Rome, Italy - January 09, 2025 As for peace conditions, I have already said that Trump could be a person capable of moving in this direction, i.e. finding a solution. I think so, but that does not mean, in my opinion, abandoning Ukraine, and Trump has already clearly stated this. He has said that precisely because we want peace, we will not abandon Ukraine. Otherwise, frankly, it would be a mistake in my view, considering how far we've come. 2.- Frankly, I do not foresee it. I do not interpret a disengagement on the part of Trump, nor do I read that in the statements made by the former president of the United States. And here, the reality seems a bit different from what has been reported. Donald Trump, on several occasions, has spoken of 'Peace through strength'. This should remind you of something, in the sense that during these two years I have always argued, to those who said that the Western strategy was a failure and that Ukraine should not be supported, that the only way to put pressure especially on Russia to sit down at a negotiating table was to create a situation of difficulty for it. 3.- As for this, let's see how things really stand. The war in Ukraine was supposed to last three days, but on February 24 it will be three years. It will be the longest three days on record in Russian history. In December 2022, Russia controlled 17.4% of Ukrainian territory. After two years and with extremely significant losses, Russia controls 18% of Ukrainian territory. An increase of only 0.6%. 4.- We all know that Russia, in the past, has violated the agreements it had signed. Therefore, unfortunately, without security guarantees, we cannot have any certainty. 5.- On this subject, let us say, Greenland and Panama... I do not believe that, in the coming years, the United States will try to annex by force territories that are of interest to it, unlike what I sometimes hear in certain analyses of Donald Trump. We have already seen Donald Trump as president of the United States, so we are dealing with a person who, reasonably, when he does something, he does it for a reason. So, let's ask ourselves what that reason is. I think that Trump's statements are more of a message directed at certain big global players, rather than a hostile vindication of those countries. The Panama Canal, built in the early 20th century by the United States, is fundamental to world trade and is obviously fundamental to U.S. strategic interests. However, we have not seen in recent years attempts by the United States to take over the canal by force. This is relevant to understand the context of Trump's statements. It is not an announcement of aggressive intentions, but rather a communicative strategy aimed at marking a position vis-à-vis other important players on the global stage. 6.- The situation of Greenland, it should be noted that it is a particularly strategic territory, close to the North Pole and rich in essential raw materials. Both territories -Greenland and the Panama Canal- have been the object of growing interest on the part of China in recent years. In the case of Canada, a similar reasoning could be put forward. In essence, however, my idea is that these statements are part of what we might call the indirect debate between great powers. That is, a forceful way of warning that the United States will not stand idly by in the face of the possibility of other major global players moving into areas of strategic interest to the United States, and I add, to the West in general. That is how I interpret it for now. Having said that, I will obviously check with my European counterparts in the coming hours, but, in my opinion, this is the main issue. [Restrictions: Spain, Latin America, or the U.S. Hispanic market]