russia in February 2022 when he started bombing Kiev. So let's put that aside. Putin is under increasing pressure because he is not achieving his war aims. His war aim. Well, we can only imagine what it is. The one he expresses now is at least to have the four regions he has officially annexed under his control. Kiev refuses to yield. We must know that in a few days, there will be the NATO summit in Ankara. Does he hope that by acting this way, he will scare the Europeans? That he will scare Trump into pressuring the Ukrainians to negotiate? I think he has misunderstood the Ukrainians, he has misunderstood the determination of the Europeans to not give in, and he has also misunderstood what seems to be, and I say this cautiously because Trump changes his mind as often as the wind changes direction, but for the moment, the American president seems to be more focused on Ukraine. But clearly, for Vladimir Putin, it is a desire to show his fellow citizens that he does not leave attacks on Moscow and St. Petersburg unanswered. To give you a better idea of the scale of last night's attack, I would like to show you these aerial images filmed by a drone of destruction, of dwellings. These are blown-out houses. Admiral, I turn to you. For you, is this just the beginning of Putin's revenge, after he has been quite humiliated in recent days? Yes, of course. Following on from what has just been said, the Ukrainians, by attacking the oil, essentially the fuel distribution, saw their population react a little, and I think he had to acknowledge that there was a certain shortage or a certain shortage, and that probably shocked him a bit because he lives in an environment where things are hidden from him. So he had time to replenish his stocks because he doesn't have hundreds and hundreds of sophisticated, very expensive missiles. So he has replenished his stock, part of his stock, which he is using in attacks against the population, because of course, what the spokesperson said about military objectives is a lie and a disgrace. It is appalling to see how they can continue to lie in this way. It is against the populations, and they will achieve nothing. They will achieve nothing because the Ukrainian population will suffer even more. But it is not certain that Putin can continue for long with this type of weaponry, even though he has been in a war economy for 4 years. This is my personal assessment. The fact of targeting civilians, the Ukrainians are targeting refineries, strategic deep targets. He is targeting civilians. It is an admission of weakness. And why not other targets? Why doesn't he respond in the same way? Because since the beginning of the war, Vladimir Putin has been striking civilians. His strategy is to impose a form of terror and to terrorize the Ukrainian population in the hope that it will capitulate and lay down its arms. Russia has never been bothered by the question of whether it was striking military installations. Of course, it strikes Ukrainian military installations regularly, but it has never stopped itself. What has changed tonight compared to strikes that have already taken place in Kiev, but also in other cities, in Dnipro, in Kramatorsk, is the scale. It is the scale. There is clearly a desire to crush, to terrify, and to say, perhaps, that this way the Ukrainians will understand and they will capitulate. As Samantha said, he knows them absolutely wrongly. They will not capitulate, and I would say, on the contrary, that with the brutality of the Russian strikes, we will see how Zelensky will retaliate. He said he would, he promises he will retaliate. For the moment, the Ukrainians have never targeted civilians and are targeting military installations. There have been civilian deaths in Russian strikes, but the Ukrainians are targeting military or energy installations. Admiral, I asked you if this was just the beginning of this Putinist revenge, and you listened a little earlier, you estimated that the centers of power in Kiev, Ukrainian centers of power, could soon be targeted. I would just like to recall that, indeed, we had talked about it on this show, there was an alert that said that indeed these centers of power, which you see here on this map, could be in the crosshairs of Russia quite quickly. So, do you believe that this is potentially Putin's next move? Yes, it is very likely in the targeting, as the Russians have said, but it is not certain that since then the Ukrainians have not prepared alternative solutions. In all European or American countries, we have what are called emergency command posts, backup systems, etc., which mean that the main objective can be achieved, but we can command from another secret location for a certain time with all the necessary means. I think yes, of course, it is part of the objectives, but as my neighbor said, sorry, I don't remember your first name. No problem, Lucas. Lucas, yes, I'm not used to giving first names. Putin wants to terrorize. My feeling is that he does not have the means to continue for long. Well, drones, yes, but missiles like the ones he used, in my opinion, he doesn't have many in reserve. That's just my opinion on the centers of power. Lucas. Yes, you know, the City Hotel we were talking about earlier, it's very close to the centers of power. All of this is really the hyper-center of Kiev. So by striking these areas, he is striking a few hundred meters from where Zelensky normally is. He is obviously not there all the time, and in fact, he returned urgently yesterday from Dublin to be there. But indeed, the Ukrainians have been expecting for months and months that the Parliament, the presidency, the ministries would be hit. But here, if the shots, were the shots perfectly aimed or not? In any case, it is the center, and therefore the center of power of Kiev, that is being targeted by the Russians. For the moment, it has not yet hit the presidency, but it was really not far. Now, we must talk about this hotel, because the buzz is that it was actually a Ukrainian command center that was hit, housing foreign mercenaries. I know you know the place by heart. Lucas Manger, you stayed there quite a bit, it was important to you, that place. We'll talk about it again with you, but I'm heading to Kiev to meet Clara Marchaud. Explain to us, when is it known, and when is it said, from Kiev specifically? Yes. Well, I'm sorry, I wanted to talk about the command center, but in fact, I see that bodies are being brought out of the rubble, or at least a stretcher, and next to me, I see residents who are in tears, waiting since this morning to see if their families are there. So, it's quite moving and difficult. I have to move away a little. Regarding the command center, I was there this morning, I was near the center this morning, and indeed, it's a hotel, it's a hotel that has nothing military about it. I know that some fellow journalists sometimes sleep there. It's not a hotel that is a target. And secondly, seeing the damage on site, we saw that it was mainly the roof of the hotel that was hit, and therefore, very probably, given the damage which was not very massive, it was mainly the facade and the roof that were damaged, it was perhaps debris that fell during an interception. So we don't have the impression that the hotel was really targeted. So which shows that this discourse from Moscow is totally propaganda to justify strikes that are in reality not precise at all and always hit civilians and terrorize the civilian population in Ukraine. Thank you very much, Clara Marchaud. Thank you, precious on the ground. You are witnessing terrible scenes, obviously, and we can see that the toll could increase following these night strikes on Kiev, I remind you, the most significant since the beginning of the war on the capital. Lucas, yes, you have the floor. So this center, you know it, sorry, this hotel, this hotel, and the buzz is that it would be a command center. It's a well-orchestrated buzz to try to make people believe that it's total disinformation. It's a hotel in which, a hotel like any other, with a restaurant, a small bar at the entrance of the restaurant which, moreover, overlooks the street. I should also mention that this hotel is opposite a hospital. On the other side of the street, there is a hospital. So the area that is hit is particularly sensitive from a civilian point of view, and it's a hotel. I have never seen any Ukrainian military personnel there other than military personnel who came for appointments with journalists or with Western diplomats, that kind of thing. There is absolutely no command center. There is a shelter under the hotel where I spent several hours during bombings in Kiev. There is a shelter, like there are in all hotels in the Ukrainian capital, with camp beds, chairs, but there is nothing military in this hotel. Yes, go ahead. Samantha. No, what I have observed during my many trips to Ukraine since the beginning of the war is that, it must be said, sometimes military personnel meet in hotels. I saw it in Chernihiv in 2024, a hotel had been hit. The rumor was that that morning, there was a meeting of high-ranking military officials. It happened in Kramatorsk. It's not impossible that it happened yesterday in Kiev. But several questions arise. It's how did the Russians know? That's what's much more serious and interesting in this story: if there was a meeting, it was an ad hoc meeting, so it wasn't a headquarters, it wasn't a command center, people had made an appointment, and that's known, that's important to know. And two, these buildings that our correspondent was talking about, it's not a military HQ. The women who lost their apartments, it's not a military HQ. All the apartments. The hospitals that have been bombed since the beginning of this war are not military targets, and I think that's really what we need to emphasize. That's what we did, in fact. We immediately focused on the issue of targeting civilians. And what is interesting to note is the impressive number of missiles, of course, and their nature as well, because they were all fired, or almost. The entire range of Russian arsenal, perhaps except for the Orchnik. But we will look at that more closely together. Xavier de Jacomoni, you are accompanying me. I'm going slowly because you have the whole set to cover. So, take your time to come with me in front of the screen. Xavier, more seriously, Xavier, rarely or perhaps never have so many missiles been fired at Kiev. Let's start there. 74 missiles, 496 drones. The last time, exactly one month ago, on June 2nd, we had one less missile. But here, the concentration on the capital was extremely high. For the mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, it is the biggest attack on Kiev since the beginning of the war. And so, last June, there was one less missile. So, there were cruise missiles, 34 Kinjal, 8 Kalibr, 4 Kh-59 and 69. Ballistic missiles, 24 Iskander. We will see the details of the Iskander missile. Speed 9000 km/h, that's starting to be extremely fast. Mobile, maneuverable in flight, range 500 km. So no problem hitting Kiev from the borders. We see the launch of this missile. Above all, what is very important to remember is its speed and the fact that it is maneuverable in the phase where it will strike its target. This makes it extremely difficult for interceptors to shoot it down before it hits its targets, which are most often civilian. There were also, and this is even more worrying, the formidable hypersonic cruise missiles Zircon. We see them being fired from a Russian frigate, since initially it is a missile fired from ships. Since then, there have been land-based launchers which are reportedly still in the testing phase but which might work. It's difficult to know, but that makes it an even more formidable weapon. Speed 11000 km/h, we are talking about between Mach 8 and Mach 9 depending on the flight phases. Imagine the speed. We see it, it's invisible. Well, we see it very little on radar. It's so fast anyway that radars can't, in military terms, "lock onto it" to then direct an interceptor towards it. Its range is 1000 km, it can be fired from even further away. So from the sea or from remote areas in Russia, now that the Russians have developed this technology. You said earlier, there were no Orchnik. Why no Orchnik? Well, simply because the Orchnik is useless, and the Russians are demonstrating that to us. The Orchnik could be useful for nuclear strikes. In terms of conventional strikes, it is strictly useless. And Xavier, what struck you was the low Ukrainian interception rate? Yes. Well, if the drone interception rate is rather normal, and with 496 drones fired, 476 were shot down, the Ukrainians say that there are more and more drones that are equipped with reactors, jet drones. We saw interceptions in the sky of Kiev last night, and the jet drones, which go much faster, at 500 km/h, while drone interceptors go at 300 km/h, are starting to pose a problem. But on this, it went rather well. However, for missiles, only 48 missiles out of 74 were shot down. Until now, the Ukrainians had higher success rates. The Kinjal, Kalibr, Kh-59, 69 cruise missiles were all neutralized. Only 4 Iskander out of 24. That's why we chose to present this missile to you. And especially no Zircon, even Patriot missiles cannot overcome this hypersonic missile, very fast and, as I told you, which changes trajectory at the moment it reaches its target. Thank you very much, Xavier de Jacomoni. Admiral. The message is not only in the number of missiles fired but also in the nature of the missiles used in this demonstration of force by Putin last night. Yes. It was not necessary to see that the air defenses on both sides have been weakened for quite some time, particularly due to a lack of solar defense on the Ukrainian side as well as on the Russian side, so that the airspace is more easily penetrable by the various mobile units. It remains that for drones, which are relatively simple, so to speak, they have good capabilities, but for missiles that go a little faster, you need at least Patriot or FAD, in short, Patriot. And there is a critical shortage, despite the promises of delivery of American Patriots, paid for by Europeans, by the way, it is we who are paying for them. So this depletion of air defense means, we saw it in the ability of the Ukrainians to penetrate Russian airspace. And what is striking is, well, I don't think they needed missiles of this nature to strike fixed, well-known, and relatively undefended targets. This is really the aspect of revenge that counts. So there was a message in the very nature of the missile. You agree with that. There is one point that Ukrainian interlocutors have raised, which is that they think that Ukrainian air defenses have spent far too many Patriots trying to shoot down Zircons, which they have never managed to shoot down. Yes, but they have nothing else. How do they have nothing else? Yes, but they do. And they might run out for future strikes. That's how they put it. They lack Patriots, and it's obvious, and against the Zircon, but I don't know if the Russians have a lot of Zircons. They would have about forty and produce about ten per month. I would like to welcome Alain Bower to this panel. Hello and thank you very much for being with us, Alain Bower. You are an emeritus professor, right here if you wish. You are an emeritus professor of criminology at the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, author of the book "La vérité sur le mystère le pardon le mystère le système Epstein" which holds no more mystery for you, almost. "Paris-New York, le réseau criminel mondial qu'ils ont voulu cacher" published by First. We will talk about it again in a few moments. Here is the worst attack since the beginning of the war on the Ukrainian capital, Russian strikes that have caused at least 20 deaths, 21 deaths. But our correspondent on site herself witnessed the removal of bodies from the rubble. It's terrible what is happening there. Look at all these images of helicopters trying to extinguish the fires, 50,000 or even more residents of Kiev who have taken refuge, rescuers on site. I spoke of the potential awakening of the wounded beast, Vladimir Putin. Do you subscribe to this hypothesis? First of all, he never fell asleep, so he is not awake. Secondly, the Russian, Soviet, or imperial Tsarist military strategy has always been the same: escalation for de-escalation. Here, we are rather in escalation for escalation, since as long as Vladimir Putin does not have his little piece of Donbas, which is the objective he has set for himself by integrating Donbas into the Russian Federation and on which he cannot back down because he cannot lose. Indeed, this is the only point that is almost completely consistent between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: I cannot lose, therefore I can only win. And whatever happens, return to point 1, which is that I cannot lose, so I must win. He had an exceptional opportunity offered to him on a platter by Volodymyr Zelensky, which was: you don't really win, but you don't really lose, since we neutralize the small remaining piece and transform it into a Finlandized zone, as we used to say, a neutralized zone, a frozen zone, an icy zone, in short, anything. That could have worked. It didn't work, and since then, there has been a real push by the Ukrainians on everything that is flexible, mobile, inventive, creative, and all that remains for the Russians is the big red, the big red that stains. You see, we have a phenomenon of deliberately targeting civilian areas with equipment that is certainly more modern than the anti-ship missile that was sent two or three times to civilian areas. The choice that exists now is that Vladimir Putin is desperately trying to obtain the surrender, not of all of Ukraine. He has given up on that. He is trying not to lose Crimea, which is becoming an unexpected issue again, since almost all observers had concluded that Crimea was lost. We had written it off because it's been 2014, it's not a 4-year war, but 10 years, and even 12 years. And then there is this episode of escalation through the energy suffocation of Russia, which is forced to buy back its own oil by negotiating prices. When you see Dmitry Peskov explaining that he is negotiating good prices to buy the oil he himself sold, you have to wonder. And then, the only possibility he has to avoid being outflanked on his most extremist wing, which says, "Well, the time has come to send a tactical nuclear weapon, and that will solve the problem," is to raise the prices. There are many paradoxes in Vladimir Putin's situation. But one thing is certain, to return to your initial question, he has never been asleep. But some are surprised by the lack of reaction or a reaction that is not more vigorous following the repeated humiliations that Ukraine has inflicted on him. And so the answer is there. But how far will this response and this revenge go? I suggest we listen. We don't do it every day because we have to be careful, but we looked at what the propagandists are saying on Russian television, on Solovyov, the chief propagandist. And they are promising the disappearance of Kiev once again. Let's listen, and we'll talk about it again afterwards. Look. If anything remains of Ukraine, the West will declare it a victory. What does that have to do with us, what they declare? No, really. What does it matter to us what the West will announce? It's not what they declare that matters. But if Ukraine continues to exist, these four or five years of war will create a sense of revenge within Ukrainian society that will continue to grow. In that case, Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kiev, or Kharkiv must disappear from the face of the earth. So, not just Kiev, forgive me, Odessa, Mykolaiv. And so, how far do you think he is prepared to go from today onwards in his response? Vladimir Putin? Yes. He is, curiously, the least radical of the radicals, which does not mean he is moderate, let's be clear. But he needs a victory, he does not need a defeat, he does not need to eliminate Ukraine. Brzezinski, the thinker and strategic designer of the decoupling between Ukraine and Russia, because he thought of it, even if we interpret it wrongly and read it wrongly, because he did not want the end of Russia, he wanted precisely to preserve Russia at all costs to prevent it from falling into the hands of China and becoming a Chinese puppet that would provoke a central war between the New Hegemon, the United States, which should be the sole imperial power, but Russia should not be allowed to fall, as it would rush into China's hands. The reality today is that Vladimir Putin needs, and he explains to anyone who will listen that he needs the United States to force Kiev into a form of organized surrender to avoid the use of elements that would escape him, such as a tactical nuclear weapon, or the act of crushing. There is no need for a tactical nuclear weapon to crush any city. Thermobar is more than enough. Alas, to make Coventry or Dresden, we didn't need nuclear weapons, because there weren't any at the time. But the general idea today is that it's a bit like, help me finish this war to prevent me from sinking into my most excited impulses, and indeed, I let my most excited impulses explain all of this. Indeed, Vladimir Putin, and Medvedev and Peskov, regularly give us the impression of having a nuclear weapon and that they can use it, and it can reach Paris, or even Nice, or elsewhere. So, all of this is packaging for a negotiation that never ends on the end of the Ukrainian conflict, which Volodymyr Zelensky has understood well, on the theme: give me the means to build my own Patriots, even if it doesn't respond to, and it was very accurately explained, part of the problems of the two new weapons with very high velocity and now trajectory movement that make them almost invulnerable. I don't believe there are any tools to intercept them, even in American weaponry. No, that seems extremely complicated. So there is not yet the means, and therefore he would need four times more Patriots than that would not solve this problem, that is to say, those that have passed with almost 100% success. For all the rest, they have the means to solve this problem. And so this can only end with the return of the United States to the negotiating table. So, negotiation, there is. Well, we will talk about it again in a few moments. Keep that energy. We will indeed head to the United States in a few moments to...

to speak. I would now like us to analyze another signal together. We come to this Russian behemoth, it would be the largest warship in world history, perhaps even in the universe. No, but it's true that we heard some rather strong expressions about this ship, which remained in dry dock for years. It is the Admiral who will tell us everything, and I think with the necessary discretion. Thank you for accompanying me, Admiral. Present this giant of the seas to us. They say it is the most armed ship in the world, which therefore emerged from Russian dry docks after 30 years under construction. Yes, it is a lightning-propelled ship, a little shorter than the Charles de Gaulle. I like to give references to things we know, which is, like all Russian and Soviet surface ships, super-armed but not very capable of resisting combat damage. This is the characteristic difference between Alliance ships and Russian ships. Russian and Soviet ships are over-armed but do not resist damage, and we saw this with the Moskva; they do not resist combat damage. NATO ships, Western ships, are ready to take hits and continue fighting. So, it is of course alone. It is a target because it is a bit obsolete in terms of radar signature and many other things. It does not have the combat systems that the latest American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have, in particular, but it represents a threat. If it is alone, of course, like all high-value assets, if it is alone, it is perfectly destructible. By what? By submarines. The first threat to a ship is a submarine. I recall that below the waterline, it is called the hull. So if you hit it with a torpedo, it sinks. Above the waterline is called the superstructure. If you hit it, it catches fire, it causes deaths. But it can last; there were 4,500 Japanese kamikaze attacks against American aircraft carriers. The two that were sunk were sunk by torpedoes. So, from above, there is no risk, except for Russian ships, because it is an arsenal that is not capable of resisting combat damage. So, this is the first characteristic of Russian ships. Now, it has a phenomenal missile arsenal. A phenomenal missile arsenal. Yes. Yes. That surrounds this ship. It, it, yes, yes, this ship precisely. Well, to give you an order of magnitude, it has twice as many vertical launch silos for defense missiles and attack missiles as the Americans, for example. That's 80 to 90. Except that American ships are equipped with SM3s. Here, I'm returning a bit to what Alain Bauer said. The SM3s, which are capable of intercepting Zircon-type missiles with advanced warning, and so on. But that's a little bit of what this ship represents. Alone, alone, it is a prime target. That's it. And any, well, it shouldn't be alone. But the second thing is that the Russian surface navy, like the Soviet navy, does not sail and does not sail in groups. They remain at anchor for a long time; they don't have very good submarines, very good planes, but the surface navy does not sail, and we saw that in the Black Sea. So they are poorly trained and poorly trained to work together. It should be specified that this is not a new ship. It's even an ancestor from the Soviet era that is coming out of the dry docks today. Yes, that's it. Yes. Uh-huh. A design from the end of the Cold War, one might say nuclear because it seemed to be a determining factor for mobility, but mobility has never been strategic for the Russians, and over-armed because it was the doctrine in the Soviet navy and therefore in the Russian navy to have over-armed vessels. And so we see 4.6 billion to refit it. But here we have to speak in purchasing power parity, so that means nothing. Oh? Well, no, no, but I mean, we're doing our best, but I understand what you mean. It is really presented as this behemoth, the invincible. After all, it still has weaknesses, once again. The weakness is that it's a ship, it has no stealth in itself, with, you see, metallic superstructures that are shaped like a formidable radar reflector from very far away with AWACS and so on, and that, I mean, it has a weakness if it's hit, it's a bit like the Moskva, you know, it was hit by not much and it sank in a few moments, and that's not normal, a ship shouldn't sink if it's hit from above, and that's one of the major weaknesses, the Moskva, exactly. Thank you very much for allowing the presentation of this behemoth ship, the most important, the strongest, the most incredible in history, we are told. More seriously, why is it being brought out now? Why exhibit it? What is the message? We have one. It's there. It's an old relic, and it's a Kirov-class vessel, or is it the Kirov M83, I think? Yes. It's useless. It won't float in the Black Sea. It's as much at risk from submarines as from underwater drones. I recall that almost the entire Russian fleet has been hit by the first, the first underwater drones were jet skis with door contactors from Semtex and a Starlink contact. They sent 40 of them. They cost between 6,000 and 10,000 euros each, and they sank, including the flagship, the flagship of the fleet in. Yes. So, well. Besides, it was called the Kalinin before being called the Admiral, I don't know what. So, anyway, it's not, it's just for show, and I think it will remain at anchor for a very long time, that they will take it out regularly, and that it risks above all being sunk or having a major breakdown as soon as it wants to show its nose. As for firing missiles from the ship depending on its position, I don't really know where it should be placed in the Black Sea. But in the Black Sea, which is the place where there is almost no one left. I would like us to rewatch the images of the Moskva, since we are talking about it again and again. Let's dwell on this memory, a bad memory for the Russians, since this flagship of the Russian fleet sank in the Black Sea in April 2022. An ideal target. Indeed, the same fate awaits it. Besides, the Ukrainians are showing their strength these days. But it's also a communication war, what's happening here. Indeed, these images had traumatized, the ones you're showing, from April 14, 2022, had really traumatized the Russians. That is to say, it was the invincible navy, at least from the Russian point of view, and then their flagship sank due to, indeed, rather rudimentary tools used by the Ukrainians, who demonstrated, it was the beginning of Ukrainian demonstrations, real demonstrations, I mean, of their capabilities, their ingenuity to counter Russian power. What they are doing today with this new ship is responding to that. That is to say, I think there is also a message intended for Russia. The Ukrainians do not expect to see this ship sailing in front of the port of Odessa. Unfortunately for them, because they would be delighted to sink it. On the other hand, it is important for all the images you showed earlier of Russian propagandists who will say, "But you see, everything is going very well, Madame the Marquise. We are building exceptional ships, the biggest in the world. We are the biggest army in the world." This is the, how to say, the parallel world in which Putin lives, which you mentioned earlier, that continues, and it is a demonstration of force that will be useless against Ukraine. So, indeed, perhaps we should put this into perspective with all the communication postcards sent by Putin in recent hours. We saw the emergency meeting convened in Kaliningrad. There are the strikes from this night which are deadly but which are also and above all certainly there to send a message. To re-shape the image of a Putin on his knees, as we have said a lot in recent days, or on the contrary, will this not hide, will this not be the tree that hides the misery of the Russian situation? I'll give another example. We saw, for example, a Russian Orion drone that was targeted. The Russians shot at themselves, at a drone, an Orion, and we saw this drone explode in flight. Will this not be enough to hide Russian misery? I have another interpretation of what is happening because we see the Admiral Nakhimov reappearing. We saw the closure of certain Russian borders towards certain Baltic states and Finland in recent days. Yesterday, the big meeting on Kaliningrad. You should know something, and here I will talk to you about Kaliningrad because it is linked to what is happening with the Admiral Nakhimov and it is also linked to this demonstration of Russian strength. Kaliningrad is therefore this Russian exclave which is north of Poland and west of Lithuania, which today houses a large part of the arsenal, a large part of the Russian nuclear arsenal, in any case, which could reach Europe. There are also nuclear submarines and nuclear ships. Kaliningrad today is more or less cut off in terms of its supply of food, military equipment, and metallurgy. And how is that linked, in your opinion, to this Nakhimov? Well, in Kaliningrad, for a very long time, all the rail transport that went to Kaliningrad passed through Belarus and Lithuania. This route is not cut off today, but it is greatly reduced. Kaliningrad today depends almost entirely on maritime supply. What is happening? Putin, by closing his borders, is telling his people that Kaliningrad will soon be besieged. Be careful, Kaliningrad is also important because a great fear of NATO countries is that Kaliningrad will be used for what is called A2, area denial, zone of interdiction. That is to say, in the event of a potential conflict, NATO will have to send reinforcements to the Baltic states, and Kaliningrad could prevent these reinforcements from arriving. There are many signals that Putin wants us to believe that he is preparing something in the Baltic Sea. And the Nakhimov ship, which is today in the north, which is really close to the United Kingdom and much more to Northern Europe, could go to the Baltic Sea much more easily than to the Black Sea. So there are signals here, which are not necessarily just communication. We don't know, we don't know with Putin, but many things are happening at the same time, things are closing, and especially at sea. Indeed, the feeling we had while preparing this broadcast is that many things were happening at sea. Because in recent days, we have seen several signals. We have seen Putin reinforce his ghost fleet. We have seen that he can arm some of his ships. We have seen some images from, in fact, Info Times, which showed us these images of cannons spotted on the bridge of one of the main Russian LNG carriers. There is also the story of a Greenpeace ship in recent hours that was forced to turn back under pressure from the Russians. So, as I told you, it's not just the ghost fleet. So, other ships have been armed. An LNG carrier, in particular, one of these ships that supplies the Kaliningrad exclave with gas. Do you agree? Something is happening at sea concerning Russia? Well, something is happening at sea because we are increasingly boarding phantom fleet oil tankers. That is to say, after much talk, action has begun, particularly by the French and the British. This leads to blowback, first of all, demonstrations of force around the British coast with a kind of difficulty for what remains of the British navy to intervene, and then the fact of increasing tariffs. That is to say, it is still quite easy to board a vessel by sending a patrol boat or special forces teams rappelling from a helicopter. It's not the same thing to receive a burst of bullets and to know whether or not to respond. And so it's always the same thing: escalation for de-escalation. You board vessels. Okay, but for now, you were the ones with the force of arms. Next time, it's we'll tell you we're going to shoot. And so the question that will arise in the general staff and among political leaders is: will we go as far as an armed confrontation to storm a phantom fleet oil tanker or to deny access to a Russian ship under sanctions or a fake Russian ship under sanctions flying the flag of Trinidad and Tobago? And the question is always the same. That is to say, the Russians are raising the stakes and saying, "Bring it on." They don't want confrontation. They tell you that you don't want confrontation, and that is generally quite true. Admiral, do you agree with the tension at sea, and especially with the tension at sea around Kaliningrad? I just want to say that against maritime terrorism, it's boats used by terrorists and many things, and Western powers have trained. Yes. Not to rappel down peacefully, but in a slightly tougher way, but we will go, we can go towards what you are saying, with losses on both sides, of course. Well, Kaliningrad, you know that in naval strategy, the straits, the Baltic Sea, and the Bosphorus are the nostrils of the Soviet bear, preventing it from getting out. And so the Baltic Sea, with the accession of Sweden and Finland, has become an internal sea, and it is increasingly difficult for the Russians to enter or leave the Baltic and do what they want in the Baltic. And here, the Swedes are particularly attentive; they have a very respectable army. So, Kaliningrad, I don't know the subject well enough to know its strategic interest. The Soviet strategic missile submarines are in the north, in Monchegorsk, they are in the open sea. They are not at the bottom, they are not at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. So, what will happen, so there are submarines, there are... No, but the idea of Kaliningrad is to give the impression to the Russians that Kaliningrad is being... If you allow me, just 30 seconds. Sky News, the British channel, has published a report from a British think tank according to which the entire phantom fleet would be responsible for the attacks. So, precisely, you are making a perfect transition because that is exactly what we are going to talk about now. But then, thank you, Samantha. Russia has apparently used ghost ships to launch drones over Europe, not only to disrupt civilian air traffic and monitor military activities, but also to fly over nuclear sites across the old continent. This is according to a new report from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. For nearly 18 months, drones supposedly linked to Russia have flown over and spied on nuclear sites in the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and, for example, and we talked about it on this show, the base of Kleine Brogel in Limburg, or the one at Île Longue in France, in Brittany. What level of concern should this imply for us? Because these incursions, according to the think tank, constitute, and I quote, a strategic failure for Europe, as they highlight our air defense incapacity in the face of such a threat. Our air defense incapacity, the refusal to accept the problem of drones, the total blindness to the complete upheaval that drones cause in terms of warfare mechanisms. As always, technology revolutionizes war, and some of those who govern us believe that we must always be ready for the war before, and have the greatest difficulty preparing for the war after. And indeed, to this day, four years after the start of the war in Ukraine, while Ukraine is the model of transformation, miniaturization, missileization, droneization, and even robotization now, we are still asking ourselves how we are going to catch up. Even though we have some of the best startups in the world who are still waiting for an order from the DGA to arrive after 8 tests, 42 stamps, and several committees of reflection on whether this is indeed the subject. So, well, nothing has changed, nothing has changed since Captain de Gaulle's armored vehicle, on the fact that armored vehicles might be useful, and that perhaps the red trousers for fighting in the trenches was not a good idea. We have hardly progressed, and despite the strong reminders from the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, General de Villiers, punished for telling the truth, or General Burkhard recently, and probably also his successors. There is a major issue: we have missed, completely missed, the droneization. Missed it entirely, not missed in terms of thought or conception or research and development, missed in terms of militarization. Alain Bauer, they are spying on us, so they are spying on our nuclear sites via drones. What type of information? They don't need that much. They spy on us a lot. What type of information can they, or have they even retrieved? It's not a problem of information, it's a demonstration of their power and our powerlessness. Yes, but we have this curiosity. I asked you, of course, my first question was about the demonstration of our powerlessness, but we still want, as novices, to know if they were able to retrieve information about us. Do you think they managed to obtain material, I mean, information about our information that they retrieve through cyber methods of intrusion into our computer systems. There are hundreds, even thousands, every day. Unfortunately, we are not much better armed on this subject. Now, this is more a problem of thinking about the theme that we are vulnerable and that the password with the name of the cat and your birth date is not a good idea, that changing it regularly would be better, that having double verification systems is even better. Almost all of our public data systems have been hacked in the past year, not in 2016, not in 2006, not in 1996, in 2026. This shows how long our immense bureaucratic apparatus takes to update itself on reality, and I think we will have a few more of these. So I don't think it's really the data capture that is the important element. So, is this a failed test? A test for NATO, and is it rather well played on Russia's part since I still read in this report that these Russian maneuvers were indeed aimed at staying below the threshold likely to trigger discussions. This ability to always flirt with our limits and perhaps to exceed them. That is to say, we have seen, and many have talked about it often here, attacks, drone overflights, on typical locations like airports, which have caused fear, and legitimately so, but which have undoubtedly masked the reality, which was that there was much more surveillance than disruption of air traffic. Remember, airports closed for a few hours because of drone overflights, including, we learned later, drones that had taken off from ghost ships, from the Russian ghost fleet passing off the coast. Is this a failure? Yes, probably. That's what Alain Bauer explained. Now, what we need to succeed in knowing is what they know, and that's what intelligence services, counter-terrorism, and counter-espionage, excuse me, are trying to find out. Île Longue was overflown, as we see in the image, so the French nuclear ballistic missile submarine base in Finistère. It has been overflown several times. Now, if it's just an overflight of the submarines in the dock, images exist. If there's anything else, it's more problematic. Admiral, I would say that paradoxically, these drone overflights have helped advance legislation because the problem we have in France is that military sites with large military areas, defenses at the entrance, etc., impress no one because any thug can enter. We know we're not going to shoot them. We are not in Russia or China. So, after the drone overflights, we have adapted the legislation, which means that our guards, the marine fusiliers who are there, since it's a naval base, can shoot down, destroy drones, which was not the case before. Before, we were content to jam, to scare them, to try to make them fall. And here, there is an evolution. But this evolution, I will draw a parallel that may not be very intelligent, but it's the fight against delinquency. As long as it's petty crime, we don't know how to fight it. And if we consider it to be major crime, we have the legal means to fight it. Well, as for cyber, there has been a cyber command at the Joint Staff for over 16 years, but I agree with you that it lacks resources. The machine, the machine is not keeping up. Go ahead, Samantha and Xavier. In fact, they have collected information. They have collected the information that it is possible to approach these installations. From an intelligence perspective, that's already huge. They also saw that, yes, we react, but we react afterwards. And that's always the problem with Russian provocations: the Russians provoke. There is a reaction, but it's always afterwards. And that's information that has some value. Another piece of information is that normally, around these sites, as around nuclear power plants in France, there are jamming systems, and civilian drones cannot fly over them. So they are also looking at what are the electronic jamming systems around these sites. Even if they only stay for 5 minutes above, they won't be able to monitor the personnel or even have a glimpse of what's inside. But it's also our reaction that is important information to exploit. And then I give the floor to Alain. For decades, the Admiral knows this well, there have been Russian, Chinese, or other tourists wandering, by chance, at the tip of Spain, south of the Goulet de Brest, at the time when submarines are leaving. Why? To know at what time it left, where it will disappear into the Atlantic, because then it's easier to estimate the destinations it could take. Drones can be used for that. On the other hand, when the submarine is in its dock, in its hangar, in fact, it's a submarine base. The submarine enters it, but above it there is a flat surface, there is a ceiling, there is the top of the hangar, the drones can no longer see anything. So the danger is relatively limited. On the other hand, I agree with Alain, we have a phenomenal delay. This should not happen. These bases should be permanently jammed on the most common frequencies, at least, because there can also be amateurs who have fun seeing if they can fly over Île Longue or not. But it's a demonstration. Whatever the reasons for these drones being there, whatever they are, our lack of reaction is a demonstration of weakness that reinforces the ability of the Russians to try something else even more strongly. And when I say Russians and others too, because in this regard, the miniaturization of drones now leads us to find drones that are so small that they themselves could be inside specialized drones like mosquitoes that could enter the hangar. We have not yet decided to defend ourselves. We have not decided. We have put a block at the Pantheon, we have listened to nothing, we have read nothing of what he left us as a legacy. So, the incredible defeat is what we are experiencing again and again, as if we never learn anything. And in this regard, we have a model, a model called Ukraine. It is also our ally, and so rather than asking ourselves if it costs a lot to help the Ukrainians, we would do better to import Ukrainians to completely modernize our anti-aircraft and anti-drone defense, because they are ahead, and we are behind. Let's take advantage of it. In view of everything we've said since the beginning of this broadcast, you mentioned Donald Trump. For you, is Donald Trump choosing his side, and would it be the Ukrainian side? Is the tide turning? You who know the United States perfectly? No, Donald Trump has a side, which is Donald Trump's side. So this question doesn't arise, because whatever the subject, it's Donald Trump's side, which by nature obviously becomes that of the United States, even if it's not always obvious. No, Donald Trump likes winners, and he now considers Zelensky to be a winner and Putin to be a loser, which is rather good news for the Ukrainians, but after that, there are no more patriots than that. The missile you mentioned, because I had a problem, in fact, it's just a demonstration, it's not yet effective, it's on the Zumwalt, the new ship which itself is 12 years behind schedule for the United States. And the SM, I think it's the 6, but the 3 is the 6 that would be more suitable against the Zircon, possibly. It's the 6 that is announced as being suitable, and unfortunately, it's only in the testing phase. You are right, it will exist, but we see how extraordinarily behind we are on what Donald Trump will try to do the same thing as in Anchorage, saying, well, now the time may have come, I am a peacemaker, you will see, we will get out of the sequence of 150 years and other occupations. You know that he has a program today composed of absolutely nothing on his agenda. So, we might see him on television, or he might send us some tweets. But in fact, he is in something else in his mind for now. That is to say, to liquidate all the opponents within the Republican party, because there are the primaries, and they are all being liquidated. All of them. Then to see how he will try not to lose too much in the midterm elections, by changing the electoral mode, by deciding that the post office will no longer be able to collect ballots if it does not have an up-to-date electoral list, which amounts to circumventing current legislation. In short, there are many maneuvers underway to avoid that. But Donald Trump today has not decided to abandon Putin, he has not decided to support Zelensky. He is counting the points, and at some point, he will try to see what is most profitable for him, that is to say, to make an offer to Vladimir Putin again, saying, "You see, the Anchorage one wasn't so bad, maybe you can take this one, which will take back." It's like the offers with Iran, there are 18 versions, but it's always the same, the 14 points of the first meeting that failed. And so we will find the Anchorage offer slightly revisited, with a Zelensky who is more assured than before, and a Putin who is more weakened than before. But we will still be there, and we will still be on this small piece of Donbas that will have to be found, for which a solution will have to be found. Donald Trump, who is also very busy enriching himself, some might say, given this information. Brace yourselves, in 2 years, the American president's fortune has almost tripled between real estate, golf courses worth millions of dollars, and especially investments in cryptocurrency. We're talking about billions, I didn't specify billions. Where does it come from? Is it legal? All the questions it raises. First, we start with Lucas Manger by explaining everything our viewers need to know. So, first question, Lucas. Never has a US president become as rich as Trump since he returned to the White House. Where do these colossal revenues come from? Well, first, you should know that he is legally obliged to disclose his assets and income. And so, indeed, as you said, Amélie, it's a 900-page document from the Office of Government Ethics that allowed us to know exactly where it came from and how, especially, Trump multiplied his money from 2.3 to 7.6 billion dollars, according to Forbes. So, it's a historically constituted fortune, we know that, he's a real estate mogul, real estate, golf courses that have brought him enormous amounts of money in the past and still today. What has made him the most money is cryptocurrencies, 1.4 billion dollars. He founded his own company, you remember, World Liberty Financial, with his family and the Woff family. He then created his own currency, the WLFI, sales of which brought him 520 million dollars last year. His properties, well, here we see the most famous property, it's Mar-a-Lago, we see it regularly since he spends all his weekends there. But there are also vineyards in Virginia. We might see some, well, Donald Trump wine, vineyards in Virginia, and of course golf courses that he has all over the world, but notably golf courses in Florida. But there are also, and this is more recent, what we call goodies in the United States, but I mean, derivative products, thank you, derivative products with watches, look at the beautiful Trump watches, stickers, perfumes, we'll discuss that later. And even Donald Trump Bibles, Donald Trump Bibles. Question: are all these gains perfectly legal? The White House assures absolutely. There is no problem. The spokesperson specifies that neither the president nor his family have ever been in a conflict of interest situation. There are still some troubling elements, and I think the case is not over in the United States. The Genius Act, it's a law that regulates the cryptocurrency sector, which he had passed himself last summer, and which greatly benefits his affairs. And then there are things that can be a bit more shocking from an international point of view. He obtained that the G20 in December next in the United States will be held in one of his golf hotels. It will be in this one, Doral, near Miami, and it will bring him 122 million dollars. Another argument from the White House: anyway, Trump doesn't touch any money. All his assets are held in a trust managed by one of his confidants, Donald Trump Jr. Thank you very much, Lucas. We're heading to Washington to meet you. Hélène Bonet, thank you very much for being with us live. Do these revelations have the effect of a small bomb in the United States? Image. But what we notice is that there are two types of reactions, Amélie. So, there is of course the reaction from the Democratic media, which have extensively written and commented on these revelations since yesterday. So, what is regrettable is not so much that the president is becoming rich, but that he is becoming rich by using the presidency. That's what the Wall Street Journal says, which is not necessarily the most left-wing newspaper here in the United States. They say it's a demonstration of using the presidency for family profit, and that alone poses a problem. Indeed, yesterday, when Donald Trump was trying to explain himself on the subject, in the background, there was an interview with two of his sons who were present. They are very involved in his affairs and accompany him constantly on his travels. And that's what was pointed out, this assumed aspect, while Americans are struggling to...

to pay their their health or then their their fuel at the moment because of the war in Iran. And then you have reactions that defend Donald Trump from the more conservative side where they praise the successful businessman and they explain, particularly from the White House, that this is one of the reasons why Donald Trump was elected. So, this defense has been put in place, and I was speaking with some of his supporters a few days ago here in Washington, and what is quite striking is to see that on all issues, whether it's personal enrichment, the economy, or Iran, well, somewhere they let him get away with everything, even if everything is not perfect. So, we really see a country that is extremely polarized on this subject as well. Thank you very much Hélène Bonet, thank you for being live with us from Washington. I believe you have to return to the White House. So, we will let you go. Indeed, you have work to do. Uh, this enrichment, to what extent should it make us question? To what extent does it impact you, Samantine Ben? Ah, I find it obsessive, but well, it's a very personal point of view. Just a few interesting figures. Donald Trump's income in 2024, before he became president, was a modest $622 million. In 2025, after he became president, $2.2 billion in income. Someone who is supposed to be taking care of something other than making money. The conflict of interest for me is absolutely enormous. He says, "Ah, but I've made a lot of money on the stock market," but Donald Trump is the person in the world whose slightest word, whose slightest tweet can make the stock market move dramatically. So, and you only have to look at all the questions that arise about large purchases, for example, or sales of oil just before, just before certain strikes in Iran, on the fact that, for example, he has made a lot of money through cryptocurrencies that he has, he has, he has passed laws to allow the use of certain cryptos like SafeCoin, of which he has a lot, of which he has a lot. He pardoned the director of Binance, which is a large crypto company, who was in prison for fraud, who was able to get out of prison and who participates, who is an investor in one of Donald Trump's crypto companies, not to mention the businesses abroad in Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi, which invested in his World Liberty Fund, which is also another crypto company, it's the businesses with his son and the Witkoff sons in Abu Dhabi, if you like. The list is so long that we could stay here until midnight. Last thing, Trump also passed a law that means that for him, for the rest of his life, for him and his family, he will have no fiscal control. If you don't find that absolutely scandalous, well, I don't know what will surprise you. I will ask the question in a somewhat provocative way, but for you Lucas Mangcher, is that why he is president, that he wanted to be president, especially for business, the billions, and all that it allows him to earn elsewhere? He has always confused everything. I mean, he has confused power and money. I don't know what's in Trump's head at all. What is certain, well, Samantha has just demonstrated it, is the astonishing and unique enrichment in American history. I mean, no American president has enriched himself in this way. And in the Western world, generally, presidents tend to become poorer when they are rich beforehand because they don't have the same income. There is something of the form of shock, indeed, but he mixes everything. Look at the recent images of his first flight with the plane that was offered by Qatar. Just the fact that Qatar offers a plane that he considers almost his own plane, while it is Air Force One, the plane of the American presidency, there is a complete confusion between where this story of it's a simple detail when he goes to Mar-a-Lago on the weekend, the Secret Service, which is the service responsible for the protection of the American president, is lodged obligatorily where the president is, and so the president makes the Secret Service pay for the rooms. So the American state pays for rooms, thus enriching itself every weekend. Every weekend, by doing nothing more than going to play golf at Mar-a-Lago, he enriches his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. And to what extent does he profit financially from geopolitics, that is to say, dealing with the Near and Middle East, Russia, etc.? Does it bring him anything from the Near East? Certainly, from Russia, for now, there is no certainty, but from the Near East, it is certain that the Abraham Accords, which he pushed enormously, which are peace agreements between Israel, for now, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Bahrain, from memory, that Saudi Arabia has not yet signed, favor business in this region and therefore investments from the Trump and Witkoff families, so indirectly, well, not indirectly, directly, it brings him profit indeed. Donald Trump has reacted, and of course, he defends himself. Look. Well, I made a lot of money before becoming president. They invest my funds, and I don't talk to them. I never even speak to them. Do you know why I make profits? Because the stock market is rising, everyone wins. Do you have a retirement savings plan? How did yours perform? It may have climbed 85%. No. Thank you, President Trump. So we all benefit. I benefit because I have a lot of money and liquidity. Everyone wins. He wins particularly because he is going to become a multi-billionaire, whereas his fortune was not that considerable. In fact, morally, it is totally unacceptable. Legally, we will see, because there are laws in the United States. There are institutions that can ultimately prosecute him, perhaps when he is no longer president. At the moment, it is difficult, even if we see if impeachment is possible after the midterms, it will be extremely difficult. But it is totally abject. The plane is $400 million, and $400 million also from the American taxpayer to restore it and bring it up to safety standards worthy of a President of the United States of America, and in the end, the plane will be transferred to his foundation in the form of a library. By the way, the library, so it won't even be used by the next president. No, it won't be used. Otherwise, there are two new planes on order, but he can continue to use it. So, indeed, he thinks it's his plane because virtually it's his plane, and the pressure he puts on golf countries, in particular, to generate profits, the manipulation of oil prices, but not only that. All of this is totally delusional. Uh, can all of this have an impact on public opinion in the United States? He is seen as far removed from sharing the daily problems of Americans who are struggling due to inflation, particularly because of his war against Iran. It can, it can play a role in the upcoming midterms, but at the same time, you know, there is this, there is also a fascination in the United States for successful entrepreneurs, and that's precisely when you hear him speak yesterday on the tarmac saying, well, yes, listen, I have a lot of cash, it brings me a lot, he has great pride in being rich. Do you have a retirement plan? Does it also bring you returns? Yes, in the world. What is certain is that in the MAGA world, as they say, so his traditional and firm supporter base, on the contrary, it strengthens him. For poor Americans, indeed, there is something absolutely indecent. Now, we will have to wait for the midterms in November to see if it really plays a role in electoral terms. You asked a very interesting question: did he enrich himself through the talks between Russia and Ukraine? Did he want to enrich himself, and was that his main motivation? Remember all the so-called negotiation meetings that took place, whether in Istanbul, whether in Abu Dhabi, whether even in Ancorch, each time Putin was accompanied by Kirill Dmitriev, who is the head of the Russian investment fund. Each time Steve Witkoff was in front of him, and each time Trump said, "We have discussed all the business deals we will be able to do once this war is over, and also with the Iranians." So, so, everything that motivates him is money. I don't think he was president just to make money. I think he wanted to be president because he also has an absolutely outsized ego, and what could be more satisfying for his ego, or for anyone's ego for that matter, than to be President of the United States. And moreover, it's a golden opportunity to make a lot of money. H, I was reading Mario Von Ruttergame, whom you know well on this channel, who wrote, "Populism pays through corruption." Can we talk about corruption? Does populism pay through corruption? Pardon? Yes. Investigations that will probably take place now, will Trump, effectively, due to his kind of permanent immunity, go all the way? But on the issues of stock prices and the possibility of manipulating stock prices with regular announcements, particularly during the war with Iran, there are investigations underway, but they will take a very long time. If it is corruption, it will be demonstrated by the justice system. But, you know, Trump said something that was striking, he said, "You know, I can murder someone on Fifth Avenue, and nobody will stop me." So, and from that point of view, in fact, all the impeachment attempts, well, the impeachment attempts, he won all his trials. He has a kind of invincibility that may not last. He was convicted of sexual assault, though. But convicted of sexual assault. No, but I was talking about finance, but thank you, Lucas Mangcher. Thank you. Thank you very much, Amiral, for being with us. Thank you, Xavier de Jacomony. Thank you very much, Samanthane Bender. Thank you again to Alar Bower, who was with us during this show. Thank you very much for watching us.