You're welcome back to the breakfast on PLOS TV Africa. Here's our first big conversation for today. First bank of Nigeria and its holding company, FBN Holdings, have new boards appointed by the central bank of Nigeria. This follows the sacking of the previous boards of both institutions by the apex bank. The boards were fired on live television for alleged insider abuse, insider credit, and poor corporate governance. A writer with online medium tech cabal, or Lumu Yua, or Loa Boyega is here to help us understand what led to this and what it means for first bank and the banking industry as a whole. Good morning and thanks for joining us again. Hi, good morning. It's great to be here. All right, so Nigerians were shocked seeing the new CBN Saks Board of Directors at FBN Holdings, first bank restates Dr. Shola Adid Dutton. What do you think might have led to this? You know, I'm talking about deeper beyond what we see in the news. So this has felt like it's been a long time coming. First bank is one of the banks that is deemed too big to fail in Nigeria, which means that central bank, which is the regulator, puts an eye on them a lot. So central bank, first bank rather, had been having some issues since about 2016. There were some issues of non-performing loans, a really high ratio of non-performing loans that was above an acceptable percent of 5 percent. I believe at one time, their non-performing loan ratio was up to around 14 percent. And in fact, they even wrote off loans of up to $827 billion as a matter of fact. So that was the beginning of some of the problems. So at the time, CBN stepped in because they had some capitalization problems. So the CBN stepped in and announced a new board. And one of the things for the new board was they were supposed to help drive down the non-performing loan ratio and stabilize the bank. To some extent, the new board was able to do that to some extent. But there were still bigger issues, such as some insider lending and the terms of some insider lending. So that's sort of how we have found ourselves here. Okay. I want you to, for the benefit of millennials and maybe people who don't understand, I want us to break down these terms, insider abuse, insider trading, breakdown of corporate governance. So we can all be on the same page. All right. So insider lending is basically when a bank extends a loan to directors or potential officials within the bank, it's perfectly legal. The only thing around insider lending is that it must have the same terms as if, for instance, if you wanted to get a loan in the bank. So it must not come across as pressure. There must be no incentives, basically. So that's basically what insider lending is. So some of the most important things around this particular first bank's case is that the CBN said there was a high rate of insider lending for one. And for one of the insider lending credit facilities, for instance, there were really big irregularities, for instance. One of those irregularities was that the bank hadn't sort of perfected the collateral. It used to issue that loan. So that was a big issue. And that issue was something that CBN had written to first bank about on several locations, according to a memo from the first bank that we saw yesterday. All right. Olumu, you are another thing most Nigerians are a bit confused about is the issue of the central bank of Nigeria. Some would say that what is the business with the CBN and of course the appointment of board of directors and of course corporate governance in any particular bank. I know the CBN steps in when they have issues of problems in the money market in Nigeria, but specifically for understandable purpose, does the central bank of Nigeria have all the powers to appoint or remove a board of directors of any bank? The short answer is that, yes, the CBN has those powers. The thing is, so I think it's important to state that the first bank's management is why we did its rights, for instance, to remove an MD or a CO. However, that removal must be done with respect to existing regulation. What the CBN said yesterday was that it was not notified of the change of Dr. Shola Adedutun. And most importantly, that Dr. Shola Adedutun's tenure hadn't expired. So the CBN's concern was that that removal not send the wrong message to investors and onlookers, for instance. So yes, the CBN had the power to step in and change the board. But then again, you talked about sending wrong signals to investors and of course customers because a lot of Nigerians are reacting that CBN is taking over the first bank of Nigeria and of course it's holding company. Does it really tell on its customer right now because most people are thinking of maybe doing a run on the bank? No, there's no real reason to fear. One of the first things I said was, first bank is one of the banks that the CBN did too big to fail. So nothing is going to happen. Shareholder, customized deposits are safe. There's no real reason to fear. This is basically just trying to correct long running errors in corporate governance because like I said, these are some long running issues from 2016. This is corrective although leads, but it's corrective and there's no real reason for any customer to have any real faith. And within that four years, the CBN has used Adedutun basically to check the issues of insider trading and all that in the bank. Do we expect to see him continue in that role? So Dr. Sharela Adedutun was reinstated yesterday. It's very unclear. I cannot speak to his views on insider lending or how the CBN looked at his role to sort of get insider lending under control. Those would come to conjecture. But I mean, all in all, the most important thing for first bank is to keep driving down their non-performing loan ratio and to come to a point of stronger corporate governance. So yeah, that's basically what they have in mind. Okay. Also, we saw a story here on the newspapers that the CBN said they took this decision to protect customers and shareholders. So looking at the bigger picture, how would this protect customers and shareholders? So at the end of the day, so most some of these monies are, I mean, it's the business of banking. You take money from everybody. You make some loans and you end some interest on that. So at the end of the day, anything that makes for stronger corporate governance, anything that makes for proper risk assessment, anything that makes a bank more circumspect in its lending and its operations as a whole are good for the shareholders who have real money in there and who are part-holders of the bank as well. So the idea is that even if you don't own a majority stake, you still deserve to have money in a company that has been properly run. So at the end of the day, shareholders' interests have been protected. And for the customers, their interests are being protected because you don't want to use a bank that fails or is insolvent. So yeah, so the big picture is just to protect everybody and to prevent some of the worst outcomes really. All right, let's do talk about the inside trading issue for a bit. Just leave the first bank of Nigeria on the side for a bit and talk about the commercial banks generally. You said it is a regular thing for most bank management to be involved in insider trading and insider lending. But then again, the issue of corporate governance is the main talk right now. How do we begin to ensure that banks actually follow a regulatory framework of the central bank and of course so that at the end of the day will not have issues of the NDIC stepping in to take over banks? So basically, the thing is corporate governance has standards. Again, like I said, all these things have rules that guide them. Insider lending, as I said, it's not a crime, it's not legal at all. As always, the most important thing is to still follow the existing regulations, right? That's why I also had an issue about removing an MD a few years ago, I believe it was a longer. So it's just to prevent issues like this from arising. If MDs or CEOs want to be changed, then it must be done properly. The CBN must be notified. If insider lending is done to principal officials, then it must also follow the same rules. The same interest rates must apply. There must be no incentives. So basically, that's it. Because when you have strong corporate governance, increase the chances that the company will survive and do well. You know, people do not cut corners and people, the bank and officials don't make moves that will land the company in hot water. So basically, that's it. So the CBN's business is almost always just stronger corporate governance for these companies. Because stronger corporate governance will lead to better risk assessments. So right now, we've not heard from Oba or Tudeco and what his reaction to this would be like. But we've seen other analysts saying that he's likely to go to the courts to get an injunction to stop the CBN's move from falling through. Do you see that actually as a likelihood? And that's hard to speak to. So we just have to watch and see how that plays out. So that's hard to tell. But if he eventually goes to court and gets an injunction, stopping the CBN, what kind of situation will that look like regarding the customers, the stakeholders and the bank committee or the bank board? As far as I'm concerned, if they go to court, they're only going to be asking one thing and one thing only. Would you be asking if the central bank has the powers to remove the board of directors to which the answer is yes. But again, because I'm not a lawyer, there are certain legal aspects to it. I cannot speak to. But again, if they go to court, the primary question would be one, does the CBN have the powers to make this remove house? Yeah. All right. Olu Minua, let me play a bit of a devil's advocate here right now. We all know that the banking sector is a well-regulated one. And of course, our first banker is indeed one of the oldest banks in Nigeria. If they are well aware of what happens with regulation in Nigeria, why would they ordinarily not want to carry the central bank along in the proceedings? That's a difficult question to answer. Because that would be for the directors and the company. Because I think that Naira Metrics quoted someone within the bank to say that the bank was well within its right and it followed the existing rules. But at the end of the day, they did not notify the CBN. And that could have sent a wrong signal to the FX bank. Now, if ordinarily things were all 100% AOK with the first bank, it might not have triggered anything at the central bank. But the central bank did say in their press statement just today, Godwin Emefile was on TV yesterday. I was saying that there had been money trained for these banks in about 2016 when some of the big issues had started. So for them, removing an MD CEO without telling the bank just sent a wrong signal. And if first the CBN acted, there's that back story to it that is important. So what's the likelihood of this causing crisis within the bank and its management? Sorry, I have to say that again. So what's the likelihood of this whole shake-up causing a crisis within the first bank? It's unlikely that this causes a crisis. I do not think that any of the parties, that's my personal opinion. I do not think any of the parties will go to court. But that remains to be seen, of course. But I do expect that this would just be business as usual. Life goes on. And then the board and every principal officer within the bank will focus on moving the bank towards a stronger financial footing, really. Okay. So beyond what we're seeing online, you know what we're seeing on social media, what do you perceive to be the reaction of Nigerians in general and even first-bank customers to this move? As always, I think that Nigerians, we do not get a peek into corporate Nigeria very often. We do not get a peek behind the cuttings of banking and what some of the amounts are. So these things are usually really a matter of surprise. And people express, I'm shocked as to say things like, oh, I can't even get a line of credit. And people are getting billions, billions in credit. So those are typically some of the reactions. But I do not think there's any real fear amongst the customers about their deposits. I do not think that there should be real fear. It's just shock and immemorial and slight, would I say disgust is a strong word. It just feels really bizarre for a lot of people. All right. Aside from the first bank of Nigeria, its holding company was also affected. Let me just read part of what was stated by the governor yesterday. That's the CBN governor. He said, the problems at the bank were attributed to bad credit decision, significant and non-performing on the insider loans and poor corporate governance practice. The shareholders of the bank and the CBN holding PLC also lacked the capacity to recapitalize the bank's minimum requirements. These conclusions arose from various entities by the CBN to them to recapitalize. Are they having recapitalization issues? So, yeah, the CBN said as much in 2016. But I said that they're working towards it and the bank is currently on a stronger financial footing than it was in 2016. But yes, in 2016, they did have some issues with recapitalization. And the CBN has said as much more than once. Yes. Okay. So how come it was not just about the management that's the board of directors of the bank alone? Why must it also be attributed to the holding company? I would think that some of the issues with the holding company would be the fact that one of the insider loans was given to the chairman of the holding company. So probably that felt like and not only was the loan given, which is not a bad thing as I said time and time again, but it became a little contentious. So I would think that that's one of the reasons they also decided that the holding company should also have a change in leadership. All right. So going forward, right now, what are the lessons to be learned by other commercial and of course deposit money banks in Nigeria? I just think that my curiosity is is about why the CBN let this drag this long, because this feels like an issue that should have been resolved a long time ago. So yeah, but for commercial banks, the lessons are all the same. We've seen this in a few cases before now, the lessons are all the same. And it's always a lesson of some proper corporate governance. Don't do some really weird deals. So again, stronger corporate governance, do things by the books. And for me, I think would be an apex bank that doesn't wait till things get really bad before stepping in. And I asked the question earlier about what kind of a crisis this might generate. But when I was seeing that shares of first bank holders is plunging, we're seeing that there's lots of sell-offs on the stock market really. Did you actually see this come in? No, I mean, I feel like yes, the shareholders, it's not unusual for shareholders to react to big news like this. This is, I think, would say that it's fairly typical. But I do expect that in the long term, if the bank continues to improve and post better results, it will pass as well. Okay, but then again, it was also reported that they have had a significant improvement in the bank's financial condition with positive trajectory of financial sadness indicators. The insider related facilities remain problematic. But then again, if they are doing well and why should CBN still have problems with the board? So the thing is, if they're doing well and there's still some infraction, it's clear that the board hasn't been able to deal with that infraction, especially if that infraction has become a long-running issue about which the CBN has written to them time and time again. So I would think that it sends a message that the board could not exactly manage the issue and the CBN felt like it had given them enough time. So we see that the CBN has actually released the list of the new board members taking a look at them. Lots of people had sort of an emotional attachment to the previous members of the board because of the accomplishments individually as a person. But looking at this new set of people, the new board members, what do you think about them and what they have to offer really in the banking sector? I think that as always in situations like this, the remit for the new people is to solve whatever Tony problems they have on ground and again to just ensure stronger performance of the bank and ensure compliance with corporate governance rules. So yeah, really when you have situations like this, you have people who are coming in to just stabilise the ship, much like the board did to some extent in 2016. So yeah, so basically this would see some stability if all goes to plan. All right, so we'll keep tabs on the news. Let's see what plays out. Even though we've seen the directive from the CBN that it should not, the exact board members should not communicate with the public and that any communication should be directed through the bank. So we'll definitely see how this plays out if they will be taking this matter to court. The CBN has also directed the board members to ensure that they pay off all loans. So there's just a lot really unraveling with this matter. And yes, we'll keep you updated on the breakfast. So thank you very much. Yes, indeed. Oluma Iwa Olobwega is a writer with tech cabal and he joined us to look at all of the issues of the central bank of Nigeria, the FBN and of course its holding company. Many thanks once again Oluma Iwa. Thank you very much. All right, fantastic. Well done talking business. We're heading into security matters next on the breakfast. A lot talking business. Stay with us, we'll be right back.


And this episode inquires, what will it take to reverse things in Ukraine? And the implication is that things are not going well in Ukraine. How long can this war of attrition last in Ukraine? And for this discussion, we have co-host Tim Apachele. We have Gene Rosenfeld, our esteemed guest, and our another esteemed guest, Manfred Hennigson. Thank you very much for being here, all of you. So let me just say that the news most recently is that Sweden has now been officially admitted into NATO. And the question is whether that affects any of this. Is that too little too late? Or is it somehow relevant to the question of whether we can reverse things in Ukraine? Gene, what are your thoughts? Sweden is a historical rival of Russia. But Sweden in the modern world has been largely neutral. It was neutral during World War Two, along with Switzerland. Two countries in Europe that sort of stood on the sidelines and watched.  As for its importance today, I think the most important thing about it is the symbolism that a state that we have known in our lifetimes as standing aside and being neutral has deemed this so important to its own national security that it has joined NATO. What does this mean symbolically? It means that perhaps in Europe's view, and Manfred could give us a better idea of this, the threat posed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine is much, much greater than it has been for the last 80 years in terms of any other threat to the integrity of Europe. And Manfred, how does Europe feel about this? Because, and I'll ask Tim, after a while, how does the United States feel about this? But is Europe behind Ukraine? Is Europe actively supporting Ukraine? Is Europe providing weapons and perhaps soldiers to Ukraine? Is Europe as excited as it was two years ago about what's happening in Ukraine? The support of Europe, I think, is solid, unlike the support of the United States. And the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO is another sign of really the defeat of Putin's strategy. It's not only that for two years now, you have the Ukraine fighting Russia, which had this image of being really a strong military power, but the war has shown that it's not true. The weaknesses, the losses, the unbelievable failure of Russia to defeat Ukraine in two years has strengthened, I think, the support that the rest of Europe had initially given to Ukraine. And in Germany, you know, is now next to the United States, the strongest supporter militarily and financially. But you have this support in the EU as a whole. So it has strengthened the EU and it has strengthened NATO. And that, I think, contributes to the defeat of Putin's strategy. Now, the only problem that you could say we have at this point is the support that Putin indirectly gets by the behavior of the American Republicans. I want to ask Tim about that. Tim, you know, to the extent that the EU continues to support Ukraine, the real problem here is that the eight hundred pound military force, military power, economic power is the United States. Now, the United States, let me put it this way, is not supporting Ukraine. Sorry. Your thoughts.  Well, that's very true because elections put in leaders in place. And here in the United States, the case that Donald Trump is still a leader, although he's not president, but he's still, in fact, a leader of the Republicans. And certainly, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, these are leaders. And these two leaders alone have shaped opinions and values of other Republicans to back away from their support for Ukraine. I think Congress still enjoys even a lot of Republicans still enjoy and still support Ukraine, regardless of what Trump says and what Mike Johnson doodly follows his instructions. But you do have converts in Congress, specifically Lindsey Graham, who was a stalwart, you know, anti-communist and believed very much in the military interventions abroad and United States to be proactive abroad. But we've seen a complete 180 from Lindsey Graham. So their their leadership is influencing the ranks of the the mega and and normal Republicans. And certainly that's not good for Ukraine. You know, bottom line, let me add the thought that the bottom line is what the country does, what the country does in terms of weapons, what the country does in terms of money. So you can have all kinds of various public opinion, you know, from one side to the other. But at the end of the day, it's what the country does. And right now, the country is doing nothing. This must have an effect on on Europe. Man, let me let me go back to you for a minute. This must have an effect on on on Europe. They they they have relied on the U.S. as Ukraine has relied on the U.S. for support of Ukraine. And now they look to the West, they look to the United States and they find nothing. How does this affect them? Well, I think it helps to unify Europe in a way that was not anticipated before. It pushes Germany, you know, in the leadership position where it didn't want to be, didn't want it to be for a long, long time. And it has made Europeans aware of the weakness of its defense system. And people are nervous in Europe about Russia. The threat is seen by not only in the Baltic states and Finland, but all over Europe. On the other hand, you could say the lack of military success of the Russian military in the war against Ukraine has also been seen as a hopeful sign, you know, so you don't have this guerrilla in the neighborhood being as guerrilla like as people may have felt before. But I think overall the American that the threat of Trump becoming president and leaving NATO has reinforced tendencies in Europe, you know, to unify. And somehow create also a military attachment to the EU, which you didn't have until this point. OK, from your lips to God's ears. Jean, let me ask you about the dynamics going on here. Trump, it seems clear, does not want Ukraine to win. He doesn't want it to prevail. And I think he's been consistent that he owes something to Putin, whether it's compromise or golden showers or some kind of thing under the hood that he owes. You maybe that hotel he wants to build in Moscow. It's transactional. You can see it unfolding as a transactional process. He is always favored Russia and seems increasingly so. And he has control of Mike Johnson. Johnson works for him and Johnson is the speaker. So where is this going? What is this dynamic? You know, as we get closer to the election, it gets more pronounced and Trump gets bolder as he wins, you know, the nomination in the various states. How does that affect the ultimate result of the ultimate result being stasis in the United States until November? And if Trump wins a whole new ballgame, remember what he said? He is going to be a dictator and he is going to solve the Ukraine problem on day one, I think he said. And the implication was he was going to hand it over. Your thoughts about this dynamic? I've been studying the dynamic of the rise of Trump for eight years because I recognize that he's a fascist personality. And how does that happen in the United States? Well, it usually does happen in democracies, unfortunately. So I went back to Max Weber's theory of charisma. And there have been a lot of improvements on that theory by social scientists since he raised it. Charisma is the power to compel devotion. And it's a magical power. It sets the individual apart. The individual has certain characteristics. And one of them is to be counter to the prevailing social hierarchy that's in place, the bureaucracy, to challenge institutions. And he does this by gathering followers, devoted followers whose devotion is almost to being seen as semi-divine. And for this reason, the need of the charismatic leader is to continue to maintain and grow his power, which is why Trump is more interested in aligning with Putin because Putin, you see, is a greater charismatic leader than he was at the outset. And so the theory is that one way you amass more power in the eyes of your devoted followers and your incredulous onlookers is to align yourself with someone who's scale of power and charisma is greater than your own. So who could be greater than Putin? Arguably the richest man in the world through corruption and the head of a major state, the chief rival of the United States. It's all about personal power. It's not about national security. He is more interested in holding rallies for his movement than he is in being the bully pulpit of the United States because he is amassing power. He must keep power. He has to win. He needs his devoted followers. He needs his incredulous onlookers like the media who keep giving him the oxygen he needs. And he aligns himself with these colossal players like Putin and even Kim Jong-un, who has an enormous nuclear inventory. He does this to increase his own power and status. I what I hear from what you say is that this is not static, that this is going to increase as we get closer to November. And in November, it's going to increase again. You know, it's the emboldening process. He would be emboldened. He has been emboldened by a success in these various state primary elections and it would be further emboldened as and when he wins. So the result is he's going to be looking for that power and he's going to be undermining Ukraine or giving it away. It seems clear that with Trump the way he is now, he's going to be following the same path further emboldened going forward. You agree? Yes, because that's the only thing he knows how to do wants to do and needs to do. He is totally self-concerned, but he projects upon a movement exactly what they want to hear, which is why they are so so strong in their devotion to him. The way in which you depose a charismatic leader, they always incite rivals. And what they do with their rivals is they make them into unworthy challengers and by humiliating them or giving them nicknames or just striking the right note to try to tear them down so that they seem less than what they are. Anything that shows the relative power and status of the charismatic leader is what the charismatic leader does. And this is why you have to always kiss his ring and give him the right to make the decisions. It's it's an incredible study of the of the of the interjection of personality into politics and history. We know that certain individuals have had an outsized impact on history and we wonder why they inspire this this devotion among a critical mass of individuals. The way you take them down is you have a champion who can defeat them. You know, a Navalny type, for example, as came up in Russia and who may be in more danger to Putin dead than alive. If if Putin weakens that he is someone to rally around. We don't like that in the United States right now. Nikki Haley tried, but she doesn't have what it takes and she can't inspire it. The charismatic leader depends upon his followers. More than anything else. Let me read you something that's very, very funny. I really have to read this. I'm sorry. A little comic relief here, Jean. Yeah, yeah. OK, this is an example of charisma. If a man runs naked down the street, proclaiming that he alone can save others from impending doom. And if he immediately wins a following, then he is a charismatic leader. If he does not win a following, he is simply a lunatic. But I think I mean, look, I find it very interesting what you have said. But you are a grandisement of of Trump's charisma is a little bit. I think of the mark because the lunacy dimension of that guy. The madness that Mary Trump, I mean, the clinical lunacy, not only the social lunacy is so obvious also to people who have not become followers, that I think this will be playing the role against him. And whatever you may have said about Nikki Haley as being not successful, she has proven that at least 15 to 20 percent, if not more, of the Republicans will not vote for him. Now, in addition to all of the others, you know, who certainly will not vote for this lunatic, I think the exaggerated presentation of the charismatic Trump that you have given us is, I think, as I said, it's a little exaggerated. But it's very interesting what you said about Trump. It's being presented through all of these court cases. He's not acting like a guy who was naked in the street. He's acting like a lunatic and he's working for him. It's working for him. No, you can't touch the man in the long run. It will work partially for him. But I think in the long run, there are not rational, reasonable Americans left. Whatever you may think about this country, I still believe and that as a reality and that these reasonable this reasonable majority will not let the lunatic get into the White House. Yeah, we may need to make a side bet about that, but not on the air. While you're testifying, I would like to ask you one question that came up. You know, so I think we have agreed that Trump is going to continue to do this. He's going to control Johnson. And unless something remarkable happens, Johnson is going to is going to control the Congress and there won't be any support from the Congress for Ukraine. OK, that's that's OK. That's that's the static approach. It will stay the same between now and November or January when Trump takes office. But there's another thing here. There's another part of this dynamic I want to ask you about. You know, we have been assuming that the the country, the United States will continue down the same path with Trump. It's a reasonable assumption. But suppose we have an assumption that is much worse. Suppose we have Trump affirmatively taking steps to give Ukraine affirmatively back to Putin. Now that has a different effect on Europe, doesn't it? That is a betrayal of major magnitude, isn't it? And how does Europe react to that? Well, in the way I indicated earlier, it will get closer. It will, I think, put up a fight. And there's one other thing that you have to remember. I mean, Trump is not able of handing the Ukraine over to Putin. The Ukraine is not capable. I mean, is not manipulatively is not capable of being manipulated that way by Trump. But there's one other thing I mentioned that earlier when she talked about Putin Navalny. You know, one of the interesting things about the the death of Navalny and the circumstances of his funeral that Putin has underestimated that a dead Navalny is as dangerous, maybe even more dangerous than Navalny alive. I mean, he has not been. He has not anticipated this impact of his death. I like to ask, I like to ask Tim about that, because we've seen a certain amount of press about it. And we had that strange negotiation about whether the funeral would be secret or public or what have you. And, you know, Tim and I have often compared notes on the news cycle. And I give you two weeks, maybe, because Putin has great skill in propaganda and in controlling the news cycle. Is Navalny a real threat going forward? Or will Putin arrest anyone who speaks, you know, of him as a martyr and and stop that process? What do you think, Tim? My initial thoughts is I was extremely surprised that Russia or Putin turned over the body to his to his wife. I thought I thought Putin was smart enough to know just a threat that Navalny was live or a dead. And certainly now that he's dead, I think that I agree with Gene and and Manfred that that thread much larger today. And so I was completely surprised the body was turned over. So the more you crutch, but then finish, Manfred. The more you try to tap down a martyr, the greater the strength starts to bubble up, comes up top, comes from the sides and people will they will maybe directly confront Putin and his regime, but they'll do it in ways that are just as damaging. I hope so. But, you know, the reality there was an article in The Times yesterday with all the photographs of the of the funeral and the police were arresting people and you can feel the cold hand of Putin all over it, trying to suppress. He does know how to do that. And he does know about how to how to intervene with other news in the news cycle. And let me let me go to you, Tim, also for a discussion of what is going on in the battlefield? Because what you have here is this attack on Odessa, which narrowly missed Zelensky and the prime minister of Greece. You have the Russians taking new territory. You have the Russians continue. It's a war of attrition and Putin, I believe, is taking advantage of the vacuum that he sees in the American Congress. But what what is the state of affairs? He there was a really, really interesting article on NBC News about how the Ukrainians did not have ammunition that, you know, in addition to the fact that they have morale problems and recruitment problems, how's it going? And what does that mean in terms of finding a way to reverse this process? Well, first off, as far as munitions, a lot of that is coming from South Korea and Turkey right now. So they are getting munitions. They have to be, you know, used a little more sparingly than than in the past. Then we haven't heard anything about the cluster bombs for a long time because there was some push pushback about the the ethical use of or moral use of cluster bombs. But as cluster bombs, that that ensures a stalemate within the trench warfare that we're now seeing in Ukraine. We also have an update that the Netherlands is going to send those F 16s there's a delay in that delay will be the end of spring early summer. But those F 16s are very, very crucial for for Ukraine to try to balance the power of air, air support. And so I just see continued stalemate here. I think that the fifty four billion dollars of that, which Europe has committed, Wilkes continue to supply munitions to Ukraine so that they don't, you know, completely run out of munitions. They may not have as much as before. But I don't I don't think that interrupts the stalemate that we currently see. And I think it's as business as usual that Russia may make some territorial gains here and there. And there may be some counteroffensives from Ukraine that, you know, make a few headlines here and there. But until November 6th, 2024, I don't think Putin is going to move one inch of his his desire to continue to take Ukraine. We'll see who's elected president that may shift the board. And, you know, that that suggests, doesn't it, that Putin is not going to be interested in settlement of this matter. He's not going to be interested in peace negotiations. He's got the upper hand in the American Congress and in terms of maintaining an attrition. Your thoughts about the possibility of peace negotiations, you know, I suspect that there is a an offer on the table that was put on the table before the war started. And Putin has actually detailed that in a recent speech. If there was a movement on the part of Trump that people were elected to implement that peace agreement. Then I think Putin would jump at it. If Biden is reelected, I really don't know what his generals and emissaries would accept in terms of a negotiation. But I do feel there's been a rift between Zelensky and Biden. I mean, his wife refused to come to the State of the Union address. So that and I think that's important. I think that the Ukrainians are feeling betrayed, alone, fearful and despair. They are looking to European allies for support. They are, in essence, wanting to commit to Biden because they're afraid Trump will win. Again, this is the power of charisma on the part of those who are outside of his movement, like the media, who are doing exactly the wrong thing and covering him. We forget that January 6th took place here. There was a similar thing that took place in Brazil against Lula's administration. Bolsonaro would not concede defeat and they stormed. I think it was their parliament building. They have taken steps legally to punish these people and to basically sideline Bolsonaro, who is a very Trump-like threat in Brazil. We have been totally ineffective in doing that. We have basically followed the theory of charisma in terms of how we reacted to Trump because it takes that kind of reaction to keep him in power and to keep him as a player, just as in Germany, after the Munich Putsch and Hitler was put into prison, he wrote, Mein Kampf came out with this narrative, formed a greater army, personal army of his own through REM, and then he gained little by little. He took advantage of the institutions and he gained power. So we see this happening. That was a weak Weimar Republic. Trump is characterizing the United States as American carnage. He's continuing to do that. He did it in his latest speech. He has to present the notion of the opposite of the city on the hill and get everybody into a sense of despair so he can be the savior. And this is working in the United States. And that is the big thing, not necessarily all of the I mean, ammunition is important, but narrative is more important. And so is power and status. Well, from what you say, you know, the the lock up in Congress is going to continue because Trump wants to use it as as a as an element in beating Biden in the presidential election. He doesn't want Biden to succeed either in supporting Ukraine or in making peace. He wants the whole thing to be in chaos until he gets into office. So my and and thereafter, he wants to, you know, fix it one way or the other. I won't trust him in any way. But but let me ask you this, though, and I'm going to ask the same question to Manfred, assuming the U.S. never gets its act together between now and November. I think it's a good assumption. I I firmly believe that assumption. Can Zelensky continue? Can he avoid a defeat? Can he win without the United States?  I think this war has shown that. Manfred, answer the question. The big answer. If you wish to answer it, answer it.   I mean, he has really made it possible for the Ukraine to defeat Russia for two years. I mean, the losses that Russia, the military losses in in personally has really gone through are extraordinary. So for that reason, I think the Ukraine will not become defeated by the Republicans and the Putin. You will have you called a stalemate. I think this will continue and the stalemate will in the end lead to the success of the Ukraine and the defeat of Putin. I'm very sorry. I think Putin is the loser in this war because he has lost all of the charismatic imagery that surrounded him and he has not succeeded. And I think I don't believe that Trump will become president. I'm sorry. I still believe in the majority of reasonable Americans who will keep this lunatic out of the White House. OK, OK, let me go to Tim. Tim, the same question for you. Can Zelensky prevail or at least hold the line without help from the United States? Until November 6, yeah, I think he'll rely heavily on Europe and their commitment of the fifty four billion dollars. You have again, as I said, South Korea and tricky outside of the EU, supplying weapons and munitions. You'll see the the delivery of the F-16s. The pilots are being trained in Arizona. They're being trained in Europe. So that will help Zelensky hang on. So it's it's not for how it's not if it's just for how long. And I think he gets through our election in 2024 and see where the playing field leads. He may, you know, if it doesn't go well for him, he may have to go to the negotiation table with hat in hand. But this depends on who's the president and how funds will be forthcoming to supply the war effort in Ukraine. What can Joe Biden do in the circumstances? You know, there's been suggestions in the press that he finds ways, you know, to provide at least some support under the table to to Zelensky. And what can he do? You really want my answer on that?  He has no charisma. He has his credibility is is is faltering like a rock. Um, it's time to a different nominee for the United States for the Democratic Dicot. OK, let's assume there's another nominee for president. Let's assume that I'll give you that point. And this nominee has charisma. OK, he has charisma or she question. Then is what does that person do in order to reverse this problem in Ukraine? Look, be it 2015 election, be it the 2020 election, it's not that people voted for Trump. They voted against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Yeah, I agree with Gene. There's a charisma of Donald Trump that hits maybe 33 to 40 percent of of Republicans, but there's a lot of Republicans. This this can't they're holding their nose as they support the Republican ticket. It's not Donald Trump that they like. So anyone who has some charisma that can the synergy of a different candidate with some charisma on the Democratic Dicot will be more than enough to break open the the logjam of funding and support by both Republicans and Democrats to support Ukraine. And then Putin goes, that's it, I'm not going to get any further. OK, well, he got that person just got to go to Congress and make a bigger impression on Congress. Gene, I want to ask you a larger, a larger look at this. You know, the word betrayal came up in that in that article on NBC and betrayal is a word I used earlier because if you if you look at this, the average person outside the United States and many people in the United States would see our initial commitment to help Ukraine at the outset, all of the rhetoric we were going to help Ukraine. And that's Joe Biden's rhetoric. We have we have left an impression on the world, I think, of betrayal. And we have lost credibility. Even if you stop this ball game right now, we have lost credibility in so many places with so many people around the world. Do you agree with that? And what can we do if anything? Don't agree with that completely. I think we always have to form our opinion through the filter of the press. And I don't think the press really gets it all the time. My father used to say, as Manfred has been telling us, that, you know, it's it. It's a great world for the dumb guy and never underestimate the common man. He believed in the voting power of the common man in the United States. But that was not under the pressure of a charismatic leader. Trump has fulfilled all of the sequential steps that a charismatic leader of a malevolent type. There are good, good charismatic leaders, too. Needs to gain power, legitimate power with and status within the United States. I have changed my mind. I changed my mind based on data and what I can summarize from data. And that is, I thought that the theory of charisma after Trump lost and then he lost in 2022 with his candidates that this losing would. Would basically overturn him as a charismatic leader, but it didn't. And I see that the press and in other ways, his followers are devoted to him. He has made a specific outreach to Hispanic theocrats in the evangelical movement. I you should watch the speech he gave in Miami about four or five years ago. It's amazing the way he controlled that audience. And that's one area in which he's slipping is with his that Biden is slipping with Hispanics. And there are other areas in which he's slipping. If we have Joe Biden step aside, there's no guarantee that somebody would emerge and would be nominated. That could be a foil to Trump. Everybody so far has failed. All of our other leaders have failed. But it would give some place for the people who are unhappy in the Democratic Party and in the Republican Party to go. Other than Joe Kennedy. Yeah, no, you're focusing in on the country, but I'm asking you about the world. I'm asking you whether we have lost credibility and to what extent and what we can do to resume our credibility. Not through Ukraine. It's through Gaza and and the.  Manfred, you know, what could happen with Europe? I mean, you describe Europe as in a very I shouldn't say very, but in an optimistic way that it is stalwart. It is going to maintain its support. Although, you know, I have to ask you, I mean, does Europe manufacture ammunition? NATO hasn't been called on to do any fisticuffs in a long time. Is is is Europe prepared to do boots on the ground? Is you're prepared to give that fifty four billion dollars that Tim was speaking of? And what could change those things? Assuming again that the United States will be locked up until November or after. What can what can happen to make Europe be more supportive or possibly less supportive? All these factors, all these variables are in play. The only thing that's unchangeable is change itself. No, I think that the European support, including the German support for the Ukraine is very strong. It will not change. And you have to remember that after the unification of Germany, the pacifist and image of Germany grew. Germany had become a very, very pacifist country. And I think the invasion of Russia in Ukraine has changed that. It has in most parts of Germany, there are some parts, the East Germany, the former five states of the former GDR of East Germany are still closer to being sympathetic to Putin than the rest of Germany. But you know, you know, the problem is that people get tired and the press does the media doesn't help. They get tired of hearing about Ukraine. They turn to other things. The new cycle, it's not that they don't get tired of the Ukraine. They are aware of Putin's Russia being a threat. And for that reason, there's a difference between the American attitude and the European attitude. And this becomes even strengthened now by the admission of Finland and Sweden. They reinforce, you know, the fears that the Baltic states have and Poland has. So for that reason, the European response to the war in the Ukraine is psychologically, existentially different from the United States. In that regard, you could say the ocean still is different, makes the difference between your United States attitudes and European attitudes. Absolutely. Absolutely. OK, we're almost out of time. I'd like to ask you guys to make your summary statements what you want to leave with our viewership. Tim, can you go first? What can you add to that? What would you like to stress and emphasize from that? What bothers me is it's not so much the Congress's lack of support for Ukraine and funding. What bothers me more are key members of Congress that think all things are great with Putin and that kind of thinking is very disturbing and is starting to gather steam. Yes, a man for your thoughts. What additional points would you like to leave with our viewership? I'm not as pessimistic as my American friends are in this discussion. I do not think that Trump will make it back into the White House. How do you say, in Swedish, how do you say from your lips to God's ears? I don't say it. I don't speak Swedish and I will not try to do it. OK, Jean, up to you. Maybe you can say it in Swedish. No, I'm not speaking. I want to add to what Vicky Cayetano said on this program recently, and we sort of all agreed with her that it might take a catastrophe on the scale of Pearl Harbor to bring the United States to its senses, whether or not Trump is elected. And that could be the fall of Ukraine. Unfortunately, I don't want to say that, but it could be the fall of Ukraine. May I add that it also could be the the reversal of fortune positively for Ukraine if it wakes this country up just like Pearl Harbor. Yeah, we're going to say something. Yeah, yes, before you wrap up, I just want to say something in Swedish. Who's going to do? Who's going to do? Do you remember? That's a serious statement. We do. We try right here on Think Tech. Thank you all. Tim Epichella, Jean Rosenfeld, Manfred Heddingson for a very interesting and thoughtful discussion. Aloha.


forward. So welcome, Andre. I don't know. I was fascinated in perhaps in the wrong saying, but that voice. But here we are to discuss philosophical health, philosophical counseling. And you are yourself practicing philosophical counseling, if I'm correct. And I think the first thing I'd like to know is how, how you came to philosophy and then how you came to philosophical counseling? Well, I, I started studying philosophy when I was young, 19 years old, 20 years old. At the time, I wanted to enroll in some arts program. But not so much. I also had the passion for theory. So philosophy was my choice. And that took me to a PhD program, eventually, a PhD program in philosophy, and phenomenology, especially. Right. But after that, the PhD program, I felt the need for something practical as well. So when I found out about Oscar Brené Fier and I enrolled in his school, Paris, right, the training in philosophical counseling. Okay. And four years ago, four years. Okay. And then you started practicing in Romania. Yes. Okay. How is it working for you? And how what kind of situations in general, what is your general impression after? So you've been practicing in the last three years or? Yes. Yes. Yes. And well, I now I teach at a couple of universities, especially at the Polytechnic University in Bucharest. And besides the teaching job, I have some students for a philosophical counseling, philosophical practice and critical thinking. The situation is developing here. So we're still in the stage of promoting this idea of philosophy counseling, why they should do it, what they can get out of it. Right. So this is still, we're still in an early stage in Romania. Right. I mean, I think we are in early stages, more or less everywhere. Although we know that in Germany, the US, Norway, then Israel, they have been practicing for now maybe two decades or so, or maybe even a bit more with ups and downs. For example, Norway, I think that they were very strong, they even had a training in philosophical counseling that was connected to a university. And that sort of dissolved and there's no no much not much happening there. So what I find, we started more or less at the same time. I started also three and a half years ago in Sweden. Firstly, in real life, and now more, more, more sessions online. But I do, I do think that I mean, I was I was surprised that there is really a need people are, there seems to be at least a part of society that finds it extremely relevant. And this leads me to my other question. And of course, you can always you can also ask questions, right? She's not I'm not a journalist. So I'm not I'm only partly interviewing you. But yeah, I think that sometimes I think what kind of people come to me and they might be from different backgrounds in terms of perception of well being, right? So you might have people that live with a diagnosis, even that might be have a treatment, psychiatric treatment for depression or what have you and on the other hand, you might have people who actually are successful but want or experienced themselves as successful, the one to have some sense of more meaning purpose in life. And but I find that there is something in common. It is people who like to process information, let's say by intellectual means, as opposed to emotional means. Right. Yeah. Do you have the same impression? Yes. Most of my students from the philosophical practice come from a, let's say a non pathological background. So they they didn't have psychotherapy or if they had psychotherapy, it was not psychiatric. Well, they're rather well. Right. They're well, they have just have some curiosities regarding reflection regarding philosophy, some of them are passionate of going to different courses. And after trying this and that, they stumble upon philosophical practice, and they enjoy it. For instance, I have a group. I've been working with them for about one year and a half, and we're still going. We're, we're even discovering different philosophies together, working on them. And they, I think they stick around. Right. For the exploration part. So you mean that you are doing group sessions, or are you also doing individual sessions? Both individual and and group session, mostly individual sessions. But now, for instance, I'm starting a group session with my frequent collaborator, Ankati Urem, who is a psychotherapist. So I'm doing both. Right. And so I know that you are particularly fond of phenomenology. You just published a phenomenology of elegance, which is a beautiful phrase. Can you tell us more about both actually both? I'm curious about both. How do you, why do you see phenomenology as being an important tool for philosophical health? And, and what about elegance? Phenomenology has some very nice epistemological tools, which the counselor can use. The most famous tool from Husserlian phenomenology is the apohe or bracket. You suspend your judgment, and in short, you stop projecting. This is very useful for the counselor, because you as a counselor, you stop projecting your ideas onto the client and well, give the client some space to express himself or to think and to well, not have his or her thoughts disrupted by the counselor. The phenomenology of elegance, well, it was an experiment of mine. I initially was very passionate about the phenomenology of body and movement. This is a very fashionable subject in the cognitive sciences, embodiment activism. And I got into this phenomenology of movement. And then the question was, well, what should I do with this phenomenology of movement? And at the time, I was also into fashion and clothes and beauty. Okay. So I said, okay, let's let's try to do this. And that became my initial PhD program. I went to Italy to study with a very good philosopher, Roberto de Monticelli. And he actually she gave me this, this idea of elegance. Because at the time, I was wandering around with phenomenology of movement, volition. I was not very sure. And she she told me about this, this thing, what about elegance? interested in both phenomenology, the body, the experience of the body and the clothes, the body, dressed up body. And then, well, she suggested it. And some years after the PhD, the book came out. Great. Have the book finally finished. The experiment finished. It reminds me when you speak about elegance. I think about Kleist's book, the theater of puppets, right? Yeah, you probably mentioned it in your book. This beautiful idea, I think it's Deleuze who brings it in his as a philosophical character. And there is this idea of there is two friends and one of them is tying his shoelace, putting his feet on the chair and starts tying the shoelace. And the other friend says, Wow, this was the most elegant gesture I've seen. And of course, then the frame tries to reproduce that but it, it, it fails. It's totally unnatural.  What is, is elegance, where is elegance in that? I mean, it's a field that I don't know. So I'm just improvising here. But in this continuum between, let's say control and, and, and naturality, right? That seems to be a, an important dialectic. Yeah, that's a, that's a nice example, but marionette being flooded by control from, from the outside and does making it elegant. Well, a big theory about elegance comes from Castiglione, from the Renaissance. And in between this control on the, on the one hand, and lack of control or flexibility on the other, elegance would go more towards the flexibility towards an idea that when, when you're flexible, I mean, when you get rid of your own rigidity of your own resistance to, to the world, you get this elegant appearance. And besides this, elegance also appears when you learn something. But you do not appear to have put great effort into learning. It seems natural, even though there was some resistance there, there was some, some effort right going on. Is this the idea of spread that to the right, the idea that we're making actually something very sophisticated and that took a lot of training, but after a certain point, it looks virtuoso or natural. Yes, you've trained so much, it doesn't seem that you've trained at all. Right. This is the Yeah, I think that that's, I like, I relate very much to this idea of freedom, being the result of experience and training and work. And this is something that I think that a lot of people today would benefit from, right, because we have this capitalist idea of freedom as being this sort of a inert capacity to choose and basically spontaneous disorder of or But what about style then? Because isn't so this is a bit where we're talking about, right? It's so style would be the result is sort of the emergent results of a long work. Or I mean, yeah, a long, a long attention to a constellation of ideas, which relates for me very much with the kind of work I do as a philosophical counselor. And the way we met is that you commented on on what you thought was was a bit intriguing when I speak about philosophical conviction, right? Yes. And I may I may clarify vaguely quickly. But I do believe that there are two times in my approach, at least I use at least two important moments of the philosophical healing process or is like the first one is a sort of a deconstruction where we indeed analyze certain rigidity that might actually contain contradictions, etc. And we sort of reconnect with what I call the Creole, which is the singularity of the cosmos, the sort of a creative flow that is shared by many other process philosophers. But at the same time, and this can imply a lot of critique, on one hand, and the other hand, where you were saying about the epoch, the and the pause of projection, which I call deep listening, right? Okay. And and but there is another moment where I try to help people construct a coherent and yo dynamic conceptual constellation, this is what I call the philosophical conviction is something that is, of course, plastic and and and that that contains a certain flexibility. But that is not a pure, let's say, floating acceptance of where there is without a a sort of a structure, let's say a conceptual structure, which is not based on ideally, of course, a dogmatism, but based on, again, a the idea of a conceptual integrity, the idea that there might be for some people, and I do believe there is an explicit way of organizing our life around a set of ideas, values, notions that might be between four and eight, that's what I call the that's why I call it a constellation. But that constellation itself. And that's actually engineers know I work a lot with engineers to in in consulting and I find I'm actually very open to this idea. So in engineering, you have this idea of structural integrity, right, of a bridge or construction. And you know that if you build things too rigid, they break, right? So you need to have actually a structure that that has some flexibility, such that it holds. So that's what that's what I mean by philosophical conviction, because I do believe that we most people are implicitly traversed in French, they are implicitly moved by ideologies by by convictions that might not be theirs. And so that was, yeah, so that's the kind of approach I associate to the idea of philosophical belief. But I also have noticed that it is something that might not be for everyone, let's say, like, some people are more or less in demand or need of a a structuration that allows for regularity. And I'll finish here because I'm being a bit long. But I do think that I wrote in the book that you mentioned being a nearness, I have the sort of minimal cosmology. And between this sort of dual phenomenon or dual ontology around the creel and the one, the multiple and the one, or we could say regularity and singularity, or the creel and the real. And I do believe that on the side of the real, in order to make worlds or life worlds, you need regularities. Right? Yeah, right. And that's the that's only one side of and you also need singularities, you also need this flow, you also need this this connection with freedom in otherwise it becomes too rigid. So I think that in order to, to help people have a good life, you need to work on both on both sides, the singularity side, co creation, and the regularity side, some sort of, yeah, philosophical constellation. Okay, so basically, you propose this conviction as a discovery of one's own concepts, this constellation that you name it that such. And sometimes you encourage them also to have a moment of let's say, innovation, or daring to to get out of their scheme that they discovered reflection. Yeah, we can say it's like that. Right? Well, yeah, it makes sense. Right. And so, coming back to your training, so you had a training with Oscar Bonafie, right? Am I pronouncing his name correctly? I don't know his work very well, but I heard a little bit about him. And I it seems that he favors more the Socratic approach, right? He focuses a lot on shaking people's dogmatism. How would you define that? Yes, the Socratic method is very provocative. And because of that, some people need to have a philosophical organ of some kind to enjoy the process more than the initial encounter with Socratic figure. The Socratic figure in Plato dialogues as well. The Socratic figure was a bit violent for them. This is why the weeks. This is why they killed him. He was he was annoying to them, right? Staring up their beliefs and proving to them that the world every belief can have a reverse side. The idea has its limits. So this is true for for Oscar Bonafie's method, which I which I apply practically. So this means that, by the way, what do you mean by philosophical organ? An openness to discussing ideas without trying to settle passion very fast. So sort of openness or passion towards never ending discussions. Okay. And it's interesting that you use a biological metaphor for that. Yes, yes. Maybe this comes from Romanian, we have this expression, an organ for mathematics. Okay, interesting for theology. All right. I think that's beautiful. I think that also connects with your interest in the phenomenology of the body, right? I do tend to I often say that for me, thinking is as important as breathing for a human being. So it sort of connects with that, the physiology, which is a very Nietzschean theme also, right? And I think that for the listeners, I think that it's clear in the genealogy of the idea of philosophical health, I think that Nietzsche is a very important figure, as you know, he had this idea that indeed, the separation, the dualism between body and mind is an illusion. And therefore, philosophy and physiology are perhaps the two sides of the same coin in Nietzsche's approach. Coming back to the provocative. Okay, let's say that I mean, I more and more, I tend to think that there is a book actually that was published by Cambridge University Press, which is called Intellectual Sheimans. And I think it's a great title. The book is perhaps not so fascinating, in fact, but the title is fantastic. Because the more I practice the more I see myself, perhaps without enough modesty, as someone who is a healer of the souls or helps people. Doctor of the soul. Yeah, but the term healer is is more important because we know that if we say doctor, today, the biomedical model is so important that we start thinking about measuring and and and a healer is precisely a person that is very suspicious about measuring and statistics and norms. A healer is a person who sees your singularity. And so in that sense, in the sense of what I've called with the loser, the sorcerer with the source being right with you, like a source, but also so if we are just provocative, if we are just socratic, and I understand the political importance of that, but isn't it too violent for some people who need a little bit of care?   And my practice is that I see that some people, at some moments, they need they are very fine. And they actually need a more provocative approach and even with humor. And that's perfect. And at other moments, it's much more it needs to be much more caring and soft. And I would I have a problem with applying a mode. And actually, I have that problem with any form of philosophical counseling, because all the forms are, for example, let's focus on logic. And people have, right? Elliot Dico and who I respect a lot. And I think all these things are good puzzles. And but if we are too much on the logic side, I say, oh, let's look only at the logical fallacies that this person applied. So I think that's the challenge with philosophical counseling is that perhaps it's the discipline since I think philosophy is is the only discipline I mean, is the the discipline by excellence that looks both at the whole and singular. So these two extreme, right? If we apply that in counseling, it might be in fact, incompatible with the two rigid theory, like we can have a meta methodology, right? What do you think about that? Well, Oscar has a very nice concept of mirroring, which is true for the Socratic method and for Socrates as well. Because we know this, this Socrates that provoked people that annoyed some people and got him killed. But also in in the dialogues, we also have Socrates that is very nice to to some students, for instance, in the Republic, Glaucon frequently struggles with himself and with his own thinking. And Glaucon knows it. Socrates knows it.  So he mirrors his interlocutor is in a way in which if the interlocutor becomes violent or becomes pissed off because of what he discovers in reflection, then Socrates as well mirrors this. Okay, hope of making interlocutor aware of himself. But if the interlocutor needs some care, then Socrates also becomes a bit more caring. That sounds fascinating. Yeah, I saw this also in Oscar, for instance, he with some some people, he's very well, a bit rough, because the people have some dilemmas. And he wants to make them aware of their rigidity, of their violence, of their opposing towards themselves. But in other cases, when he works with the children, well, he he's very nice. Okay, so children get a special treatment. And I think it's fascinating, this idea of mirroring good, but I might have a problem with it because so isn't that what Israelis and Palestinians are doing? They're mirroring each other? Isn't that when couple fights? I mean, I don't know you have you are in perhaps in couple or married. If you respond to insult by insult, it's not necessarily always the best approach. Yeah, well, we don't insult. You don't insult. You know, actually, I read that. This was many years ago. And I think it was in Romania. Yeah, there was a psycho, a young psychoanalyst that became very famous, because he actually was extremely rude with his patients. And there was a logical about it, even in France. And I don't know if that rings a bell, but I found that very amusing. I haven't tried it, though, I wouldn't I wouldn't advise people to try it at home. If the client gets violent, starts insulting, then that's a very nice situation in which we try to reflect on how did we get here? Why did you insult me? Why did you say those very harsh things about me? Right. So we're always in a reflective mode. I have to say, I haven't had that experience yet. Have you had that experience of one of your students that started being violent during a counseling session? No, no. Not so. Right. Some of them get a bit annoyed. But I usually deal with the humor. Okay. So instantly, we get out of the dialogue, and try to look at the dialogue with some, some humor, using an analogy or a famous character, funny character from universal literature, something like that. For example, for example, give us an example of that if anonymous example of a situation like that. Well, I have a student who's very enthusiastic about many things. He wants to discover many things. And fast, he's a fond of a newness, new stuff, new stuff.  He starts something and then he goes to something else and starts reading the third book and then starts seeing a movie and doesn't finish all of these things. He's all right, all of the place. And the analogy here is Don Giovanni, jumps one woman to another. Right. This is kind of a Don Giovanni, intellectually speaking, Giovanni of both, never fully consuming a relation with a relationship with a book or a movie intellectual endeavor. And well, when mentioning this character, well, do you know Don Giovanni? Oh, yes, of course, I know Don Giovanni. Well, does make sense to have something of Don Giovanni in this being passionate about new stuff behavior. Oh, yeah. I guess it makes make some sense. Yeah, what's the connection? Well, then starts thinking about it. And the frustration is replaced by being illuminated by the obvious that he knew he did, but did not conceptualize. Right. Yeah, there is a an interesting book by French psychoanalyst, Lacanian, Jean-Pierre Vinter with the book is called the Lésirant, the errant of flesh, Lésirant de la chair, studies on masculine hysteria. And he speaks a lot of Don Giovanni. And we could say just for the anecdote that Don Giovanni is also a little bit obsessive compulsive and a monomaniac, because he stays focused on the same theme, in a way. But I like your idea of humor. That reminds me that Siddhartha, Herman Hesse, who was the author of Siddhartha, for example, had this idea that humor is the the final stage, just before enlightenment. And and it's, it's indeed a, it could be a technique. Although here, I think we're back to the idea of spread the tour or elegance is like probably the real humor is not, you don't think about it, right?  Yeah. Yes, humor is very important, both in Socrates and in modern philosophical counseling, because it's a way of abstracting and distancing oneself from the discussion from the initial topic. So when people get to involve some humor detaches them from that emotional game that they started playing and that affects their thinking. I think Livia Amir has some good books on humor. He's a very good philosophical counselor and has this idea that humor is very important for the consultation. Okay. For philosophical practice in general, right? How do you see the future of philosophical health? How do you see things and for both positively and in terms of danger, perhaps, if any, the philosophical health movement should get more popular, because certainly it covers some area of people having this need for clarification and for exploration of their own lives in a reflective way. So there's work to be done. That's for sure. Well, the problem would be that we don't have such a strong community yet. And this is a risky. As in other philosophical schools, people tended to depart from one another and collaboration was not so good. So this would be a great risk for a philosophical health movement as a whole. Right. I like that idea. Actually, I did my PhD on Esprit de Cor, which is precisely the spirit of community, of community, of practice, community of belief, epistemic community. And because, you know, for many years, I avoided academia, I thought this would be the end of my creativity. And I was an independent author.  Well, those are big words, but you know, and, and, but I did my PhD on what I thought was both a menace and opportunity, because Esprit de Cor can be both this beautiful one mind between people who are looking at the same horizon. But it can also be group thing. Right. And we see a lot of group thing, which is basically a stubborn dogmatism of people who protect each other while excluding others. And we see that too. So, but I do agree. And that is shared by Ellie Kramer, with whom I'm going to have a conversation. He is into philosophy as a way of life, which is very connect a very close to the idea of philosophical health. It focuses on Pierre Hadoe and, and Foucault and, and, and he also has a contribution to the book that we're putting together on philosophical health. And Ellie wants to ease in Poland at the moment, but he really wants to create that sort of community. And I, and I think perhaps we should have a conversation with him, because I think that's fundamental. And that is done also by realizing that despite the many approaches to philosophical counseling, I think it's important that we, we realize that we have the same vision, and therefore that we should respect each other's methods. I've heard I came to the movement of philosophical counseling. Later, let's say that we are the second wave or, but I heard that there's been in the past already some intestine quarrels between, I find this a bit unuseful, especially when we are such a small niche activity, then it's great that there are many approaches. And I think that we need to show to the world, otherwise we're not feels often healthy, right? If we if we cannot learn from each other and be a diverse yet focused group, then we would sort of prove programmatically that we are not that philosophically healthy. So we'll see. I'm not a such a great marketing person. So I'm trying to through the philosophical health page and this conversation, I'm trying to, you know, create a steer a little bit the spirit. And I believe in slow growth, too. Everything is done persistently, but without forcing too much. And but but I agree with you that we do need to have a better awareness that we are in it. That we are a community, actually, of belief and of practice, let's say. Yes, this is very important to be part of a professional community, especially of an international Exactly. And well, it's something we partially lack. In Romania, we have an association. The things are very slow. Being part of a community of practitioners is great. We'll have more conversations about that. And perhaps not so interesting at the moment for the people who are listening to this recording. But off the record, we will plan how to conquer the world. But anything else you would like to add or or ask in the last five minutes? Well, at the moment, I have no idea. Okay, I want to thank you for this this opportunity for this discussion that we have. And can't wait for the next one. Exactly. Well, thank you, Andrei. It was it was lovely to talk. And I will stop the recording. And now the real conversation will start. No, just that was it. That was humor.