The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Trump's Public Campaign For A Nobel Peace Prize - Is It Justified? - Encore

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

Today an encore presentation of an episode that originally aired on September 1st. Those who follow these things say they're never seen anything like it before. Donald Trump wants a Nobel prize and he's not shy about pushing for one. As The Bridge kicks off season six, our regular Monday contributor, Dr Janice Stein from the Munk School at the University of Toronto makes her view known on that, Ukraine, Russia, China and the Middle East. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You're just moments away from the latest episode of the bridge. It's Wednesday. That means encore. And it's our encore edition from 10 days ago, actually, on Labor Day. Because that was a holiday, some of our listeners on Series XM may well have missed it because it was a holiday. And people were doing holiday things on that day. So we wanted to air it again.

And for good reason, because it's about Donald Trump. Trump's interest in Venezuela and his positioning of U.S. military vehicles, aircraft, ships on the outskirts of Venezuela, and why he's doing that. He says to stop the drug cartels from moving drugs to the United States. They knocked out one drug boat, they called it a drug boat, last week, and they did it again this week. That's why I think it's of interest to use this as our Encore edition. for this week. So I hope you enjoy it. Here you go.

And hello there. Gee, I hope you've had a great summer. And I hope you're ready for lots of action for this fall. And there should be lots of action on a lot of different fronts. And right here on the bridge, we hope to capture it all for you as we enter season six. of our program. Mondays, and this is Labor Day, but it's Monday, and that means Dr. Janice Stein.

And many of you wrote over the summer, you know, really, can't you just work one day, get Janice Stein in there? Help us understand what the heck is going on in our crazy world. Well, Dr. Stein is going to be with us again for season six, and we're very happy to have her. And she'll be coming up in just a few minutes times, lots to talk about it.

I should give you a snapshot, though, of what to expect. We've shuffled the deck a little bit, not much, but a little bit in terms of how things will unfold this year. The success of the Moore-Buts conversations have brought us to the fact that we've got to have more of them. And so every second Tuesday, starting tomorrow, James Moore and Jerry Butz will be with us to discuss. discuss something that gives us a sense of what goes on behind the, behind the doors of politics in our country and others. And we have found over the last few years in the 21 conversations we've already had with Moore Butts, that they're great at doing that and trying to, as best they can, keep their

partisan senses, you know, James Moore is a conservative, Jerry Butts is a liberal. but they keep those out of the way. They kind of check those at the door. So every second week, every second Tuesday, Warren Butts will be with us. That's the plan anyway going into this season six. And on the other Tuesday, on the other second Tuesday? Well, we have something.

Well, we actually had it in the 2021 election campaign. We called it Reporter's Notebook. We'll call it that again. and the two reporters will have with us are going to be no strangers to you. Rob Russo, who did a fantastic job filling in for Bruce Anderson on Good Talk for the first six months of this year. Rob, who is the correspondent for the economist in Canada, Rob will be with us, and so will Altheiraj. And the two of them were together for the bridge doing the 2021 election campaign. so they're getting back together

and they'll be the other second Tuesday program with a reporter's notebook and we'll define that as we go along I think it'll be a combination of all kinds of things everything from smoke mirrors and the truth kind of that angle to things but also what the reporters are seeing

that they don't normally have time to talk about in their in their journalism but we'll find interesting as well in telling us you know, the national story, whether it's a politics or whatever it may be. So Rob and Rousseau, Rob Rousseau, and Althea Raj. It's kind of a three R's, reporters notebook, Rousseau, and Raj. That's every second Tuesday.

Wednesday's an encore addition, although I've got some ideas that I might play out on Wednesdays as well. Thursday is your turn, and we really mean it. All right, enough for the preamble. Let's start talking Turkey with Dr. Janice Stein, the director of the Monk School, the University of Toronto. Now, Dr. Stein, this week for this program, as you know, she's always traveling, right? She's always traveling somewhere in the world.

Because people want to hear from her. They want her advice. They want her to take part in big discussions that are going on. This week, she's in New York. and so I tracked her down to her hotel wasn't the greatest audio in the world it's not bad I tend to overstate things but we had a little shuffling around didn't work just didn't have a very good connection from her room so we went to the you know business center in the hotel she was staying out in New York that was much better but it's a little hollow but the conversation is great starting with the first question

So let's get at her, as they say, right here on the bridge. Dr. Janice Stein joins us right now. So Janice, here's the question. Have you ever seen anybody so publicly look for a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize? I've never in all my years, Peter, seen anything like this. You know, people subtly signaled, they would really like Henry Kissinger, was a master of doing that kind of thing. But in this case, Donald Trump is not only campaigning openly.

He is coercing foreign leaders in an effort to get this nomination. Probably the most striking example is where we are. right now with Prime Minister Modi, who is on his way to Shanghai and then to Beijing, bristling, literally bristling at what he describes as the aggressive United States. Now, how did this come up? You know, 10 years of effort to build a strategic partnership between India and the United States as trying to grow stronger all disrupted

because on a phone call Donald Trump says to Modi you know I resolved that conflict you had with Pakistan and I'd like you to nominate me

as well as the prime minister of Pakistan and Modi who's a populist leader on his own lives by the that he is tough with Pakistan

we actually talk back and said no no I don't think that's the way it happened and did not volunteer to nominate within a few short weeks 50%

tariffs against India higher than the tariffs against China all for a Nobel Peace Prize nomination You know, it's funny because Indian officials after that put out the word that Trump had absolutely nothing to do with the agreement between India and Pakistan that seemed to avert what was a potential crisis. You know, I don't know how much kind of research the Trump people have done into how the Nobel Prize works. Maybe they have, but maybe they haven't because nominations close in January of the year they're awarding the Nobel Peace Prize.

which usually comes out in October. So it's another month or so away. But, you know, they close in January. Then the small kind of committee in Norway looks at the various nominations. And there's usually at least 200 that come in from around the world. And they kind of pare it down, obviously, and eventually come up with a winner.

But he was barely even president when they closed nominations for this year. Maybe he's thinking next year. But, I mean, it seems a little odd. You know, even if they know that, Peter, and who knows what kind of research they do? Because they have no staff. I mean, just as an aside, they fired half the National Security Council. So they literally do not have people to do the staff work on anything right now.

But even if they know this, he probably has his eyes on January of 2026, which is not. not that far away. You know, Norway is the, Oslo was the host for the Nobel Prizes, which, you know, and I didn't realize until today when I was doing a little reading on the subject. Nobel, of course, Alfred Nobel was Swedish. Yes. Swedish businessman who put in his will the idea of these prizes and they're kind of, there are five of them, the Peace Prize being one of them.

But it's in Norway. and nobody's ever quite understood why he said it should be done out of Norway. Nobody knows. You know, there's all kinds of speculation. Sweden and Norway, when he made this will, there was some hope, some discussion that they might unify, and that might have been a kind of message to bring, you know, Norway into the fold. And Norway has always been a diplomatic activist, as you know, in this field.

But who knows what was in his mind. But what's really interesting to me, Peter, and this is, again, opens the door for this Donald Trump-like performance. Somebody was going to come along and do this. The others are all expert base. You go to outstanding people in the field and you say, when you like tonight, nominate. You know, university colleagues do this in economics, for example. This prize, anybody can nominate. You know, any committee can send a note to the Nobel committee to the Nobel committee in Norway. We think this person is deserving of the priest's prize. That's why

you get 200. And there's controversy around this prize in the last decade or so, that there is much more political, it's become much more political than it was at the time of Alfred Nobel and in the first 75 years after. Just as a last question on this before we move into the current situation in different parts of the world. Is Trump deserving of consideration? I mean, he says he's solved six wars. I mean, he hasn't, but, you know, he's being a player in a lot of negotiations and talks.

Yeah. So is he legitimately someone who should be considered? All right. To be as fair mind as possible. Let's think back to the last U.S. president who was nominated. It was, and got it. And that's when I think sticks in Donald Trump's crawl more than anything else. It was Barack Obama.

It was so early in his presidency. He hadn't delivered on anything yet, Peter. And when that prize was given, people were critical. They said this prize is being given on a promise, not on achievement, which I think was an absolutely fair criticist. Here you have Donald Trump who comes to the White House, presents himself, among other things, as a peacemaker, wants to end. wars. Says all wars are horrible. Can't watch them. They're too painful for him to watch and says that his chief foreign policy goal is to end wars. Well, if you're going to give a prize on promise, there are grounds, and I think you're absolutely right to say,

this is the less ludicrous nomination than it would appear. But what makes it so unappealing, I suspect, we'll know in 2026 for the committee, because he's campaigning so openly for it, as always he's his own worst enemy. Okay, let's turn to Ukraine. Because, you know, a couple of weeks ago on that summit in Alaska, there were moments during that weekend where it looked like, well, you know, maybe he really should be being considered for something. but as we all know

that seems to have turned into a big nothing burger in spite of all the photos and the moments that took place then and immediately after with the summit in the White House with the European leaders what happened there

why did that blow up let me give you a really wonky answer to that question I believe I believe that doing the work really matters. So what is doing the work for a summit mean? You put your very best people on it who have experience, who've done this kind of staff work before.

They go to Moscow. They spend time with their counterpart officials in Moscow. They figure out where their presidents can agree where they can. when the language is big they make it more precise there's back and forth probably five or six times and they only go forward with the summit when they are down to the last strokes and they really think that the principals the two presidents when they get in the room there'll be enough good chemistry for them to agree none of that happened there were long long meetings between Putin and

Wyckoff and again well-meaning but inexperienced no staff no real staff supporting him apparently

misheard what Vladimir Putin said and reported back to the president inaccurately you know I am not a big fan of protest in any job I've ever had

but you have to have some don't Trump has almost none. So he walked in to that meeting, committed to a ceasefire, walked out, having abandoned that commitment completely, and agreeing to go for the tougher goal, which is a comprehensive piece between Ukraine and Russia. And Vladimir Putin, frankly, to be blunt, ruled him yet again.

well that is certainly what it looks like you know you know we were always told before these kind of things happen whether it's a summit and as we remember from Helsinki as well that you know Putin is a former spy he's got this all figured out in his mind he wouldn't be walking off that plane to shake hands with Donald Trump unless he had something in mind about how this was all going to unfold and so you're left thinking as you concluded a moment ago, that once again, Putin played Trump. Yep, absolutely. Because Putin, the thing that Putin wanted more than anything else, he got when he stepped off that plane.

Not only did he get it, it got a red carpet. He got this really tight head shake from Donald Trump. And then what struck me when I was watching, and you would have noticed this right away, There were two cars there to go to the meeting, one for Donald Trump and one for Vladimir Putin. No, no, no, said Donald Trump, come in my car. And they had, that's the nightmare for the staffers, 15 minutes, no, no taker in that car. Nobody will ever know what they said to each other except Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. As soon as I saw that, I said, this is over.

I love some of the the commentators that day on television on the various networks. Some of them were saying, you know, Putin, remember that scene in the White House in the first term where there was all these theories about how Trump invited the Russians in or right into the Oval Office and that they must have strategically dropped a few microphones in there. You know, knowing the super spy Putin,

these theories were that he, you know, slipped a pin mic somehow into the cushions of the car. So he'd hear all the next conversations that went, but anyway, as far as fast as that sounded. You know, since then, and with the European summit, which seemed to me, it always seemed to me like the Europeans were there to try and prevent what Trump was about to do. Yeah, they did. And they did. They did, Peter. But again, I mean, when I watched that, and I had a reaction as a Canadian,

I was so glad our prime minister was not there. Lots of people said, why wasn't he there? We were a strong supporter of Ukraine. And it's true, we provide a lot of financial assistance. But I was so glad he wasn't there. The obsequious fawning. Oh, yeah, they were fawning, which is part of their strategy. is sucking up.

And, you know, you wonder where it really gets them. But it did sort of blunt that meeting, no matter where you look at it, did blunt what was happening in terms of backing away from Zelensky again. And here we are left two or three weeks later, wondering, has anything really changed? No, I think it's gone worse, frankly. There's one good thing that's coming into this. but strategically it's gotten worse because Putin's emboldened. Russian forces are moving on the ground.

You know, there's a debate right now among analysts. Russians are claiming that they have advanced 2,500 square kilometers since made at first. Other independent institutes are saying, no, no, no, it's not 2,500, it's 1,500. But just for a moment to look at what's on the ground, Peter, they occupy Russia now. 99% of one part of the Donbass, Lansk, and about 75% of the second province in the Donbass, 70, you know, which is 75%, and that comes from sources that are critical in Russia. So effectively, their forces have advanced in the area that Putin is looking to enact, frankly, as part of a deal. Yes, there's some parts to go, which will still be a tough fight and could take months. But think of the situation that Zelensky finds himself.

You do an awful deal right now, or you fight for another six or nine nuts, and you could be concerned. confronted on the ground with what you're trying to avoid at the table. That's a very, very hard position for Zelensky to be. The Europeans succeeded. They bought time. And there's one concrete thing then. And I think that's valuable that the Europeans achieved. Marco Rubio is now doing, and he's the most serious member of that team.

not a high bar, but it nevertheless is one that he crosses. He's leading the process on what security guarantees should look like for Ukraine. And that's probably, even Zelensky himself says that is the single most important thing to him. And now what kind of ironclad security guarantees can he get from Europe backed by the United States? that whenever this fighting ends there will not be a second round by Russia within a few years that's moving

and Donald Trump actually agreed to one thing which matters yes no U.S. troops on the ground but he will provide air supports he will provide state-of-the-art battlefield intelligence which only the United States can provide So in all this fuss about the optics, there are two not insignificant gains that the Europeans got for Zelensky.

Have you noticed with Zelensky in this last month or so a I was going to say softening of his position, but that's probably not the right word, but a bending towards trying to find an agreement. In other words, we're treating on some of the things he said he would never, ever concede to. Yeah. There's no question. First of all, if you look at him, Peter, he looks exhausted. He looks exhausted. He's sober.

You can see physically a change. And I think that often gives you the first read. Secondly, she wants to shift the conversation now away. He has to say that any territorial annexation, but here's where he's shifted, of areas that Russia does not currently occupy, would be an outrage. So that's a subtle shift. But he's trying to change the conversation to the security entities. Because the day that a ceasefire is agreed to, Zelensky will lose his job inside Ukraine. there's no question. The politics are already. Very tough this summer. There was again something that he made a mistake. He passed legislation trying to weaken the anti-corruption agencies inside Ukraine that had been set up. People took to the streets in Kiev and there were demonstrations and he backed right often. But that shows you,

again, a leader who's under pressure at home, the Europeans are talking about an agreement with him all the time now. And so that's, there is softening. There's no question. But before we take our break, I want to ask another question on Putin. He's at this weekend summit of sorts in Shanghai, among other places,

where some of the key places, players are, you know, Russia, China, India, North Korea, and about a couple of dozen other nations, all Asian-based. No Donald Trump sitting at this meeting. I don't know whether he ever was, who would have been entitled to be at it anyway. But how important is that meeting that's going on there? And what impact could it have on a number of the situations

that we're looking at around the world? Oh, it's really striking, Peter. This is the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. So 25th annual meeting. And it's always attracting your Asian leaders. So Europe and Asia. And that's really what you see, but a large number of them are coming. And what does it matter so much this year?

And that takes us back to what we first discussed at the top of the show. Really, India is there. But in India, that is now wrestling at the United States and the message of the Shanghai cooperation organizations, the world is changing. The U.S. is in decline. The West is increasingly isolated. We need to play a much stronger role in peacemaking and in the global economic order than we have. And that's a group of heavy hitters, frankly, that Xi Jinping has assembled. This is a three-day meeting, but what's it going to be followed on?

And that I just find fascinating. There is a big victory celebration in Beijing and a big military parade celebrating the end of World War II. And Xi Jinping is now saying to everybody, look, China was a very important player. By the way, it wasn't the Chinese communists, just for the record. It was Chinese nationalist government at that time, but China was a very important player in that victory. We were instrumental in weakening Japan.

We lost 20 million dead. A story that, you know, the Russians told when they had their parade. And what you people have heard all this time is just the Western story of World War II. It's missing the role that China and Russia played. And we are entitled to a legitimate role in governing the world. And so all of these leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and are coming, that's a significant group, India, Modi, all in this time. on that story

and other leaders like the President of Egypt normally wouldn't show up you know the President of Vietnam is coming if you look at the dignitaries at that parade they probably

have everybody there everybody there but Europe and North America well you know obviously See, we should be watching this situation and the continuing power base and power structure

of what's happening in the kind of Asia-Pacific area of our world in a changing world that we're facing. Peter, let me make one comment as we understood this point. So if you just think about Xi Jinping is reaching out all the time. Bringing, you know, just delighted that Modi, because there's been such tense relationships between them, that Modi is now coming and trying to bring people, you know, into the tent, helpful China, you know, the voice of all those who want a greater share in the world order. And what's Donald Trump doing? fighting with every one of his allies with Japan right now you know with South Korea there was a very tense meeting when the president of South Korea was in the White House because all Donald Trump talked about was the President of North Korea not super nice to us right now to humiliating trade deal on the European Union he is fighting with all the allies of the United States has seen. taken generations to build up.

If you're listening to the music on both sides of this, it is not encouraged. No, it certainly isn't. And then, of course, there's the Middle East. And that's what we're going to get to next. But let's take a quick break. We'll be back right after this. And welcome back, Peter Mansper, with Dr. Janice Stein.

It's a special Labor Day, Monday edition of the bridge as we kick off yet another season and we're looking forward to it. And of course, the way this season will start on Mondays will be the same as it's started the last couple of years and that's with Janice Stein and we're lucky to have her with us once again. You're listening on Sirius XM, Channel 167,

Canada Talks, are on your favorite podcast platform. I actually kind of hesitate. to bring this up this way. But I've been thinking about it a lot in the last month or so. We've talked at times over the many years that we've known each other, that there's a point at which the audience says, I can't take any more of the Middle East story, especially the Israel-Palestinian story.

There's never a resolution. It keeps happening. People keep dying in horrific numbers. And we're witnessing that obviously again right now. Now, after October 7th, there was a sustained interest in that story to the point where news bureaus that had closed down their Middle East operations, partly because of the reason I just mentioned, people just get tired of the story, went back. And there has been a considerable amount of reporting at severe cost to more than a few journalists. But it seems to me we're in another one of those periods

where people and news networks are saying, you know, this is never going to resolve itself. We've got to put our resources elsewhere and telling other stories. And they're kind of backing off, which, of course, plays into, well, in this case, seems to play into Netanyahu's hands. but do you see it the same way do you think there's a sort of retreating on the discussion and the diplomacy and the action surrounding that story in this last I don't know well the summer of 2025

what I do sense Peter is frustration and hopeless people can just even professors for work in this field. Dust cannot see a turn in the story. They can't see, never mind for a resolution of the conflict, which has been going on for 150 years, frankly. But even on, you know, on Gaza, on the Palestinians and Gaza,

people can just not see it. But I think there is also another dynamic going on. that the images that photojournalists are sending out of gas are so horrific. There's clearly starvation going on in parts of gas. There's no question about it. Are so terrible that people feel guilty about turning away and not paying attention to it. So I don't think the story is actually going to go away. The other dynamic we're seeing is, it isn't part of that's enough.

This has gone far enough. Enough is enough. We are seeing all of Israel's allies send that message and say and force the issue at the UN General Assembly, which is coming up in three short weeks, really, at the UN, where in our own prime ministerry is part of that, where they're saying we are going to recognize the state of Palestine. So the story is not going to go away because political leaders have taken it on in an effort to break the law champ.

You know, there is a lot of discussion about whether recognition of a state without borders, it's no defined borders, with no sovereignty. all the legal requirements that we normally have to recognize the state are not there. And there's no dispute about that. But that's not why this is happening. This is happening because leaders are looking for some way to send an unmistakable signal. This has to stop. This has to stop.

You know, I don't disagree with anything you've said. And yet at the same time, I watched the Netanyahu government. And it seems, you know, this new positioning by the other countries like Canada has seemed to have had zero impact. I mean, look at the things that the Israeli forces have done just in the last couple of weeks now. There's been some indication from Netanyahu and others that there were mistakes made here and the, you know, the targets that they hit weren't the targets they were aiming at or something. But there's been no real indication that he's backing off from his positions on what he wants to do now. None at all. You know, you're right.

And just look at where we find ourselves. Six months ago, Netanyahu said he wanted a partial agreement because he wouldn't agree to end the war. So he would trade for 10 hostages and he would free Palestinian prisoners. And Israelis would withdraw to a buffer zone. keep control of two roads. And Hamas said, no way, no way, we're not doing none, and they rejected the offer. Where are we now? After, and actually give President Macron some credit here, after Macron convened that

meeting, an Arab government, including Qatar, including Qatar, which is something that most Arabs would never have expected to see, they say that Hamas, Yeah, our world says, Tomas, you have to lead and have to disarm. Because they're saying enough is enough, just like all the allies of Israel are saying enough is enough. And so what's on the table now? A partial deal. Hamas backed off. Returned 10 living hostages and some dead hostages, of which there are many,

in exchange for Israel pulling back to us buffer zone. and who won't accept the deal that he himself went on the table six months ago, Netanyan. Now he wants a permanent deal. So if you actually look at what's happened in the last six months, each Hamas is now where Israel was, and Israel's position is now where Hamas was. I actually think, I hate to say this, I actually think we're at the endgame because there's nothing else left to try, frankly.

And the opposition, and that really matters. Two things matter inside Israel. They're going to drive this ultimately, and I mean six months, to some kind of end game. I have to say that's an eternity for the Palestinian population in Gaza. One is, but we have 70% of Israel. who are saying this war has to stop. And the opposition is now coming from a broad part of the population. It's not coming from a discredited left.

It's coming from Orthodox rabbi. That's the easiest way I can describe how the opposition inside has strengthened. Even the heart and soul of Netanyahu's coalition, they are now coming out with moral condemnations, Peter. The second is 2026 is an election year. They have to have the elections. They have to have them. And the polls are consistent that his coalition cannot win a majority.

There's an off-ramp only if he ends the score. So I think if you put those two together, the opposition inside Israel and the opposition to Hamas inside the Arab world now and a story out of Egypt this week which is encouraging they are training

Egyptian soldiers to be part of a security force that will go into Gaza they've long refused to even acknowledge that they were doing that and people say to me all the time why would they do it? They would do it because of the

desperation that they're seeing on your border, frankly. Right. And the last thing Egypt wants is all the Palestinians coming into Egypt. Yeah. They have refused throughout this whole agonizing two years, frankly. Here's my last question for today. And it's about Hamas. I thought they were crushed.

Their leadership was decapitated. You know, it looked like it was all over for Hamas. But it's obviously not. Well, it depends what you mean by crush, right? So there are still Hamas fighters inside tunnels in areas that use Israeli forces. And that's the alleged rationale for this last military campaign, that those tunnels still exist inside the largest city in Gaza. And there are fighters in those tunnels.

And if, you know, if we need any proof from that, 10 fighters came out and killed seven Israeli soldiers in the last several weeks. But they have no organized leadership anymore here. The stories from people who know Hamas well is that the difficulties they are now having the leaders, the hotel guides, in communicating with leaders inside Gaza. is so difficult. Apparently there too, that's all. There's no organized leadership left of humops. And that's why they can come out and make statements like you have to leave and you have to disarm. So this is now just about, is there any security force that we go in without without approval from Netanyahu?

of a political path forward to the Palestinians. And that's what he has refused to give because that would be lethal for his college. That's what, and all these people are dying, both from hunger and from war over that set of issues. But those are engaged at their debate. Well, you know, you said, us up as you always do

at looking at some of these things are going on in the world and the key ones we've you know there are lots of other things happening as well and we'll get to those in one of our what are we missing episodes in the future but you've also signaled to us that we you know

we we tend to ignore the UN a lot and in many cases for good reason but a general assembly could be an interesting one this fall and as you said it starts in a couple of weeks uh in new york and we'll keep an eye on that uh janis great to uh to have you back after a long summer great to you peter and to be with all the listeners uh you you take care you're you're in new york

this uh this weekend and we'll we'll see you back here next week thanks janus thank you Dr. Janice Stein from the Mug School, the University of Toronto. Always such a treat to be able to talk to her. And we'll be doing it every Monday again this year. So looking forward to those days. And that was our encore edition for this week. Janice Stein from last week from September 1st, Labor Day. We'll be back tomorrow with your turn and lots and lots of entries to your turn this week.

On the issue of social media, and the question was provocative, is social media a cancer? And you've had lots to say on that. And we'll be hearing your thoughts tomorrow, on your turn, as well as the random ranter. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks for listening. Talk to you again soon. Thank you.