The 9,266 meeting of the Security Council is called to order. The provisional agenda for this meeting is threats to international peace and security. The agenda is adopted. In accordance with Rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in this meeting. Mr Rosemary de Carlaw, Undersecretary General for Political and Peace Building Affairs. Mr Jeffre Sachs, Professor and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Development, Earth Institute at Columbia University, and Mr Rayne McGovern, Political Activist. It is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. I now give the floor to Mr Rosemary de Carlaw. Thank you, Mr President. On 30 September last year, Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development at the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Nafid Hanif briefed this Council on the reported links in the Nord Stream Pipelines. His briefing was based on information and data from publicly available sources. My briefing today is also based on publicly available information that we have to date. As Assistant Secretary General Hanif said in September, in the course of 26 to 29 September 2022, four leaks were detected in the Nord Stream undersea pipelines in the Baltic Sea near the island of Bornholm. The first leak was reported on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the morning of 26 September when Seismologists detected a spike in activity. The second and third leaks were reported in the evening of 26 September on the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. A fourth leak was reported in the morning of 29 September on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Neither pipeline was in operation. Supplies in Nord Stream 1 had been halted in September, while Nord Stream 2 never entered service. However, the pipelines reportedly held several hundred million cubic metres of natural gas at the time of the incidents. Following the incidents, Danish, German and Swedish officials announced they would launch separate investigations into the leaks. The Russian Federation expressed interest in joining these investigations while also expressing concern that a deliberate act of sabotage and terrorism might be to blame for the explosions that caused the leaks. On 18 October, Copenhagen Police reported that a preliminary investigation into the leaks found that powerful explosions caused the damage. A month later, on 18 November, the Swedish Security Service and Prosecution Authority reported that, according to their preliminary findings, the pipelines had been subject to gross sabotage. Swedish officials stated that, in the investigations carried out on-site in the Baltic Sea, investigators documented extensive damage to the gas pipelines resulted from detonations. Swedish authorities also said they had seized foreign items and that explosive residue was identified on a number of those items. According to officials quoted in local media, the investigation is ongoing. On 4 February 2023, the German Attorney General stated that their investigation was also continuing. We understand that the Danish investigation is continuing as well. Further, we are aware of new reports alleging acts of sabotage involving the two pipelines. I reiterate that the United Nations is not in a position to verify or confirm any of the claims relating to these incidents and that we await the findings of the ongoing national investigations. Given the sensitivity and speculation regarding this issue, we urge all concerned to show restraint and avoid any speculation. We should avoid any unfounded accusations that could further escalate the already heightened tensions in the region and potentially inhibit the search for the truth. While we don't know exactly what happened beneath the waters of the Baltic Sea in September 2022, one thing is certain. Whatever caused the incident, its fallout counts among the many risks the invasion of Ukraine has unleashed. One year since the start of the war, we must redouble our efforts to end it in line with international law and the UN Charter. Thank you, Mr President. I thank Ms De Carlaw for her briefing and I now give the floor to Mr Jeffrey Sachs. Thank you very much. My name is Jeffrey Sachs. I am university professor at Columbia University. I am a specialist in the global economy including global trade, finance, infrastructure and economic statecraft. I appear before the UN Security Council on my own behalf. I represent no government or organization in the testimony that I will deliver. The destruction of the Nord Stream Pipelines on September 26, 2022 constitutes an act of international terrorism and represents a threat to the peace. It is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to take up the question of who might have carried out the act in order to bring the perpetrator to international justice to pursue compensation for the damaged parties and to prevent future such actions. The consequences of the destruction of the Nord Stream Pipelines are enormous. They include not only the vast economic losses related to the pipelines themselves and their future potential use, but also the heightened threat to transboundary infrastructure of all kinds. Submarine internet cables, international pipelines for gas and hydrogen, transboundary power transmission, offshore wind farms and more. The global transformation to green energy will require considerable transboundary infrastructure, including in international waters. Countries need to have full confidence that their infrastructure will not be destroyed by third parties. Some European countries have recently expressed concern over the safety of their offshore infrastructure. For all of these reasons, the investigation by the UN Security Council of the Nord Stream explosions is a high global priority. The destruction of the Nord Stream Pipelines required a very high degree of planning, expertise and technological capacity. The Nord Stream 2 Pipelines are a marvel of engineering. Each section of pipe is rolled steel of 4.5 centimeters thickness and with a pipeline internal diameter of 1.15 meters. The pipe is encased in concrete of 10.9 centimeters thickness. The weight of each section of concrete encased pipe is 24 metric tons. The Nord Stream 2 Pipelines, some 1,200 kilometers in length, contain around 200,000 pipes. The pipeline sit on the sea floor. Destroying a pipeline of heavy rolled steel encased in concrete at depths of 70 to 90 meters requires a highly advanced technology for transportation of the explosives, diving to install the explosives and detonation. To do so undetected in the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Sweden adds greatly to the complexity of the operation. As a number of senior officials have publicly confirmed, an action of this sort must have been carried out by a state level actor. Only a handful of state level actors have both the technical capacity and access to the Baltic Sea to have carried out this action. Include the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, Poland, Norway, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, either individually or in some combination. Ukraine lacks the necessary technologies as well as access to the Baltic Sea. A recent report by the Washington Post revealed that the intelligence agencies of the NATO countries have privately concluded that there is no evidence whatsoever that Russia carried out this action. This also comports with the fact that Russia had no obvious motive to carry out this act of terrorism on its own critical infrastructure. Indeed, Russia is likely to bear considerable expenses to repair the pipelines. Three countries have reportedly carried out investigations of the Nord Stream terrorism, Denmark, Germany and Sweden. These countries presumably know much more about the circumstances of the terrorist attack. Sweden in particular has perhaps the most to tell the world about the crime scene, which its divers investigated. Yet instead of sharing this information globally, Sweden has kept the results of its investigation secret from the rest of the world. Sweden has refused to share its findings with Russia and turned down a joint investigation with Denmark and Germany. In the interest of global peace, the UN Security Council should require these countries to immediately turn over the results of their investigations to the UN Security Council. There is only one detailed account to date of the Nord Stream destruction, the one recently put forward by investigative journalist Seymour Hirsch, ostensibly based on information leaked by Hirsch by an unnamed source. Hirsch attributes the Nord Stream destruction to a decision ordered by US President Joe Biden and carried out by US agents in a covert operation that Hirsch describes in detail. The White House has described Hirsch's account as quote, completely and utterly false, unquote, but did not offer any information contradicting Hirsch's account and did not offer any alternative explanation. Senior US officials made statements before and after the Nord Stream destruction that showed the US animus towards the pipelines. On January 27, 2022, Undersecretary of State Victoria Newland tweeted, quote, if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward, end quote. On February 7, President Biden said, quote, if Russia invades again, then there will be no longer Nord Stream 2, we will bring an end to it, end quote. When asked by the reporter how he would do that, he responded, quote, I promise you we will be able to do it, end quote. On September 30, 2022, immediately following the terrorist attack on the pipeline, Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared that the destruction of the pipeline is, quote, also a tremendous opportunity. It's a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy and thus to take away from Vladimir Putin the weaponization of energy as a means of advancing his imperial designs, end quote. On January 28, 2023, Undersecretary Newland declared in testimony to Senator Ted Cruz in the US Senate, quote, I am and I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea, end quote.  I hope that the United States, together with all other Security Council members, will condemn this act of international terrorism and join together in an urgent UN Security Council-led investigation of this international crime in order to determine the truth. The truth is not yet known by the world, but it is knowable. More than ever, the world depends on the UN Security Council to do its work to stop the escalation to a new world war. The world will be safe only when the permanent members work together diplomatically to solve global crises, including the war in Ukraine and the rising tensions in East Asia. The UN Security Council provides the unique global venue for that peace-affirming work. More than ever, we need a healthy, functioning UN Security Council carrying out the mission assigned to it by the UN Charter. A UN Security Council objective investigation of the Nord Stream terrorism, in which all countries contribute what they know, is important for the global confidence in this body, and most importantly, for global peace and sustainable development. Thank you very much. I thank Mr Sachs for his briefing, and I now give the floor to Mr Raymond McGovern. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I would associate myself completely with Professor Sachs's comments. I do not have a prepared text, and so I was unable to give that to the people who asked me to give it to them. I was asked to do this less than a day ago. No one suggested what I might say, and of course no one even asked me what I would say. So these are my personal remarks based on my experience for 27 years as an intelligence analyst and as an observer, and I noticed that I'm called a political activist. Well, this is my way of paying back for the education I got as an intelligence analyst in the US intelligence community. Now I would say that on my way here, in two airports this morning, I noticed a bunch of children, little children and school age children, and maybe think back to my days as a school age child. I was one of those who hid under my desk because of the threat of the Russian atom bomb, as though that would protect me. Fast forward, when I became a professional analyst and chief of the Soviet foreign policy branch at CIA, I was able to tell the president and Henry Kissinger that the Russians were really interested in putting a cap on the arms race. Suffice it to say, I was instrumental in the anti-ballistic missile treaty signed in May of 1972. I was there, 30 years of strategic stability, 30, count them, three decades, when Mr Bush Jr decided he would leave the ABM treaty without any real explanation. And then Mr Trump left the INF Treaty, which I thought could never be concluded because it involved the destruction, the destruction of a whole class of nucleotipped intermediate range ballistic missiles in Europe and in Siberia. Then we had the Open Skies Treaty from which the US left, and now we are warned that the news start is also in danger. I must say that after the anti-ballistic missile treaty was signed, I was feeling euphoric. I need not worry about whether they're building this building just to be demolished by the next nuclear weapon. And it's very sad for me to watch what's going on now where people can't get together and deal. Verhandeln. That's the German word for negotiate deal. If you look at it, it comes from the word hunt, the hunt, the hunt. You reach out the hunt and you get to know and you get to understand what is bothering the other party. Now, I don't want to get ahead of myself here. I do want to talk about Seymour Hirsch's article and I can't have to say up front full disclosure that I am a friend of Seymour Hirsch and so I will not opine myself. I will cite a very distinguished former US ambassador and also assistant secretary of defense. These are the words he said about Seymour Hirsch. Hirsch attracts whistleblowers because he has a perfect record of protecting their identities and accurately publishing what they reveal after due diligence despite the government denials and slanderous attacks that invariably follow. His reputation is such that people of conscience seek him out. People of conscience. As a US Army officer and as a CIA employee, I took an oath. One oath, it was to support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Some of us took that oath seriously. And when we see this kind of thing going on, we go to somebody who might be able to protect us and might be able to get the word out. Now, this was two weeks ago. Has the New York Times mentioned Seymour Hirsch's article? Has it even reported the denials? No, not yet. This is quite, the Germans would say, McFruity. This is very, very remarkable. Let me go on here and talk about, well, how do we evaluate those who are smearing Seymour Hirsch? Well, as Jeffrey Sacks has already said, the CIA spokespersman said, the claim is completely and utterly false. Oh, now I have to confess being an alumnus of the CIA that our PR people, our public relations people do not have a very good record. No one wants to go back 20 years to Colin Powell's speech before this Security Council. We all know about that. What I would like to do is simply say what happened before that speech. Some conscientious whistleblower gave the text of UN debriefing of Hussein Kamel, one of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law. And who was he? He was supervisor over the radiological, biological, chemical and nuclear programs such as it was in Baghdad. And he said to his interviewers, UN interviewers, US interviewers, UK interviewers, he said the following. All nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs have been destroyed. Now they asked him, the interrogators did. Well, how do you know? And Kamel said, well, I was in charge of them. I mean, I don't know how it works in your country. But when I order something destroyed, it gets destroyed. Yeah, how do you know? Did you check? Well, yeah, I checked a couple. Are you trying to get me to say they were not destroyed? This is 1995. Now someone leaked, someone leaked that transcript to Newsweek. Newsweek, on the 24th, almost exactly 20 years ago, Newsweek published this report saying, Hussein Kamel, the highest ranking Iraqi official ever to defect from Saddam Hussein's inner circle, told the CIA and British intelligence officers and US inspectors in the autumn of 1995 that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Kamel had direct knowledge of what he claimed for 10 years. He ran Iraq's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. And in a classic understatement, the author, John Barry in Newsweek says, The defector's tale raises questions about whether the WMD stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist. Well, I guess, what happened? Newsweek published this in a little blurb first on their site, their website. Then the members of the media went to a fellow named Bill Harlow who was CIA, PR person, CIA spokesperson for the agency. And he said, look, this report is incorrect, it's bogus, it's wrong and it's untrue. Incorrect, bogus, wrong and untrue. And what did the members of the press do? They breathed a sigh of relief and said, I'm sure glad you told us that because we were going to publish on that. It looked pretty documentary. It looked pretty authoritative. It was indeed the transcript of that debriefing. Now, just a word about those who are smearing Sy Hirsh, they don't have a really good record for credibility. Let me move on here. I'd like to talk a little bit about unprovoked. Now, we have heard more than 100 times that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked. This goes back to the widening of NATO, despite the promise not to. And I had a personal experience with one of Garabashov's chief advisers. His name is Kuvaldin, Viktor Borisovic. And about eight years I saw him in Moscow and I said, Victor. I had said, Mr Kuvaldin, why is it that this agreement was not written down? And he said, Mr McGovern, I'll tell you the usual reasons the Germans hadn't bought into it yet and the Warsaw Pact still existed. But really and truly, Mr McGovern, here's what it was. We trusted you. Now, we all know the history of how NATO more than doubled in size with all countries to the east, more than one inch to the east. I want to not belabor that point. It's simply that, you know, it's more than just NATO enlargement. When the Crimea was annexed by Russia, Mr Puchin got up a month later and he said, we had to annex Crimea because of the coup in Kiev in February of 2014. And even more important than NATO membership for Ukraine was the prospect that medium range ballistic missiles will be put on the periphery of the United States. Which indeed they are capable of doing because there are capsules, holes in Romania and Poland that accommodate Tomahawk missiles, cruise missiles, and will eventually accommodate hypersonic missiles. This is very, very serious. Mr Puchin made this point in December of last year, not last year, but the year before in talking to his chief military. Now, how do I end this? I would like to do a little human business here. The Faustin, let me just point out that when I was in Germany last, there was a button that one put on the lapel and it said Puchin Faustier. Now those of you who know German know that that means someone who understands Puchin. And I thought to myself, whoa, somebody is interested in understanding Mr Puchin. And my friends are no, no, no, no. For God's sake, don't wear that button. That's a pejorative. That means you're in Puchin's pocket. Now, Faustin comes from the word stand to stand. Okay. If you can't understand where people stand, you can't understand what bothers them. And what bothers Mr Puchin, as well as membership in NATO for Ukraine, is the emplacement of these holes already operational in Romania and Poland, right on the periphery of the United States. They are disguised as ABM systems, but they can easily be put, accommodate cruise missiles and, as I say, hypersonic missiles. Now, there was a motto in the recent German demonstrations. It said, fachandeln start schiessen. Now, fachandeln is the word for negotiate, to talk, hunt, the hunt. You reach out the hand to the other person. You try to understand them. Fachandeln start schiessen. Schiessen is to shoot, okay? Now, that makes good sense. But I have to tell you that it's not welcome in Germany. A good friend of mine, Heinrich Bücher, has been convicted of saying we ought to put ourselves in the shoes of Mr Puchin and we ought to realize the far-right influence in the government of Kiev. He was convicted in a German court. He's appealing, but he's not going to pay the 2,000 euro fine, so it's likely he will end up in jail for several months. Now, that's freedom of speech. We enjoy that here in the United States. I really am concerned what will happen to my friend. Just suffice it to end here and to say that this fachandeln, you know, fachandeln, reach your hand. Let's be human here. Let's not dust each other off. Let's extend our hands. Fachandeln schiessen. Well, you know, it was very, very bleak in our country during the suppression of blacks. And I had the privilege of working with Vincent Harding, a Dr Harding, who was the author of Martin Luther King's speech on Vietnam. He had a song, and the song was, we got to keep on moving forward, never turning back. Well, what I would suggest is that we need to. We need to keep on moving forward. And I would recommend the second stanza of this to you all. And if you would listen, I would really very appreciate it. We're going to keep on moving forward. We're going to keep on loving our enemies. We're going to keep on loving our enemies. We're going to keep on loving our enemies. Never turning back. Never turning back. In closing, I will just refer to those children that I noticed more than I usually notice children in the airports today. And when I ask you all, because you have the power to do so, given to you after the last major world war, I ask you to do what's necessary so that no one kills the children anymore. Thank you very much. Thank you, and I now give the floor to those members of the Security Council who wish to make statements. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation. Mr President, today we have come together today for a very significant meeting. It has been convened, but it significantly differs in tone from the previous meeting on sabotage against Nord Stream that we convened on 30 September last year. As many of us recall then, in principle, it was clear who could be behind this act of international terrorism. This is precisely how we qualify what happened, and Russian investigative bodies have initiated criminal proceedings under the irrelevant article of our country's criminal code. The leadership of the US made several statements, and the nub of it boiled down to the fact that if Russia continues to act in a way that is not pleasing to the US, then Nord Stream would be destroyed. There was the former Foreign Minister of Poland, Mr Sikorski, who in his Russophobic rant in social media thanked the US. Then there was the careless text sent to someone who also hates our country no less, the former Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May. But formally the US has totally rejected its participation in the sabotage against international critical pipeline infrastructure, incidentally as they are still doing now. Since examples of the enmity of officials in Washington regarding the destruction of Nord Stream has just increased, primarily thanks to the well-known Russophob, the godmother of the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine, Mrs Newland. But we, of course, wouldn't have sought to convene today's meeting just because of that. The situation is that on the 8th of February, thanks to the well-known American investigative journalist, the Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hirsch, we found out not only that the US did it, but how they did it with the involvement of their NATO ally, Norway. Based on facts and witness evidence, he clearly proved that the American divers during the balltops NATO exercise in the summer of 2022 planted explosive under Nord Stream that three months later on the 26th of September was activated by the Norwegians. So now we are extremely certain, not only who, but how the gas pipeline was blown up. These facts in essence mean that we can say that what happened is something that represents the use of force with means that are not in line with the aims of the UN. In my statement, I'm not going to talk about other details of the sensational investigation by Mr Hirsch. This is something that our two rapporteurs have just talked to us about in detail, Jeffrey Sachs and Ray McGovern. I just like to say that the depth of the information that he has is astonishing. His previous professional experience and his flawless journalistic reputation leaves no doubt as to the fact that the American journalist is telling the truth. It is also astonishing not only because of the degree of cynicism and conviction in their own impunity regarding the carrying out of this unprecedented crime. Of course, we've drawn attention already to the fact that our American colleagues have placed themselves above the law, indeed claiming that they are indeed the law itself. It's only them who can, with impunity, interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, carry out anti-constitutional coups, carry out acts of aggression against independent states. And I'd like to remind you that from the end of the Cold War alone, in line with a document that was prepared in 2022 by the US Congress Research Institute, there were 250 cases of the use of US armed force abroad. So it's only they who can kill and maim civilians in other countries refusing to hand over the perpetrators to the international justice system. Along with their allies who run with a herd, they call this the rules-based order where the rules are dictated by themselves. But before blowing up a foreign pipeline that is the property of a state with whom the US is not in a state of war, previously they didn't stoop to this, but this day has now come. And it may well be a precursor of an epoch where transborder and transcontinental communications become the legitimate targets for operations to weaken various different states. An epoch, as you understand it, of chaos and terrible damage for the whole of humanity. The chances are very high that this will come about, especially if the perpetrators for the Nord Stream explosion are not found and not brought to justice. And if those countries that are behind it do not compensate the state that suffered was a victim of this damage, that is what is stipulated under international law and it's a basic principle of justice. Then and only then do we have a chance to avoid this state of chaos. Everything is in your hands and we can resolve this today during our Security Council meeting. Mr President, irrespective of what our former Western partners will say today, we don't intend and are not involved in spreading dissemination in the council. And we're not trying to have accusations based on the spirit of highly likely, for example, our British representatives who here in this chamber use supposition and conjecture that ran counter to facts and common sense and sought to accuse us five years ago of the poisoning of the Scripples. Regarding the Nord Stream explosion, there is no doubt neither is to the motive of the crime, neither to who carried out, nor is to the way in which the crime was carried out. This is more than just a smoking gun that our American detectives love in Hollywood blockbusters. With such clues, no lawyer would agree to defend our American colleagues and the jury verdict would be in no doubt whatsoever. But we are not here in order to set up a trial in the Security Council as you're aware. We presented a draft resolution, a UN Security Council draft resolution, requesting the Secretary General to conduct an independent international investigation to verify the facts that Seymour Hirsch has put forward and other independent journalists. We had to do this because we have significant doubts regarding the effectiveness, transparency and impartiality of the investigations conducted currently in a number of national jurisdictions. We do not see a desire from our partners to cooperate. We have drawn attention to the letter disseminated today by the PRs of Germany, Denmark and Sweden that says that the authorities of these countries have informed Russia about how the investigation is going. In fact, the situation is very different. The leadership of these states ignored the letter that was sent in October 2020 on the speaker of the Russian parliament, Mr Minchustin, regarding the participation of representatives of the Russian relevant federal bodies of the executive branch and the gas prom company in the investigations. The requests of the Russian general prosecutor to the relevant agencies were rejected since we're talking about a crime committed with the assistance of an explosive device and therefore something that comes under the international convention on combating explosive terrorism of the 15th of December 1997. We do expect that states that have something to do with the incident into Alia and primarily the US, Norway, Denmark and Sweden will uphold their obligations under this document. However, we see no political resolve amongst their leadership. In fact, it is completely lacking. Therefore, unfortunately we have no other choice in order to get to the truth. The investigations that are carried out with the Scandinavian countries and Germany are not only not transparent but it is quite clear that they seek just to cover the tracks and stick up for their old American brother. We are not allowed to join and all of our requests are being hypocritically ignored. Incidentally, it's rather odd that those countries who are involved in the investigations are not here in this meeting and so we don't see their desire to be involved. Of course, we have no trust in this investigation whatsoever and we can't have any trust but the UN Secretary General is somebody we do still fully trust and we hope that you do too so that is why we want to hand over the investigation to him. We distributed in the General Assembly and the Security Council an address of the State Dumer of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation with the relevant request and also notes from the Russian PR to the foreign ministries of Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the US on this topic. You can all read these documents. If our American colleagues fear nothing, if they have no doubt in the fact that the conclusions of their compatriot are wrong, then the US has nothing at stake here. It can't risk anything. We will be sure that this will be achieved very quickly and we will see those who through their actions harm international peace and security will be brought to justice. Here we do expect our proposal to be supported. Experts are discussing this text at the moment. After the first round we do have the impression that Western experts are not interested in having an objective international investigation in any case which of course only shows up. Our suspicions, therefore colleagues, your attitude to work on our proposed draft resolution, your interest or your lack thereof of finding the perpetrators and bringing them to justice will indeed be decisive in terms of our further steps in the context of this act of sabotage. We very much want to believe that you will not disappoint either ourselves or your own citizens and you will help to establish the truth as to what happened as pursuant to the charter of our global organisation. Thank you very much. I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for their statement and I now give the floor to the representative of Mozambique. Thank you, Mr President. Mozambique wishes to thank you and the Secretary General, Dick Adler, Professor Geoffrey Sacks and Mr Raymond McGovern for their important briefings on the issue of the Nord Stream incident that took place in September 2022. We are aware of the allegation of sabotage made regarding the incident. In our opinion it is imperative that the thorough investigation be effected in order to determine the real cause of the incident. We call on the involved government to act in good faith in an expeditious and thorough manner taken into account the seriousness of the allegations. Mr President, together with the potential security implications, the Nord Stream incident could also represent an ecological danger. The release of harmful substances into the environment can have long lasting consequences for both the ecosystem and the health of the local community. The European Space Agency estimated that the emissions leak from the Nord Stream gas pipeline was roughly equivalent to one and a half days of global methane emissions. So in addition to the potential security implication, the Nord Stream incident also has a significant ecological impact with the release of huge amounts of methane gas and methane gas as I mentioned earlier. So Mr President, it is our responsibility to take all necessary measures to minimize harm to the environment and ensure that such incidents are prevented from happening in the future. It is therefore crucial that the Security Council remains vigilant in addressing incidents like these and works to find a solution that upholds international law and promotes the greater good. Mr President, in conclusion, the Nord Stream incident serves as a reminder of the need to quickly de-escalate the conflict whose ramification keeps expanding. I thank you. I thank the representative of Mozambique for their statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Ecuador. Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank the Under Secretary General, Rosemary Di-Calo, for her informative briefing, as well as the other speakers. Since September 2022, we have continued to be deeply concerned about the explosions that occurred in the underwater gas pipelines Nord Stream 1 and 2 in the Baltic Sea. Firstly, because we have said this again and again, nothing justifies attacks against essential civilian infrastructure, including energy infrastructure. Secondly, because in addition to endangering the safety of maritime and aerial navigation, it also is an incalculable source of pollution to local marine life with possible devastating climate consequences having released millions of cubic metres of gas into the atmosphere. And thirdly, because this is happening in the midst of an extremely complex global geopolitical situation in which any incident could trigger unpredictable consequences. For all of these reasons, Ecuador condemns these acts and calls upon all states of this organisation to show the greatest caution and maximum restraint. Likewise, we recognise the security measures that were taken in September by Denmark and Sweden in order to reduce the risk to shipping, and we very much appreciate the joint letter today of the 21st of February, also signed by Germany, informing us on the investigations underway in accordance with the fundamental principles of the rule of law. We therefore express our support for these investigations and we look forward to their conclusions. The international community and this council must facilitate the conduct of these investigations, avoiding any disruptive actions which either limit them or influence them. Thank you. The representative of Ecuador for their statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Gabon. Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank Under Secretary General Rosemary DeCarlo, Professor Geoffrey Sachs, and Mr McGovern for their briefings. The council is meeting once again today to address the follow-on from the explosions that occurred on the 26th and 27th of September last, leading to significant gas leaks in the North Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, serving to transport gas from Russia to Europe via the Baltic Sea. Strong suspicions of sabotage linked to the war in Ukraine have accompanied these particular alarming developments, given the damage to the environment constituted by the leak of methane gas. I'd like to stress that methane gas is 80% more warming than carbon dioxide and that a leak of this gas into the sea also constitutes a genuine environmental disaster and a clear threat for maritime fauna and flora. It transpired from the meeting on the 30th of September last that the possibility of an accident was excluded and that investigations needed to be carried out in order to shed light on the events. My country takes note of the opening of investigations by a number of European countries, Sweden, Denmark and Germany in particular, and the results of preliminary investigations confirming the suspicions of sabotage. Mr President, my country reiterates its condemnation of these unjustifiable attacks aimed at civilian infrastructure. Apart from the significant environmental consequences, they are leading to economic losses sending a shockwave well beyond the country's concern and are thus increasing the pressure exerted by the conflict on the economy of a number of countries. We would recall that the parties are called upon to respect international conventions, protecting populations and civilian infrastructure from all armed attack. Finally, my country calls upon all parties to demonstrate responsibility and circumspection and to do everything possible to ensure that those responsible for these attacks be held accountable for their acts before the competent authorities. Thank you. Thank you, Mr President, and let me begin by thanking Under Secretary-General DeCarlo for her briefing. President, the UK condemns the acts of sabotage targeting the Nord Stream pipeline. However, it's not clear to us why five months on, Russia is suddenly pursuing this issue here with such urgency. We welcome a letter from Denmark, Sweden and Germany informing UN Member States that investigations are ongoing. The UK fully supports these technical investigations led by competent national authorities and awaits their findings. President, the only recent development regarding Nord Stream, of which we are aware, is a new round of lurid accusations by Russian state-controlled media and public figures, and these are the same actors that originally chose to accuse the UK. The basis for these new accusations is an article by an American journalist that cites only a single secret source, and it's no surprise that the Russian ambassador chose not to dwell on the details, as these details have been comprehensively debunked already by other journalists, including on the basis of very straightforward open source fact checking. It's therefore our view that the real reason for Russia's urgency today is a desperate desire to distract attention one year on from the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, from the massive casualties suffered by the Russian military, and from the devastation that Russia's war has wrought on the people of Ukraine as well as its effects across the globe. The UK takes the issue of attacks on critical infrastructure very seriously. It's why we have so frequently condemned a miscounsel, Russia's attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure, on Ukraine's schools and on Ukraine's hospitals. However, we're not convinced that Russia's initiative today, or its calls for the establishment of the UN commission of inquiry, amount to anything more than a distraction from its continuing aggression in Ukraine. I thank the representative of the United Kingdom for their statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of the United Arab Emirates. Mr President, I thank Under Secretary General de Carlo for her briefing, and we listen carefully to Mr Sacks and Mr McGovern. Acts of sabotage against energy infrastructure, such as explosions that damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea last September, are unacceptable. They pose a significant threat to international security, stability and prosperity. They may also disrupt markets and undermine the predictability of energy supplies, and as we have seen in this case, they can carry a significant risk of environmental damage. Last year's explosions had devastating consequences for our planet, leading to the worst methane gas leak ever recorded. As we work together to address climate change, such events only make our collective efforts more difficult. Mr President, the UAE takes this incident extremely seriously. When we met last September to discuss this issue, the exact cause of the explosions was unknown. What was clear was the importance of conducting an investigation into the causes of the explosion and preventing the situation from escalating further. The imperative for thorough and credible investigations, alongside the need to reduce tensions, is as relevant today as it was last fall. It is important that the investigations are grounded in science and facts, not politics and posturing. The gravity of the situation demands a serious and sober approach and requires holding those responsible accountable. It is vital that we send a loud and clear message that these types of acts cannot be tolerated. While several investigations are ongoing, we urge all concerned parties not to resort to unilateral measures or escalatory actions. At a time of considerable regional and international uncertainty, we can ill afford any steps that could inflame tensions. Mr President, we await the establishment of the facts around the incidents, the identification of those responsible, and proper steps to ensure accountability. Thank you, Mr President. I thank the representative of the United Arab Emirates for their statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of Ghana. Mr President, I would like to thank Undersecretary General Rosemary Di Calw for her briefing to the council. We also thank Professor Jeffrey Sacks and Mr Raymond McGovern for their perspectives. When we met in the council last September, we expressed great concern about the unprecedented damage caused to the Nord Stream 1 and two gas pipelines. As a result of what preliminary investigations by Denmark and Sweden had established to be a deliberate act of sabotage. We welcome the recent joint updates submitted to the Council by Denmark, Germany, and Sweden on the matter, and the confirmation of their respective ongoing investigations by their national institutions. We encourage their further action to conclusively determine the full scope of the incident and respect of the motive and actors. We affirm the international community's continuing interest in the matter, and urge that the ongoing investigative processes should endeavour to keep the Russian authorities and operator informed and their cooperation sought as necessary. We reiterate our position that in accordance with the objects of Security Council Resolution 2341 of 2017, critical infrastructure, especially of a transnational kind, should be protected and kept safe from harm as bridges for cooperation. We note from the available assessment that the environmental damage thus far has been localised and appreciate the swift actions of the concerned countries to mitigate the immediate impact. We however remain concerned by the greenhouse gas emissions which had non-localised consequences. Before concluding, we continue to urge cooperation among all relevant actors to establish the facts and appropriate remedial action taken, including ensuring accountability in order to bring an early closure to the matter. While investigations are ongoing, we urge restraints by all parties concerned and caution against unilateral actions that may be detrimental to the peace. I thank you. I thank the representative of Ghana for their statements, and I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland. Monsieur le Président. Thank you, Mr President. I'd like to thank Under Secretary General, Ms Rosemary de Caelover, for her briefing. I've also taken note of the remarks of Mr Jeffrey Sachs and Mr Ray McGovern. Switzerland is concerned about the damage to Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines, which have resulted in worrying gas leaks and did so last September. As was mentioned by many at the Security Council meeting last September, and as stated in the letter sent to the Council by Sweden and Denmark on 29 September, all available information indicates that these were acts of sabotage. Let me reiterate our position of principle. We condemn any attack on critical infrastructure, such as energy infrastructure, and its consequences on the supply of people, the economy and the environment. It is important to stick to the facts and to support any credible effort to shed light on the explosions that occurred last September. In this regard, Switzerland notes the letter submitted today by Germany, Denmark and Sweden regarding the ongoing investigations. Thank you. I thank the representative of Switzerland for their statements, and I now give the floor to the representative of Japan. Thank you, Mr President. Thank you, USDD Carol, Professor Sachs, and Mr McGovern for the briefing. Mr President, Japan is deeply concerned about the incident happened to the critical infrastructure, namely the Nord Stream pipelines in international waters in the Baltic Sea. We are concerned about potentially long-term damage and risk to the marine environment and climate in the region. The investigation of the incident is ongoing, and Japan is monitoring the progress of the investigation, closely monitoring the progress of the investigation. At the same time, this incident reminds us, once again, of the importance of ensuring the safety of energy infrastructure. Any targeting of civilian infrastructure and facilities must be avoided. We strongly condemn any act of violence against that. We are closely following developments and continue to urge those involved to exercise restraint and refrain from engaging in any activity that could disrupt peace and stability. Energy resources, including natural gas, are fundamental to people's lives. Vanillism to critical infrastructure is an unacceptable act that will have a life-and-death impact on countless people. We hope that the results of the ongoing efforts of investigation by Sweden and Denmark will clarify the cause, and the Security Council will be able to discuss the issue on the ground based on the results of the investigation. In this regard, we call on all parties to fully cooperate with ongoing investigation and provide credible information in a transparent manner. Mr President, the time and the resources of the Security Council, which is responsible for the peace and security of the international community, are not unlimited. It must prioritize its efforts about where to allocate its resources. I thank you. I thank the representative of Japan for their statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of the United States. Thank you, Mr President. And we thank Under Secretary General de Carlo for her briefing. We listened carefully to the other briefers today. We recognize their past history and service, though we question their relevant knowledge to speak as an expert briefer on the topic at hand. Mr President, the United States is deeply concerned by the sabotage that took place on Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines last September. Deliberate actions to damage critical infrastructure cannot be tolerated. But let's be clear why we are really here in the Council today. Later this week, as we near the one-year anniversary, the General Assembly will debate the impact of Russia's illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Today's meeting is a blatant attempt to distract from this. As the world unites this week to call for a just and secure peace in Ukraine consistent with the UN Charter, Russia desperately wants to change the subject. This is not the first time Russia has used its seat on this Council to amplify conspiracy theories from the internet. We wish it would apply the same urgency shown over the past three days instead to the myriad credible reports of human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law caused by its invading forces. However, let me state clearly and plainly, accusations the United States was involved in this act of sabotage are completely false. The United States was not involved at all. Competent authorities in Denmark, Germany and Sweden are investigating these incidents in a comprehensive, transparent and impartial manner. Resources for the UN investigations should be preserved for cases when states are unwilling or unable to investigate genuinely. Let us not be fooled by Russia's claim it only wants impartial investigation. Its draft resolution clearly implicates the United States and mischaracterizes statements by U.S. officials. Russia does not seek an impartial investigation. It seeks to prejudice ongoing ones toward a predetermined conclusion of its choosing. The expedited timeline on which the Russian delegation demanded we discuss this issue cast significant doubt on the seriousness of its intentions. The Nord Stream pipeline ruptures occurred five months ago. Now, as we approach the one-year anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia claims it is urgent that Council discuss it this week. Russia yet again is abusing its position as a permanent member of the Security Council by using this meeting as a platform for disinformation and conspiracy theories. It is regrettable that with everything else on the Council's agenda this week, North Korean ballistic missiles tensioned in the Middle East, a humanitarian crisis in Turkey and Syria following devastating earthquakes, that Russia is again deliberately wasting this Council's time. Russia's claim to be concerned over the sabotage of critical infrastructure rings hollow. For months, Russia has relentlessly attacked its neighbor, striking cities and towns across Ukraine, damaging and destroying residential areas and medical facilities. Russia's attacks against Ukraine's civilian infrastructure have left families in Ukraine without heat and electricity during the coldest, darkest period of the year. Later this week, countries will vote in the General Assembly on a resolution reaffirming the UN Charter and calling for an end to hostilities in Ukraine in a manner consistent with the Charter's principles. This should be our priority. Instead of indulging conspiracy theories, we should focus on ways to diplomatically resolve this conflict in a way consistent with the UN Charter and fully restore the territorial integrity of a UN member state. Thank you Mr President. I thank the representative of the United States for their statement and I now give the floor to the representative of Albania. Thank you Mr President. And I thank USGD Caile for her briefing. We listened carefully to the interventions of Mr Sacks and Mr Black Governe on the matter. At the Security Council meeting on 30 September last year, we expressed our deep concern regarding an apparent act of sabotage on the pipelines Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, in the exclusive economic zones of Denmark, Sweden and Baltic Sea. Such acts are unacceptable. We have welcomed the prompt response and we have supported the investigations initiated by the national authorities of Denmark, Germany and Sweden to determine the origin of the damage and the possible perpetrators. As confirmed by the letter sent today to the president of the Security Council by the permanent representatives of Denmark, Germany and Sweden, the investigation is underway and we have full confidence on the respective authorities involved to make a real comprehensive and objective investigation on this case. We look forward to the conclusions of the investigation. In this context, we do not see any need for a parallel investigation by an international commission as asked for by the Russian Federation to overlap what is already going on. From what we heard today, there are no new facts, no new evidence, no attribution, just assumption. Therefore, while we are and remain stand supporter of the freedom of speech and of health debates, we do not see the Security Council as a depository of conspiracy theories. We have deployed in the past and wish to reiterate that we should not misuse the time and resources of the Council to push baseless narratives fed by specific narrow interests. Colleagues, the timing of the request for this meeting is no coincidence. The aim is to divert in whatever way and with whatever means, even with empty shells like this, the attention from the events scheduled on the first anniversary of the Russian military aggression against Ukraine. While attacking the bombing permanently and bombing permanently the civilian and strategic infrastructure of Ukraine, killing innocent people and making their life unbearable, Russia is trying to mislead the international opinion by misusing the Security Council. This is why we believe that in this moment there is no need for UN Security Council resolution on this issue. Instead, we call on the members of the Security Council and the wide UN membership to fully support the resolution on comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine that will be tabled in the General Assembly this week and confirm once more that the UN remains on the right side. A strong foundation for peace and progress against aggression and regress, and I thank you. I thank the representative of Albania for their statement and I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil. Thank you, Mr President. I would like to thank you as G. Rosemary de Carlo, Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Mr Ray McGovern for their briefings. The press article that motivated our meeting today reports serious allegations about last September's incidents on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines. It is widely known that there are claims that these incidents were acts of sabotage. Nevertheless, the Brazilian position on this issue remains the same as we expressed at the meeting called for shortly after the events. Any response should be based on sound information and the results of impartial investigations. We ask other members to proceed with caution in the face of assertions attributable to a single anonymous source. On the other hand, the seriousness of the allegations and the accusation of involvement of state actors in the episode must be given due consideration by this council. We understand the importance of secrecy to the success of investigations, but given the political implications of the incidents, we encourage greater transparency in the dissemination of established facts and restraint in the propagation of unproven interpretations. Only in this way will it be possible for us to go beyond the field of speculation. Brazil reiterates its concern about the consequences of the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines, which resulted in the worsening of the energy crisis in Europe and in serious long-term economic losses. The damage to regional energy infrastructure is particularly regrettable. We must also emphasize that harmful consequences for the environment need to be carefully assessed by the proper international bodies.  I thank you Mr President. I thank the representative of Brazil for their statement, and I now give the floor to the representative of France. Mr President, France has clearly stated its concern after the two underwater explosions that affected the gas pipelines Nord Stream 1 and 2 in the Baltic Sea on 27 September last. It is under our presidency of the Security Council that we met on 30 September on this same subject. Our assessment remains unchanged. These events are unprecedented and must be taken seriously. The situation is particularly serious since the information available indicates that these explosions are the result of a deliberate act and have a human origin. Investigations have been carried out by Germany, Denmark and Sweden. We have no reason to doubt the earnest nature of these procedures which are currently underway and which must be brought to a conclusion. I would like to thank these three countries for the letter that they jointly addressed to the presidency of this council giving the latest information on these investigations. On the other hand, we have every reason to doubt the validity of the Russian intervention. No emergency nor any new credible information justifies the holding of such a meeting five months after the incident. One might also be surprised at the zeal shown by Russia to have an investigation carried out on Nord Stream whilst they are doing everything that they can to prevent a mission of the Secretary at being deployed in Kiev to inspect the debris from Iranian drones that are located there. What we are seeing today is therefore an attempt to divert the attention of the international community since Friday will mark the first anniversary of the war of aggression unleashed by Russia against Ukraine. Thank you. I thank the representative of France for their statement and I now give the floor to the representative of China. Mr President, I thank USG Dicalo, Professor Sacks and Mr McGovern for their briefings. The Nord Stream gas pipelines are major transboundary infrastructure and energy transportation artery. The pipelines damaged in September last year had a major negative impact on the global energy market and the ecological environment. It also caused energy shortages for businesses and households in many European countries this winter. It is increasingly clear that what happened to Nord Stream pipelines was by no means an accident but rather a deliberate human act. From the perspective of physical conditions, it is hard to imagine that any non-state actor would be capable of carrying out such destruction alone. At an open meeting of the Council held last September, many countries called for an investigation into the incident to uncover the truth and identify those responsible. This is also China's position. China supports speeding up the investigation so as to swiftly find out the truth. We live in an era of globalization when cooperation among countries in energy, transportation and communication is increasingly close and transboundary construction spans across continents and oceans. Any deliberate sabotage of transboundary infrastructure is malicious act. Failure to find out why it happened and who is behind the destruction will send a wrong signal to those with ill intention and make them believe that they can get away with whatever they do. An objective impartial and professional investigation into this matter and pursuing accountability and release defining as soon as possible are not only related to the incident itself but also bear on the security of global transboundary infrastructure. Moreover, they are also closely related to the interests and concerns of every country. As the most authoritative and representative international organisation, the UN can play an active role in conducting an international investigation and ensuring the security of transboundary infrastructure. China welcomes the draft resolution table by Russia in the Council and believes that it is of great significance to authorize an international investigation into the sabotage of the North Stream pipelines. Recently, we have come across a lot of details and relevant information concerning the North Stream incident, and the relevant information is alarming. Today, the briefers have also shared with us important information and their reasonable analysis. Faced with such detailed materials and comprehensive evidence, a simple statement of utterly false and complete fiction is obviously not enough to answer the many questions and concerns raised around the world. Finding a way to dodge today's meeting does not mean that truth can be concealed. We expect convincing explanations from relevant parties. Such a request is entirely legitimate and reasonable. Mr President, the North Stream incident reminds us that security threats in the modern world are increasingly interlinked, transboundary and diversified. This calls for the establishment of a common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concept, multi-prong strategy, an integrated approach and coordinated security governance in order to meet various security challenges. Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed a global security initiative, which provides a new direction and new ideas for eliminating the root causes of conflict, break security predicament and maintaining common security. The Global Security Initiative concept paper, released by China Today, elaborates the core concepts and principles of the initiative and provides an important path through the implementation of the initiative over 20 key cooperation areas which are action-oriented. We are willing to work with all parties to firmly support the core role of the UN in security governance, strive to promote coordination and interaction among major powers, actively promote dialogue and peaceful resolution of hotspot issues, effectively respond to traditional and non-traditional security challenges, continuously strengthen the global security governance system and capacity building, maintain peace and tranquility on the earth, and create a better future for humankind. I thank you, Mr President. I thank the representative of China for their statement, and I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Malta. I begin by thanking Gondry Secretary-General De Carlo for her briefing. The damage to the North Stream 1 and 2 pipelines last September, resulting in dangerous leaks into international waters in the Baltic Sea, gives rise to serious safety and environmental concerns. All available information indicates that these leaks were a result of a deliberate act. In a deliberate disruption of energy infrastructure is dangerous and irresponsible, particularly in the midst of a global energy crisis. The weaponisation of energy and infrastructure is unacceptable. The damage from these leaks threatened to the private Europe of a key route of the delivery of a crucial energy resource. Furthermore, the damage placed increased strain on global energy markets already affected by Russia's war against Ukraine. This impacts not only the countries who received energy through the North Stream pipeline, but also has repercussions for developing countries around the world. The incident highlights the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure. Malta underlines its solidarity with Denmark, Sweden and Germany, and strongly supports the ongoing investigations to establish the full truth behind the leaks. We welcome the letter circulated by Denmark, Sweden and Germany, providing an update of these investigations. Malta once again condemns any deliberate disruption of energy infrastructure. Let us not be distracted today from the sheer extent of the damage that Russia's war of aggression has caused in Ukraine, particularly to civilians. Attacks directed against civilians and objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population are prohibited under international humanitarian law. Malta condemns such attacks in the strongest possible terms. I now resume my function as president of the council. There are no more names inscribed on this list of speakers. The meeting is adjourned.


What's happening, Magnesites? So, comicbook.com has a picture released by Zach Snyder. A close look here of the new Batman suit that has given us a better look, an overall look at it. And this is what the article says. It says, after tonight's eye-match screening of the Batman vs. Superman Dawn of Justice trailer, Batman vs. Superman Dawn of Justice director, Zach Snyder shared a brand new look at Batman's costume. Snyder wrote, thanks to everyone that turned out for the Monday Batman vs. Superman Special Eye-match event screening tonight. It says Batman vs. Superman Dawn of Justice stars Henry Cavill in the role of Clark Kent Superman. Okay, looks like he's just giving a breakdown. Okay, so, what do you think? I like it, okay? And I know some of y'all are saying, hmm, no, sir, I don't like it.  I'm gonna tell you why. I like it because it is, first of all, I think it does a great job of the short ears version of Batman. The Jim Lee version. The Frank Miller version. I've never really liked the Frank Miller version. I always thought the bad sign was too fat and bulky. And it was almost like the bad sign matched how he drew him. I never liked the Frank Miller Batman. But I do like the Jim Lee Batman. This is somehow, to me, a nice cross between that and the Jim Lee Batman. And maybe with some hints or sprinkles, hints or sprinkles of the Ark of Knights Batman. Which is probably my favorite suit, period. Favorite suit, period. I've never been a fan of the fact that he would walk around in just clothing, you know. Because he could get cut, shot in a lot of different areas. I know there was a thing where he used to wear a Kevlar right under the patch so he couldn't get shot in the heart and nothing. But anyway, the point is, I love it. I love this suit. I can't wait to see what they do for Halloween because if this is a good enough one, I'll definitely get it. Okay, definitely. So, I love this suit. I love the short ears. I've never had a problem with the short ears. It works. Ben looks astounding in it. I have no issues with it. Now, I know Akkasan had an issue with it because he said he was looking for, I think, a more streamlined Batman. And I get it. Like, if you look at the stats for how big they are compared to each other, Superman is bigger than Batman. Okay, but they were loosely, but they're loosely basing it on the whole Frank Miller thing, so they have a big imposing Batman. I get it, whatever. To me, it's not that big of an issue, but I understand fans who have an issue with it, especially if you're a martial artist. Bruce Lee believed in being lean, fit, fast, hard, strong, power, you know, all that. But he's efficient, kind of like Antonio Cesaro on WWE. That wrestler, like, pound for pound, is probably the strongest, pound for pound, okay? But you've got other wrestlers like the hated John Cena. He's a power man, but he's also big and bulky. But if you look at both of those men moving the ring, he's got nothing on Cesaro. Cesaro is efficient, okay? So I get the whole efficiency argument, all right? So, post your comments down below, let me know what you think of the new suit. If you enjoyed my video, press the like button, subscribe and share. If you didn't, hit the like button, subscribe and share. One million subscribers. Woo!


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering Knowledge 16, brought to you by ServiceNow. Here are your hosts, Dave Vellante and Jeff Frick. We're back at Knowledge 16, welcome. This is theCUBE, the theCUBE of SiliconANGLE's flagship program. We go out to the events, we extract the signal from the noise for you, our audience. John Reimer is here, he's a vice president and principal analyst at Forrester Research. We're going to talk developers. John, thanks for coming on theCUBE. Good, my favorite subject. So we learned today that you and your colleague, Clay, what was Clay's last name? Clay Richardson? Clay Richardson coined the term low-code developer. Low-code platforms. Low-code platforms, that's where it started. And then it evolved, of course, into low-code developer and no-code developer and citizen developer. It has taken on a life of its own. So what was the concept, take us back to the formation of that concept. What were you guys thinking at the time? We were trying to come up with a term to describe a set of customer behaviors and a set of products that we were researching and researching in the field. So we found customers that were choosing application development platforms that allowed them to work very, very quickly. So that meant not only declarative tooling as opposed to coding, but it also meant self-service, very low cost, if any, to get started, build something small, keep going and keep going. And so there was a set of products that basically satisfied that need, but they were all kind of random. So it was like, well, these products seem to have something in common. What are we gonna call it? And one of the proposals was no code, which I rejected because nobody will believe it. So I said, look, there's always code. There's always code. The point here is to try to devote your precious coding resource only when you absolutely have to. And when you can get, when you can deliver the app without coding, that's a huge productivity gain, a huge gain in speed and so forth. Hence, low code. And how long ago was this, you guys? This was two years ago. Now, okay, what you just described of sort of low cost, speed, start small and grow, it's kind of what's on the mind of developers. But let me ask you the question, what is on the mind of developers today? How has it evolved over the last two years? So those concerns are still remain in place. I think they going, so moving on from trying to basically introduce new tooling and new processes like Agile and continuous integrations and so forth to speed up coding and introducing low code. Now people are basically trying to scale it up. So in low code, people are trying to basically apply these platforms very, very broadly. Not only for the departmental and sort of glue kinds of applications, but really their full portfolio and really tackle mission critical, tackle all kinds of scenarios. And the early adopters are having a lot of success there. We have a lot of confidence that we're at the tip of the iceberg here. There's going to be a lot more adoption. So we go around a lot of these events and you see, I mean, the developer events are some of the big ones. They're obviously the Worldwide Developer Conference. Google IO was this week. Facebook's Developer Conference. Clearly Microsoft for years has had a developer affinity. And then you see, you know, entrance from Cloud Foundry. IBM at all of its events now has sort of little spinouts. EMC even at EMC World had a thing called code. Everybody's trying to get in the act of covet developers. And now you see ServiceNow put up a sign and say, okay, we're going to have a little code.  Right, it's ironic to me that you have a low code developer culture burgeoning here. And I juxtapose that to some of the others. Now some of them, obviously Apple swamped. Yeah, everybody wants to participate there. But what do you make of that phenomenon of ServiceNow's developer community? Well, ServiceNow has a developer community and is trying to expand it. I mean, the bottom line is that ServiceNow has an opportunity to really apply its technology much more broadly as do other vendors in this space. The opportunity here is that what they're really doing is trying to fill a shortage. They're just, everybody's concerned about developers because developers are crucial now for all business activities. You can't produce any business innovation or any business change now without software. You either need new software or changes to existing software. And there just are not enough coders to go around. Nowhere close to enough coders to go around. So the vendors like ServiceNow that have low code approach have the opportunity to help their clients essentially expand their developer community beyond just the coders, empower more folks who understand a business process or understand an analytic approach or understand customer behavior and what customers might respond to to actually produce software or in a minimum really positively influence a production of software. I think this low code phenomenon that we're seeing is going to result in just a different, a whole new community of people coming into software delivery, a much bigger community and that's how we're going to solve this gap. What are some other examples? Because you see some pretty intense code at some of the, like AWS, you know, it's a hoodie crowd. But I thought Pat made an interesting comment this morning. Pat Casey about somebody that was an app developer and made an app and had no clue that they were an app developer or made an app. They built a workflow and they didn't build an app but he's like, well, is there data involved? Yeah, is there process involved? Yeah, is there notifications involved? Yeah, you know, so back to your point, it wasn't a developer in the hardcore sense writing code but the output was a quote unquote an app. Quote unquote an app, right? Exactly, this is exactly how we're going to, this is exactly how we're going to fill this gap is to broaden the community because there are different kinds of apps, right? If I'm going to go and write the next great Java framework or the next great, you know, service on AWS, well, I'm probably a hardcore coder. I'm probably, I'm even a DevOps person. I'm in configuring infrastructure as well. You know, there's a lot of business apps that don't require that level of skill. So let's not, let's basically devote those people to the tasks where they're really, where they're most needed. And a lot of business apps in fact can be built by developers that have their primary value is they understand the business, they understand the vertical industry or they understand the business process. So I think we're going to see this much, much more of this as we go forward. Have universities picked up on this and is there curriculum emerging to support low code development? Not that I've seen, but I'll admit I haven't looked very hard. Should there be in your view? Absolutely. I mean, I think that one thing that I feel like is that we as an industry don't really have language to talk about this productively. So people talk about citizen developer. What is that? You know, we talk about business analysts and you know, there are different roles that we talk about. We really don't have precise, you know, definitions for these roles. So therefore, how can we possibly train for them? How can we possibly even recognize who these people are? So I think hopefully what I'm hoping to see is that we'll somehow come up with a way of recognizing people who have technical ability but their real value is solving business problems. So it's this melding between a developer and a business analyst kind of a role. So Benioff kind of got it right when he said that there'd be more SaaS companies coming from outside of the technology industry than inside the technology. And that's part of the big reason for the shortage. And those business people can envision an outcome and if they could develop an app to make it happen, that would be a good thing. But what do they need to do that? They need a platform like ServiceNow, for example, or others? Yeah, they need the right tools. They need a platform that is managed rather than an app maybe runs on there, that generates a file that runs on a laptop under Joe's desk. They need a managed platform. And frankly, I think they need some additional skills. They need to know what an app is. Not everybody, not all business people are gonna be good at this. You know, building an app that's gonna be used by other people, you have to have a certain ability to think with a certain abstractness about the experience of it, about the algorithms or the data that are gonna go into that app or the process flow.  Well, even in the high schools, I mean, everybody takes biochem and physics, why isn't CS one of those?  Take three of the four, CS being one of them because as you said, there's not enough skill and talent and it just hasn't been, the demand for as technologically savvy as we are in those kids that are on the bleeding edge that are running through the schools, the schools are so far behind in kind of making that a core piece of their basic language, right? You know, the recent grads that I've talked to, it's not quite that bad, I suspect. Recent grads I've talked to, many of them, it's like they're in engineering disciplines and all that, they do take coding. So they at least, they'll take like a Java class or a C class or something like that. So at least they're getting introduced to, that sort of structured thinking about information and logic and so forth. I think essentially what we're seeing is an over-rotating on computer science. And you know, there's a need for that, but you know, business development, a lot of people doing business apps, they can be successful without a comp-side background. Absolutely, they can be successful. So it's, this is why I say, I think we're struggling with the language to even describe what we need. Here we are, kind of fumbling around. The other new dynamic is data, you mentioned data, and we always talk about theCUBE as data, is the new developer kit. And you know, back in the day, logic and structure, yes, but now data is a fundamental part of the process of building an app. Couldn't agree more. If you start there. Talk about that dynamic a little bit. I couldn't agree more. So much of the value going forward is understanding is being able to think creatively about data and about correlating data, relating data, both to basically do, to create analyses that have integrity, because there's a lot of junk out there, but to be able to think creatively about data and then figure out how you can act on that. People these days are doing some amazing things with customer data, and we haven't even scratched the surface yet on device data, on the so-called internet of things. There's a lot of it that's being collected, but there's a lot more to do with it. And it does play into a developer's mindset in terms of, okay, if we can get the data, how can we process them? What do we do with it? What's the process that kicks off? Or what's the notification maybe we send out to a customer, or the view that we create for the manager? And how should that involve? I agree with you. I think this is the next big thing. That brings visualization into it as well. I mean, the gamers obviously have had to always worry about that, but now just the business analysts have to worry about that. John, talk about some of your research in this area, some of the cool stuff you guys are doing, some of the things you're proud of, some interesting findings, have at it. Okay, thank you. We're, certainly the low-code research is about two years old. We've been working on it for about two years, and there's a lot more to do. There's a lot of demand from clients, a lot of interest from clients in that research. So we've looked very heavily at the products. We've looked at things like do they scale? We've looked at, we've compared products. The next set of things we really are gonna go after are governance. So if I bring in a low-code platform, and I've already got java.net or what have you in-house, how do I use these things together? How do I decide which apps to do on which platforms? And a lot of people struggle with that. They, you can do a lot, doesn't mean you should do a lot, you know that kind of thing. One of the examples we saw was one of the low-code platforms was a large insurance company brought in one of the low-code platforms. Again, it was not a strategic choice, it just came in. They ended up with 17,000 applications, completely unmanaged on this platform. That's not good, that's a problem. Anyway, governance is a big deal. That's one of the next things we're going after. And then we're also going after this question of who are these developers? Who are the low-code developers? How do you find them? Can you transition coders? If so, which ones? Because a lot of coders look at these products and say, not for me, not for me, the toys, they're wrong, but, you know, such as life. Well, are they born or are they created? Because I would hypothesize that trying to find them is probably the wrong way. It's trying to find the potential to make someone who isn't a low-code coder, right? Which is absolutely spot on. You mentioned that people come out from outside of Compsi, and they always have. When I first got involved in the computer industry back when dinosaurs were on the earth, most of the developers I ran into, or a lot of them anyway, came out of anthropology backgrounds. Why was that? But clearly, they weren't Compsi people, but they were effective. So what is that combination of background, sort of just aggressiveness, interest in solving problems, business problems that we can highlight to basically find these people and promote them? Have you seen any good examples in your client base of organizations deliberately saying, okay, hey, we have an opportunity to fill the gap, and we are going to deliberately go out and create a framework and a training and a process, a growth path for low-code developers? Not much. Not much. Huge opportunity, I would imagine. Huge opportunity. Not much. I have seen some, just was speaking with a gentleman the other day that's using one of the low-code platforms and they're starting small. So they've got two people that are working on this environment. And by the way, that's one of the benefits of low-code. They're so productive. You don't need a hundred people, you know? But anyway, two people, his go-to developer does not have a comp-side background. He's a person that he found who just had technical ability and just was really good at solving business problems. And that's what he got up in the morning thinking about. And so it is this sort of combination of tech skills, you know, ability to find a way around a tool and the ability to think productively and creatively about business problems. So I've seen, he's now, this person has now got that model and is starting to look in his organization for others like that. But generally, no, we're all as an industry, I think, casting about, trying to figure out who these people are. Do you think, and in that case specifically, is that person now, is that their full-time job? Yes. Or will the low-code developers of the future be just part of the other things in which they do? And depending on time of year, what's the priority, you know, the percentage of time shifting to that type of activity versus other things will be different or flexible. That's a really good point. The most, in most cases, you'll see people set these products up as essentially centers of excellence. So the people who work doing applications, building applications, are full-time. But if we're going to actually expand the base out, as you say, and we're going to have business people who are producing software as they need it, then I think we will get into, well, this is part of my job, but it's not all of what I do. I'm not a full-time software deliverer, producer. That's more the citizen developer idea, which again, we're struggling to figure out exactly how to organize that. But I think it's coming. We're talking to John Reimer, Forrester Research. Good stuff. We'll leave it there. Thank you so much for coming to the Cube. Thank you, guys. It's good to see you. All right, keep it right there, everybody. We'll be back with our next guest. We're winding down the third day of the Cube coverage at Knowledge 16. Bright back. We have hundreds and maybe thousands.