"I'd be surprised if the EU and UK can effectively respond to Putin" - Henry Marsh

Understanding the world and the ongoing situation in Ukraine through the eyes of renowned British neurosurgeon, writer, and long-time friend of Ukraine, Henry Marsh. It’s been ten years since we last saw you in our studio, and today we meet again to discuss timeless issues: war, death, and Russia’s aggression.

When I first came to Ukraine 32 years ago, I instinctively knew it was a very important country. It was a young nation, trying to escape years of oppression from Russia. I understood this because I had studied Eastern European history at Oxford University before becoming a doctor and neurosurgeon.

Although my initial work in Ukraine was focused on neurosurgery—introducing new technology, bringing medical equipment from London to Ukraine—I realized that beneath it all, there was a more significant story beyond just medicine. It was about helping Ukraine return to the West, back to Europe, after years of being in Russia's sphere of influence.

I never thought there would be a war. I don’t think many people did. And of course, it has been terrible to witness how threatened Putin and Russia are by a free, successful Ukraine, leading them to try to destroy it.

Putin’s historical fantasies are nonsense. This isn’t about land; it’s about him trying to preserve his kleptocratic empire. A free, prosperous Ukraine is a direct threat to everything Putin stands for—just as it is for other autocrats like those in Iran, North Korea, and Xi Jinping’s China.

For Putin, success means destruction in Ukraine. But it also means destruction for the entire world, heralding a return to the kind of nationalist, autocratic politics that caused millions of deaths in Europe for hundreds of years.

Do you have the feeling that we are on the verge of World War III? Could the Russian aggression against Ukraine be the beginning of the Third World War? You mentioned Iran, North Korea, dictatorships, a lot of bloodshed, and the complete collapse of moral standards — a new world emerging. I have this growing sense that we are standing at the threshold of this strange new world, a global reset that could end in a catastrophic ‘earthquake’ — massive death, great tragedies. Don’t you feel we are on the edge of a great Armageddon?

No, I don't think so. I believe Putin is completely rational. He has no intention of using nuclear weapons. However, he knows how to frighten Germany and America by, as we say in English, "rattling his nuclear missiles."

I think the real threat from nuclear weapons is an accident. If you read about the numerous near-misses in both America and Russia during the 1950s and 1960s, you'll see that the risk of nuclear war was more likely to come from an accident or mistake than from the deliberate use of nuclear weapons. Putin is using the threat of nuclear weapons to bully the West, particularly the Americans.

So now, Biden, despite offering some help to Ukraine, is constantly cautious, trying not to upset Putin. This is pathetic. When you compare this to the relationships between Roosevelt and Stalin, or George Bush and Putin, it's clear that the Americans don’t understand that the Russians are just bullies—and the Americans can be very naive.

There is a growing sense that these individuals lack the level of competence required to address the numerous and complex challenges they are facing, rendering them incapable of finding an effective solution. This is why Putin feels emboldened to threaten nuclear war. We anticipated this from him, and it was a topic of discussion 10 years ago. The primary concern now is how the collective West will formulate its response. Margaret Thatcher had the resolve to confront Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Today, however, I see no figures willing to respond decisively to Putin — for example, by stating, ‘If you bomb Kyiv, we will bomb Moscow.’ Such a response is absent, and here in Ukraine, this lack of resolve is deeply troubling.

I share that disappointment. I think it’s both tragic and terrible. To help Ukraine initially and then fail to see it through properly is cruel and irresponsible—better not to have helped at all than to raise hopes and then let them down.

Look at America's history. Yes, in both World War I and World War II, America played a critical role. And while the majority of the fighting in World War II happened on the Eastern Front, American aid made a significant difference. But since then, look at Vietnam: America said they were saving Vietnam from communism, and what happened? A communist government took over.

Afghanistan: they said they were saving it from the Taliban. What happened? The Taliban returned. Iraq: they claimed to be introducing democracy, and what was the result? Total disaster. The history of American foreign policy since World War II is marked by incompetence, and it’s just awful.

Now we have Ukraine, a free, democratic country, facing the threat of destruction by the evil of Russia, and the West’s response is, “No, no, we’ll help a little, but not too much.” It’s tragic and makes me very angry. And, of course, if Trump wins now—God help us all.

British Prime Minister Starmer is fully aware that the United Kingdom may have to engage in war to fulfill its obligations as a member of the Euro-Atlantic community. If a missile were to strike Vilnius, Warsaw, or Budapest, a response would be inevitable. I can imagine us sitting here now, with over a hundred Shahed drones having reached Ukraine, while London remains quiet and peaceful. Meanwhile, we understand that people in Yorkshire are not actively thinking about Russian aggression against Ukraine. They may be drinking beer and commenting, ‘Yes, Putin is a very bad man’, without contemplating the possibility that in a month, or a year — no one knows when — they might be forced to awaken from their state of calm because war is approaching. Kim Jong-un is prepared to send his soldiers to kill Ukrainians and is ready to attack Ukraine, or possibly other European countries. Do you feel that war is imminent, that perhaps it is already approaching the United Kingdom?

No, and I might be wrong, but I think Europe would surrender to Putin rather than risk a war. I would be surprised if the EU and Britain responded effectively if Putin, for instance, invaded the Baltic states. I think NATO would struggle to respond to that.

But no one really knows—history is so unpredictable, often shaped by random events. If the Archduke hadn't been assassinated in Sarajevo, maybe World War I wouldn’t have happened. Small chances, like a butterfly flapping its wings, can lead to hurricanes on the other side of the world. So, I can’t be sure.

Still, I believe many European politicians, if Putin seriously showed signs of wanting to reclaim the Baltic republics, might not coordinate strong resistance. But again, who knows? It’s important to remember that in many European countries, pro-Russian, Russian-funded right-wing political parties, like AfD in Germany and Vox in Spain, are gaining more success. And Austria is becoming more and more Nazi every week.

In England, there's this island mentality: “We’re okay, we have Brexit. What happens in the rest of the world isn’t our problem.” That attitude is, of course, foolish, but very British.

Why did you decide to come here? You could have lectured remotely, you could have supported Ukraine from afar, but instead you chose to come in person, traveling to these cities and offering faith, hope, and love. We are accustomed to seeing such missions undertaken by politicians or military personnel, yet here you are, a British neurosurgeon, coming to Ukraine. And not only to the relatively safer city of Lviv, even though there is always the risk of a missile hitting your hotel or car. You come to the east of Ukraine, to Kyiv, to offer help. Your presence is incredibly significant, giving people a sense that if the legendary Henry Marsh is here, perhaps all is not lost. Why did you make the decision to come?

If I didn’t come, I would feel like I was betraying my Ukrainian friends. I would feel like I was betraying Ukraine, a country I have supported for almost half my life. I have no choice—I have to come. My wife hates it. I have to text her every day, letting her know I’m alive and that there were no missile attacks. We have a joke: if you type "sirens" into a message, autocorrect changes it to "mermaids" because of the sirens from Homer’s Odyssey—the mythical creatures who sang. So, each morning I send her a text saying, "no mermaids," and she feels a bit better.

But I have no choice. I have to come. Yes, the work is difficult, and my life would be easier if I didn’t come, but I must. Before I arrive, I’m not overly worried. I’ve promised my wife I won’t go to the Eastern Front because I’m not a military surgeon, and I wouldn’t be able to help much there. I know my role here is to say, "I’m here. I love Ukraine. You must not give up hope." Without hope, we have nothing.

Though the situation is terrible at the moment, Ukraine is still fighting. The problem is that Ukraine has done so much better than anyone expected—the Germans, the Americans—everyone thought Ukraine would collapse like a house of cards. They believed they could offer a little help, and it wouldn’t make much difference. But Ukraine has been so strong, so effective in fighting the Russian monster, that it has confused people in the West. They began helping Ukraine but then stopped, refusing to fully commit, even denying Ukraine the ability to attack distant Russian bases, and that’s wrong.

When Finland and Sweden announced they would join NATO, Putin threatened consequences, but nothing happened—no consequences at all. It’s all nonsense. The nonsense of a bully. Having studied Russian history, I understand that this is the Russian way of doing business—through bullying.

The injuries sustained at the front lines are truly horrific, particularly those involving head and spinal trauma. The amputations of limbs are equally devastating. While our medical professionals are performing remarkable feats of healing, there is a pressing need to increase the volume of military medical aid. It is essential to train individuals in additional techniques and to enhance the integration of costly Western medical practices with our own healthcare system, which is ostensibly free during wartime. It is evident that financial constraints play a significant role in this situation. Our soldiers require urgent surgical and neurosurgical care. What challenges do you perceive within our healthcare system today? Our doctors do not always have the means to effectively communicate such critical information.

I’m not a military surgeon; I’m a civilian brain surgeon who works in peacetime, so it’s difficult for me to fully answer this question. To be honest, I know that many severely wounded Ukrainian soldiers have been sent to hospitals in Western Europe for treatment, but I don’t know the exact numbers.

On my last visit to Lviv four months ago, I visited the Superhumans Rehabilitation Center in Vynnyky, and I was very, very impressed. It’s a fantastic, state-of-the-art facility, but I was told that this is only the best one in Ukraine. For every soldier with an amputated limb treated at Superhumans, there are many other wounded soldiers who aren’t receiving the same level of care.

And for every soldier killed, which is tragic, there are three or four who are terribly, terribly injured. These wounded young men will carry their injuries as a burden for the rest of their lives, and Ukraine will bear this burden as well for many years to come. America has dealt with this issue with its veterans from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq—many of whom suffer from severe psychological damage, like post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). A terrible load of suffering is building up, and it will continue for many years into the future.

However, there are treatments available. There are interesting and effective methods for treating PTSD. This isn’t my area of expertise, so I don’t know how much Western knowledge, particularly from the U.S.—which has so many injured veterans from its various military expeditions—is being shared with Ukrainian colleagues. I hope it is.

If it were possible to involve leading medical centers in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States, how costly would this initiative be, and could it be centralized effectively? Our military personnel frequently travel to cities such as Warsaw, Berlin, or even sometimes the United States for medical treatment, and there are programmes in place to facilitate this. However, it is crucial for all of Western society to grasp the lessons learned from this recent conflict, particularly regarding the use of explosive munitions and the potential employment of chemical agents — an issue of grave concern, as the Russians regularly deploy chemical poisons on the battlefield. The field of medicine must take an active role in seeking prompt solutions to these challenges, despite the inherent costs and the bureaucratic obstacles that exist, as well as the influence of various medical factions.

Yes, there are so many complex injuries among soldiers, and this requires coordinated work. Some of these injuries are terrible—especially facial injuries, which, while not life-threatening, can destroy a man's life if he’s left with a disfigured face.

Treating these injuries is extremely complicated. You need a dentist, an eye surgeon, a plastic surgeon, a brain surgeon, and an ENT surgeon all working together to achieve the best outcome. This is a perfect example of the need for coordinated teamwork. Whether this is happening in Ukraine at the moment, I’m not sure. I simply don’t know if European governments are offering coordinated help.

I know that many English surgeons are working in Ukraine, but probably, like me, it’s all individual efforts. Coordination would definitely be better, but I just don’t know. Yes, there should be coordination between European countries and Britain, because I still consider Britain part of Europe despite Brexit. But I don’t know if that’s happening. It would be great if it were.

Soldiers engaged in combat frequently express concerns not only about the possibility of death or injury but also about the prospect of being confined to a bed for an extended period due to their injuries. We are referring to highly complex surgical procedures associated with spinal injuries and the restoration of nerve fibers. What is the medical perspective on the efforts to regain mobility that has been lost as a result of such spinal injuries? Is there any current progress in medical science regarding this issue?

Again, I’d like to mention the Superhumans Center in Lviv. I was very impressed by their range of prosthetics for arms and legs. Research into spinal injuries is incredibly expensive and complex. For example, in France, they’ve developed an exoskeleton that allows a man paralyzed from the waist down to walk—but just barely, and it costs millions of dollars. So while there’s a lot of research happening, it’s still in the early stages.

Many Ukrainian soldiers could benefit from this research, but again, it’s a matter of funding. It’s very expensive, and there are no miracle cures or magical electrical systems yet. However, there is promising research on connecting nerves in the arms to prosthetic hands and connecting nerves in the neck. There’s also work being done using computers and electrodes, even in the brain. But as I said, it’s still in the early stages and remains very costly, which is a significant challenge.

What is the situation regarding brain damage resulting from head injuries? I want to believe that advancements will allow for the regeneration of new limbs. We have witnessed the cloning of sheep and pigs, and I hold hope that we will soon see technologies that facilitate limb regeneration. Perhaps these limbs may differ or be imperfect, but I remain optimistic about this possibility. Furthermore, there are critical concerns regarding brain health, including loss of vision, hearing, and vital reflexes. What is the current state of brain surgery and treatment in this context?

There is very little we can do for the brain at the moment. Unlike the skin, bones, heart, or liver, the brain does not heal itself in the same way. It has some powers of recovery, but not as much as other parts of the body.

There was great excitement in the past about brain implants, like using fetal brain cells to treat people with Parkinson’s disease. But that didn’t work. The trials were groundbreaking, but the results were not successful.

So, at the moment, in terms of physically repairing the brain, we simply cannot do it. The brain is incredibly complex, and since we still don’t fully understand how it works, I don’t see any immediate progress in this area.

All we can do is focus on rehabilitation, helping people with brain injuries live as well as they can. This also involves supporting the families, because often the greatest burden falls on them. All of this requires work, support, funding, and training.

I hope that government programs will emerge to support those in need, although the complexities of insurance medicine mean that not every family has the financial means to access such comprehensive solutions.

One of your recent publications focuses on research in oncology. We all share the hope that the remarkable advancements in medical science are leading us in a positive direction, with new tools and methods being developed to at least curb the progression of mutations. What are the latest developments and approaches in cancer treatment at this time?

There has been huge progress in recent years, particularly in immunotherapy, where you weaponize the immune system to attack cancer. However, this treatment is very expensive. It is called targeted chemotherapy, where you take part of the tumor and then train the patient's own white blood cells to attack the tumor. This approach has shown promise for some cancers, but not the common ones like breast, gut, and prostate cancer. Instead, it’s particularly effective for certain leukemias and blood cancers.

Immunotherapy is very effective, but it costs half a million dollars per patient. There’s also exciting work being done with microRNA technology, similar to the mRNA technology used in COVID vaccines, which is being explored as a potential cancer vaccine. So, a whole new world is opening up in this field.

However, we must always remember that we all have to die from something. Cancer is primarily a disease of older people. If we manage to keep the elderly alive for another 10 or 20 years by curing cancer, it may lead to a terrible burden; they could end up dying from Alzheimer’s, for which there has been no significant progress in treatment at all.

I am in favor of progress in cancer research, partly because I have advanced cancer myself, but everything comes at a cost, and everything is complicated. We cannot live forever. Personally, I think one of the biggest problems in modern life—and one of the greatest tragedies in Ukraine—is the plight of children.

In the West, we spend all this money on cancer research to help older individuals like me live longer, while neglecting children. Our future lies in our children, and we know that a bad childhood, particularly in the first two or three years of life, can have lasting effects. A young tree that is damaged early on is unlikely to grow straight.

In countries like England, there is a significant amount of child poverty despite the presence of many billionaires, creating a major social problem. Consider the psychological trauma affecting all the children in Ukraine due to the war; this will impact them for the rest of their lives. Many children have been kidnapped and taken to Russia, adding to the horror of the ongoing tragedy. The loss of young soldiers and the destruction of the environment and cities in eastern Ukraine is all devastating, but unfortunately, we have no choice.

Why is chemotherapy so costly? Why is cancer treatment generally so expensive? After all, aspirin and penicillin are quite affordable. While it is understandable that large companies aim to make a profit, it is unjust for someone with a modest income, such as a bus driver, to bear the same financial burden as a millionaire. This represents a significant inequity, and individuals should be afforded the opportunity to access treatment. The role of the state is to ensure that people have the means to survive in such challenging circumstances. Is it possible to negotiate with the major pharmaceutical companies that produce chemotherapy drugs? After all, hospitals are equipped to provide the necessary care.

I agree. When you ask a big pharmaceutical company—often referred to as “big pharma” in the West—why their drugs are so expensive, they often respond that it is costly to invent, test, and bring a new drug to market. While this is true, given the numerous regulations involved, it raises another question: why do they spend three times as much on advertising as they do on research and development?

The answer is clear: pharmaceutical companies are not altruists; they are businesses. They see patients as a means to make money rather than valuing the patients as an end in themselves. This issue is partly due to government regulation in the United States, which has changed somewhat in recent years. Drug companies can set prices relatively freely.

In contrast, England has a system of bargaining with drug companies, resulting in drug prices that are much cheaper than in the United States. The same is true in Canada. Another problem in America is that drug companies are allowed to advertise directly to the public.

When a person with cancer sees an advertisement promoting a “wonderful” drug for cancer patients, they may go to their doctor and request that specific drug. This can be misleading, as they may be swayed by the marketing tactics of the pharmaceutical company. Allowing drug companies to advertise to the public is a problematic practice.

Moreover, drug companies spend a substantial amount of money persuading and even bribing doctors, which presents another significant issue. Legislation could potentially address this problem, but pharmaceutical companies are powerful entities that can influence politicians.

The entire world is undergoing change. The Russian Federation is evolving, adapting; the Russian "virus" is merging with the North Korean "virus," creating new forms of aggression. Microorganisms are mutating too, and we cannot rely on penicillin antibiotics forever. We must continuously develop new treatments. Another challenge is the rise of mutated infections, particularly hospital-acquired superinfections, which claim many lives. What are the latest groups of antibiotics available today to address these issues?

Antibiotic resistance is a significant problem. While it’s not yet on the same scale as climate change, it is heading in that direction. This issue arises partly because, in many countries like the United States and China, antibiotics are used indiscriminately in agriculture. Pigs and cows are often fed antibiotics to promote faster growth and increased muscle mass. However, this practice is contributing to the development of more microorganisms—specifically bacteria—that are resistant to antibiotics.

Modern medicine depends entirely on antibiotics, so if we do not find new antibiotics within the next fifteen to twenty years, we will face a major crisis. The challenge is that drug companies do not make much profit from antibiotics because they are relatively cheap, leading to low profit margins. Instead, pharmaceutical companies prefer to produce cancer drugs, which are much more expensive and offer higher profit margins.

This situation highlights the need for government regulations to encourage drug companies to invest in antibiotic research. For instance, governments could offer incentives, such as a reward of $20 million for developing a new antibiotic. Without government intervention, it is unlikely that pharmaceutical companies will prioritize the development of new antibiotics. Bill Gates has been advocating for this issue and has been doing valuable work to address the critical problem of antibiotic resistance.

What happened to the Covid-19 pandemic? We were told it could mark the end, yet we endured the outbreak, and now it seems to have faded away — even though the WHO has not officially declared it over.

I am not an epidemiologist, but my understanding is that there is increasing resistance among people. COVID-19 is becoming a bit like the flu; it is no longer a major threat. We have acquired resistance, and we have vaccinations against it. While COVID-19 is still prevalent, it no longer causes serious illness for most people. However, it could mutate and change, potentially becoming more serious again, just as the influenza virus is constantly evolving.

Another pandemic caused by a different virus is always a possibility. COVID-19 will not be the last pandemic; more pandemics are likely to come.

In addition to the war and the great globalization, which we have no control over, there is also the reaction of the human brain. It seems that time is running faster, events are accelerating. Our young people have become addicted to gadgets. The virtual world, the reaction to messengers is becoming a disease. And all these things accompany the emergence of a new generation. Have you conducted relevant research in the West? Does Henry have any observations of his own?

These are not my own observations. My wife, a well-known anthropologist in England named Kate Fox, has been researching digital media and modern life, relating it to our evolution over millions of years—from living in trees to walking on two feet, being hunter-gatherers, and then, only 11,000 years ago during the Neolithic period, developing cities, tyranny, slavery, and all the negative aspects, including infections and pandemics that came with the changes of that age.

My wife points out that there is a lot of panic in the West regarding children and their use of phones and digital media. While many academics claim this is detrimental to children's mental health, serious sociological research into children and social media, including smartphones, does not provide evidence that it causes serious harm.

What my wife suggests is that we need to ask a different question. It is true that there is increasing mental health trouble among young people in the West. However, the issue may not stem from their use of digital media. It is likely that their worries about climate change, war, and the fast-paced world contribute to their anxiety.

When I think back to the world I grew up in 70 years ago in Oxford, England, it was a simple, predictable, and safe environment. In contrast, the world young people live in now—whether in the West or Ukraine — is frightening and threatening. This may explain why some children today experience more mental health problems than in the past. It is not necessarily due to addiction to social media; rather, they may be using social media as a way to cope with their anxieties about the myriad problems of the modern world.

This also applies to our future. The new generation, which we do not fully understand how it is being formed, will shape the world, perhaps in 5 or 10 years, and will become middle and senior managers. I have very little understanding of what goes on in Elon Musk's head – he's cool, he talks to Trump, they can design something that you wouldn't want to live in.

On the other hand, there is a stable human nature - humans are mammals, they have basic needs, they are warm-blooded, with a temperature of 36.6 degrees. And here we find ourselves in this strange world where there are so many stimuli, and we are simply not ready. What is the nature of human thinking, the transformation of thinking at the present time, when additional challenges appear, when everything is flickering? But it is human nature to react to cold or pain, when a finger is pricked, a person takes their hand away, and when the brain is pricked, does some other reaction appear?

Talking about people like Elon Musk and Trump, it is terrible that one or two individuals can have so much influence. This situation is anti-democratic, and it arises because the wealthy elite and high finance have effectively kidnapped the political system in many countries, particularly in America but also in Britain.

This is a very concerning issue. We know that inequality—the greatest gap between the rich and the poor—leads to unhappiness among both groups, resulting in social instability and other problems. In most Western countries, there has been a significant increase in inequality, made possible by globalization and the global market.

While Elon Musk is undeniably intelligent and has been successful in creating companies like PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla, that does not mean he should have the power to rule the world and decide what happens. Everything seems to have gone wrong. We need some kind of democratic realignment and should look to return to the practices of 30 or 40 years ago when very wealthy individuals paid much higher taxes.

However, due to globalization, achieving this is quite difficult. If you start taxing very wealthy people more, they will likely leave and move to countries with lower taxes. So, it is a complex problem to solve, but we must recognize that inequality is detrimental to all of us.

But then, if human nature is in such circumstances and a person is unprepared, it means that a person will change. Do you have any idea in which direction they will change?

As far as we can tell, human brains have not changed significantly for hundreds of thousands of years. Homo sapiens, which we are, emerged about 300,000 years ago, and our brains today are not very different from those of early Homo sapiens.

Are humans fundamentally good or fundamentally bad? That’s the wrong question. It all depends on the situation. People can do bad things in a bad environment and good things in a good one. We have tendencies and deep emotional needs shaped by our history of living in small groups as hunter-gatherers in the Great Rift Valley of East Africa. I don’t think this will change; our emotional needs for love, friendship, and community will remain constant.

My anthropologist wife, who is much cleverer and better read than I am, is a great proponent of something called Personal Self-Determination Theory. According to her, there are three essential things we need to flourish. If you buy a plant, it comes with a care label that tells you the conditions in which it will thrive, including temperature, water, and fertilizer. She argues that humans are no different. If you look at the care label for humans, we need autonomy, freedom, and a sense of control over our lives.

We also need to feel that our lives have meaning and to be part of a social group where we feel valued. So, autonomy, a sense of meaning and purpose, and the third component, which I can't quite recall, are all essential. She believes this aligns with the ideals of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity. If we have these elements, we can be happy.

However, modern life, particularly post-Neolithic Revolution, has made these needs very difficult to fulfill. We face slavery, dictators like Putin, and many other issues. Much of this is due to technology, which can be both a tool for empowerment and a weapon for destruction.

Technology is like a stick with which you can fend off a tiger, or it can take the form of a Kalashnikov. It is the same principle. We have created technology that has complicated our lives. Yet we have also become successful because of it. For example, if you were standing naked in the African Great Rift Valley, a lion would easily eat you. But if you were with 20 other humans, all armed with sticks, the lion would likely run away.

So, technology has shaped our success. It is not just about modern innovations like cameras and Iskander missiles; it encompasses sticks and stones from 300,000 years ago and even a million years ago.

Everyone is experiencing neurosis and depression. The situation is difficult, and we see no light at the end of the tunnel. But there are things that we all hold on to that help us live and hope, Christian values – faith, hope, love. Perhaps it is worth paying attention to something to find a footing under our feet, because if not Armageddon, then a flood, and death is ahead in any case. How do we keep ourselves together in this difficult time?

Your friends, your family, and your faith in the Ukrainian cause remind you that you are fighting for the most precious things: freedom, liberty, and respect. It’s very difficult, but that is all your strength.