Ukraine’s Acceptance of Surrender? W/Larry Johnson! Geopolitical Trends

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. I'm even more excited today because I have a dear friend here, uh, uh, somebody who's familiar with the show here and we always fall back on when we need to have some insights. It's none other than Larry Johnson, someone who does not need an introduction. Let me bring in Larry right away. Hi, Larry.

Hey, David, thanks, man.

Good to see you as always. And on behalf of the entire community, we say thank you for really, really carving out time. By the way, guys, I reached out to Larry yesterday and he was gracious enough to carve out some time for us here because he's the one I go to if I need to know the ins and outs of really what's going on regarding the Ukraine-Russia conflict. So let's start from the get-go, Larry. You know, was it a calculated move on part of Putin? Because Putin spurns Zelensky meeting, but the lower-level Ukraine-Russia talks are still on.

Yeah, well, they just concluded. I understand that the talks lasted about 2 hours. The only thing they agreed on was to do a one-to-one prisoner exchange with 1,000 prisoners. Apart from that, the leaks that are coming out reflect enormous frustration on the part of the Europeans and the Ukrainians that what they want, what they're demanding, is an immediate ceasefire, no conditions. Well, Russia is not going to do that, and it is reported that basically the Russians, their demand to the Ukrainians was simple. As Putin said on June 14th, 2024, and has been repeated by Medvedev and Lavrov and Ryabkov and Peskov and Zakharova, that the Ukrainians need to withdraw immediately from the Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Withdraw, and then the talks can go forward about ceasefire. Well, the Ukrainians said, hell no. And then the Russian delegate replied, okay, well, if you don't do that, we're going to take 8. So next time you, you know, we'll get together to talk, we'll be in control of 8 of this, your oblast, as opposed to 4, and we're not giving up Crimea. So, you know, Russia's position is very clear. They have made no effort to hide it, and it's just the West refuses to accept it and to believe that the Russians are serious. And, you know, the Russians are winning on the ground, and they are moving into Dnipropetrovsk the four provinces that they'll take are Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, Sumy, and Poltava.

So basically, basically, uh, Ukraine has no cards to play because, because if it is the case, Larry, will it be fair to say— and again, I'm just thinking outside the box, I know some might disagree with my assessment here, because I am not looking at this as negotiations. I am looking at it as a surrender, because Ukraine needs to accept surrender terms here. Will I be wrong if I am to think of it this way?

Yeah, let's put it this way. Ukraine is irrelevant. This is, this is not a dispute between Russia and Ukraine. It's not like Russia's got a list of complaints against Ukraine per se. This is a war between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine as merely a proxy, a pawn in that entire effort. And when Vladimir Putin talks about, we got to address the root causes, what he's talking about is NATO. And So just reaching a, quote, deal with Ukraine over, you know, how many troops and how many positions are held, etc., that doesn't address the root causes. The root causes are going to go to NATO. NATO is going to— the U.S. needs to stop building the largest military base in Europe that's currently under construction in Romania. They need to withdraw the Aegis missile systems they've installed in Poland and Romania. NATO needs to end all military exercises with Ukraine, and NATO needs to withdraw all advisors and personnel from Ukraine. NATO needs to halt the supply of intelligence to Ukraine. The, you know, those are going to be the bottom line, the minimums for Russia when they talk about ending NATO support for Ukraine. It's not just that Ukraine promises, oh yeah, we pinky swear that we'll never join NATO, you know, wink wink.

Yeah, and the kind of the Russians made that clear. So why is the Europeans are screaming bloody loud about we're gonna have to keep arming Ukraine when they know They know Ukraine is not winning the war.

Well, it's a rather crude expression, but I think it summarizes it. The Europeans are like an 80-year-old man with erectile dysfunction claiming that he's going to impregnate the entire Sultan's harem. He can talk about it, he can fantasize about it, but it ain't going to happen. This is The Europeans are impotent. They do not have the industrial base. They do not have the resource base, both in terms of natural resources and manpower. And frankly, they don't have the military expertise. They're a clown show. You know, there was a time where they were the dominant powers in the world. That time has come and gone. They're now just a shadow of their former selves. You know, it's sort of that show, HBO, Game of Thrones. They had some imagery in there where at one time these dragons were very large and very powerful. And then over time, those dragons became very small and very weak and very ineffective. You know, that really is a metaphor for what Europe is. Yeah.

And will that ever change now with where things are moving forward?

I mean, no, it's going to get worse. It's going to get worse. You don't have in Europe the consensus, a political consensus that they can rally around one party. Look, like in the UK, for example, now the Nigel Farage's party, which is, you know, in favor of getting out of the European Union, they, quote, surged into the lead, and they've got like 26-27% support. Labour's support has fallen below 25%, as have the Conservatives. So there's no one political party that's dominant. Same problem in France. Same problem in Germany. In Poland, I think there is an element of that as well. Probably the one, you know, couple of countries where they've actually got majority support are Hungary for Orbán, Slovakia for Fico, and Italy with Meloni. So this lack of a political consensus, particularly in the larger countries, of Germany, France, and England, you know, make Europe's ability to do anything with any kind of competence nearly impossible.

Well, I'm aware of what the German intelligence services now are doing regarding the crackdown on the AfD. Yeah, yeah, you know, all of a sudden I'm starting to question, will we see, especially with Nile Farage in England, Will we see the same in the UK, that the intelligence is cracking down on that?

I don't think they can get away with that in the UK, but let's call it the Romanian model. Yeah, because the Germans are doing what the Romanians have been pressured to do by the European Union. And yet, despite all that pressure, it's really blown back that this very, you know, another conservative candidate has come to the forefront and is likely to be elected president. So again, the goal of having a united Europe able to act in concert and be sort of a counterpoint to the United States, that's going up in smoke.

Yeah, they won't have the capabilities to really move into that direction. Let me go back to these negotiations, even though for me, again, I don't feel comfortable using the term negotiations. And the reason being, you and I know, Larry, there is a difference between negotiations and capitulation.

Right.

Right. That's the— I think the Western narrative wanted to give it some sort of because it's revealing, in my opinion, when they called it peace negotiations or peace talks, which those are nothing but masking the underlying reality of what's going on. So my— what I wanted to ask you, Larry, on this: can we see exactly what took place in 1945 with the Japanese full unconditional surrender Yeah, I mean, that it's good.

It's a good parallel, whether it's what the Japanese did on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Harbor or what von Paulus did with the 6th Army in Stalingrad when they were militarily defeated and their only option to end the bloodshed was to surrender unconditionally without saying, we'll surrender only if A, B, and C are in place. Russia's patience with Ukraine on coming up with an appropriate surrender is going to run out, and the Russian terms will become tougher and tougher. You know, frankly, I believe this, this is going to end with Russia in control of all the territories east of the Dnieper as well as control of Kyiv and control of Odessa and probably going into Transnistria. Well, you know, and if it takes Russia another year, 2 years, 3, they cannot afford to leave this agent of NATO in place and intact. That's what Americans fail to understand, that this project of NATO and the United States, which has been underway since Bill Clinton was president, he really started it in 1995, sort of put the icing on the cake in March of 1999 when he expanded NATO for the first time in contradiction to promises that had been made to the Russians by James H. Baker that NATO would not expand to the east. Bill Clinton expanded it to the east and then 2 weeks later signed off on launching military strikes in Serbia against allies of Russia. All of this was a direct affront to Russia. It was just saying, telling Russia, you know, basically you're our bitch and we can do whatever we want to you. And Russia really couldn't punch back much. Then 4 months later, on August 7th, the Chechen Second War, the Second Chechen War starts, which is our— these guys were ISIS supporters with ties to ISIS, and the Russians insist were funded by the CIA and by MI6. And I have no reason to doubt that. It certainly fits with the MO. So that was on August 7th, and it was 2 days later that Boris Yeltsin, who was then president, announced the new prime minister was going to be Vladimir Putin. So Putin's political rise in Russia is the direct consequence of the attempt to expand NATO. And now think about this. The West was pushing, you know, all these lobbyists in DC, the military-industrial complex, are pushing to expand NATO at a time that the Russian military was shrinking in size. It wasn't increasing in size. They weren't carrying out military operations in other countries in contrast to the United States. And yet these warmongers, these profiteers in Washington insisted, oh yeah, we got to expand NATO. And part of the reason to expand NATO is you get new members, they have to buy new stuff. And who they buy it from? Well, those American, you know, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon. So this was good for the bottom line. And Putin, from that point on, it was 4 months later at the end of '99 that Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and Putin became president, and that's when Vladimir Putin started, you know, on January 1st, 2000, remaking Russia, rebuilding the economy and rebuilding the military and rebuilding its ability to produce weapons that they could use to defend themselves.

Well, speaking of, you mentioned the weapons. I'm laughing not out of laughing, but I'm laughing out of the, how, for example, the inefficiency of some of the weapons. And in reference here, Larry, is to what just took place between India and Pakistan.

Yeah.

And you're aware of what the Chinese missile did by shutting down the Indians. So it seems to me like now the Chinese weapons are gaining credibility. On the global stage. Will I be wrong in that assessment?

No, no, the, the China's, uh, China's systems aren't as good as Russia's, but you know, they're good. But, but you know, this again, this whole, this whole dust-up between India and Pakistan, yeah, I maintain was a provocation backed by Western intelligence, and it was done specifically to try to disrupt create tensions between India and China and disrupt BRICS. It looks like that effort has failed, and India and China have actually been now working together to secure the peace on the border. I think, yeah, everyone's starting to realize this playbook that's being used in Washington and in London— same damn playbook— and they understand, okay, Here they go again.

Yeah, that's what I thought too, because it became clear to me as to why all of a sudden something like that would have happened. So let me go back to Ukraine here because that's what we are going to be focusing mainly on. I will ask you, by the way, before I let you go, Larry, later, I'm going to ask you about your insights about the US-Iran nuclear negotiations. So to go back to the Ukraine aspects of it, Once again, and again, I'm just throwing ideas out there just to think outside the box. Will I be again wrong if I say probably all this bravado we're hearing about amounts to one thing, and that thing is that there is an illusion regarding Ukraine's autonomy. It's because Ukraine has no autonomy. It is questionable. And especially with the comedian President Zelensky, you know, because it has been perceived, you know, as a sort of an independent leader representing— he could not represent the Ukrainian interest, but rather a proxy for the European Union and the United States. So yeah, go ahead, Larry.

Well, let me draw a parallel with Hollywood. There was a time when Clint Eastwood was just an actor, you know, uh, Fistful of Dollars and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. He played a role. He was under the control of a director. Then as time elapsed and he moved into the director role, where all of a sudden he made the movies, and so he could also act in them, but he was the one controlling it. Vladimir Zelensky is just an actor. He's not a director. There's no way he's going to become a director. He is simply there to take directions from those who are the producers of this movie. Only this is not a fantasy, this is a horrific reality. And to that extent, Zelensky's got to do what he is told, uh, or, or else So there's no independent thought or action on the part of Zelensky. He's beholden, I think, primarily to the masters in London and secondarily to Washington, which is why they're sort of struggling to figure out what Trump is going to do.

Yeah, well, I couldn't agree more, Larry, regarding that, because I don't see And again, this leads me to ask the question, what, what, what's next now? What's next? That now these negotiations— again, I don't call them negotiations. What do you, what do you think, Larry? What do you think things going to move forward now? That—

so you're, you're going to see the Russian offensive in the Donbas and up north in Sumy and around Kharkiv and then down south in Zaporizhzhia. It's accelerating. Russians are already operating in the 5th Oblast, Dnipropetrovsk, so that's simply— they're going to be taking, chewing up more and more territory. Well, they've poured in enough reinforcements because they have them that they're able in areas like around Pokrovsk to attack all along, let's say, about a 100-mile, 150-mile line. Well, so they're probing at every spot. That means the Ukrainians somehow have to find forces that they can maneuver to put against the Russian forces, and the problem they're running into is both they don't have enough trained manpower and they don't have the logistical logistics infrastructure to carry out those maneuvers. So it's going to stretch them to a breaking point, and it's not outside the realm of possibility that, you know, very soon they could literally collapse, and the Russian forces would pour through these gaps which previously had been defended.

And that basically will mark the end, which means the defeat of the United States and Europe.

Yeah, I mean, What's the United States and Europe going to do, insert troops? They've already— the, the Russians shot down the third F-16 last night. So, um, they've got, uh, they've got a standoff air-to-air missile that, uh, is hypersonic and can go, uh, let's see, 120 miles. So it'd be 120 miles away It's a fire and forget. That missile will find the target, and whether it's an F-35 or an F-16, can't escape it.

Wow, interesting. So let's shift to Iran-US negotiations. Of course, with Trump being in the Middle East, in West Asia, that is, with the Saudis, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates, and so forth, Regarding the Iran-US negotiations, and I just read yesterday the statement by the Iranian president, Raisi, that he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that under no circumstances Iran will negotiate with the Americans under sort of threats. And there will be no direct negotiations with this till the sanctions are lifted. Where do you see this going, Larry? Will there be a deal between the US and Iran regarding its nuclear program?

And that's entirely up to Donald Trump right now, and he has full control over that. Iran is ready to sign a deal that will certify that it is not building and will not build a nuclear weapon, uh, that it will not produce enriched uranium above 3.6%, and that it will allow permanent on-site inspections by the International Atomic Energy Association, as well as, you know, independent U.S. observers, and maybe even Israeli observers. Iran will do that, but it is going to require complete lifting of sanctions. Now, that is a deal that you could walk away with from Donald Trump's standpoint and claim victory, except Trump— there's the number of neoconservatives and Zionists in his cabinet and his national security bureaucracy may try to say, oh no, that's not good enough. They've got to give up all their missiles, their ballistic missiles, and they've got to cut off all association with Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Iran's not going to do that. The deal is there. You want— if your goal, as you've said repeatedly, Mr. Trump, to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then this deal does that. You will prevent us from ever getting a nuclear weapon. Um, that's why I say, you know, it's up to Trump to take it. But, you know, I get on the plane coming back to the United States from the United Arab Emirates today. Yeah, he reportedly said something, you know, we've, we've given the Iranians our, our last proposal. Let's take it or leave it. And if they don't take it, they don't accept it, then it's gonna be very bad for them. Okay, tough guy. Remember how you kicked the ass of the Houthis? All those Houthis were begging for you to— oh, wait a second, that didn't happen, did it? It's just the opposite. The United States got beat by the Houthis, forced our hand, proved that we could not sustain combat operations in the Red Sea because it became too costly. And if we think for one minute that Iran is an easier target to attack, these— the Israelis and the Zionists that surround Trump genuinely believe that they have weakened, destroyed Iran's air defense system. Nothing could be further from the truth. And the only way that the United States and Israel are going to find out the truth is if they actually try to launch another attack inside Iran. It will, it will be a debacle.

Yeah, now, now, how this is gonna now set with the Israelis if the US reaches a deal? Because the Israelis have already confirmed that they are objecting any deal between the US and Iran.

They'll be outraged. They're already expressing outrage, as are many of Trump's former Zionist, uh, supporters. People like Mark Levin, who Trump is actually appointed to a position in the administration, uh, and Ben Shapiro. They're calling Steve Whitkoff, Trump's negotiator, Steve Whitkoff, who is a Jew— that Ben Shapiro is Jewish, uh, as is Mark Levin— and yet they're, they're accusing Steve Whitkoff of being an anti-Semitic Jew. I mean, it's just, it's, it's ridiculous. It's absurd. It'd be comical were it not so serious. These people are crazy. They are devoid of morality, and they are intent on murdering Palestinians. And anything that stops short of that, including to the destruction of Iran, they're not going to be happy with it. So, but I think, I think Trump has reached a point of which he said he can, he can do, do the math. Yeah, let's see if I go along with the Saudis who are asking me to recognize a two-state solution for the Palestinians and to stop the genocide and to cut a deal with Iran, and I get a trillion dollars. Whereas I go to Israel, and Israel's constantly taking money. They're, they're like that freeloading relative that moves in with you. That eats all your food, smokes all your cigars, drinks all your liquor, and refuses to clean up the house and won't leave. That's Israel. That's Israel.

That is true.

That is true.

So while we're still in the area, what do you make out of US lifting sanctions on Syria that have been for 46 years, which, by the way, once again, Israel opposing, but Donald Trump went ahead with it. He didn't care.

Well, it was, uh, he— Trump was trying to appease Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia and, uh, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey. Uh, I think it was foolish, you know, to pretend that Jelani is some sort of, uh, cleaned up, that he is once, he was like Saul of the New Testament on the road to Damascus and had this conversion experience. Now he's changed his name to Paul. Well, he was al-Jilani, a member of ISIS who had carried out attacks that had killed Americans. He then helped lead ISIS into Syria under the banner of al-Nusra and then set up a different organization called Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who since 2017 has been regularly identified by the U.S. State Department's Office of Counterterrorism or Bureau of Counterterrorism as one of the most active terrorist groups in the world responsible for international terrorism. So with that as background, Now he changes his name to al-Sharaa. I believe he's Saudi and not Syrian, so you got a non-Syrian leading the pack there. And you know, Trump has made a deal with the devil. Now I will note, this is not the first time that you've had American presidents glad-handing with former terrorists. Are guys who got to their position because they were terrorists. Remember Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel? He was head of the Irgun, a terrorist organization, and then there was Yitzhak Shamir from the Stern Gang, another terrorist organization, but they both became Prime Ministers of Israel and got royal visits to the White House and such. So What Trump's doing with al-Jilani is not without precedent.

So does that mean now that since we lift the sanctions, we own Syria?

No, no, we hope to make some money off of Syria, but you know, this— Trump initially was reportedly withdrawing all U.S. forces from eastern Syria, and now it looks like that's on hold because They found that they're sitting on a bunch of rare earth minerals and they want to exploit those if they can. Wow.

Well, there's always motives behind our dealings with any parts of the world, you know.

Oh yes, yeah, yeah.

I, I think the only challenge— well, as a matter of fact, Larry, uh, now I'm finding it's going to be very challenging for the U.S. to figure out what to do with Latin American country like Colombia. Who just signed the Chinese BRI pact recently. So no more that— will I be again— will I be right if I say no more Monroe Doctrine?

Well, we still maintain that we trying to abide by it, but, you know, China, China is making terrific, tremendous inroads in South America in particular, um, in both building a large port in Peru, I believe, That's correct. Also in Chile and Brazil, you know, China's trade relationship with Brazil is increasing, not diminishing. Wow.

Yeah, well, that's all this makes sense as to where not only the chaotic American foreign policy, but always its ambiguity as it goes forward. So, Larry, I know you are on schedule, you have other things, I don't want to hold you up longer. But I would like to have your final word here regarding the Russia talks with Ukraine. I don't feel comfortable calling them negotiations. Just what will be the US position moving forward regarding this?

Well, again, Trump's going to be pressured now to impose sanctions on Russia because once again, once again, Yeah, because Russia's position is very clear. Uh, we're not declaring a unilateral ceasefire. We're not going to agree to any ceasefire until you, Ukraine, are out of our territory. You get out of Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk completely out. Then we can talk ceasefire. Until then, no deal. And Ukraine said, no, hell no, we're not going to do that. And Russia said, okay. Well, but that's our position. And in fact, if you don't accept that position now, the next time our offer comes, we're going to be taking more territory. So you're going to be losing up to 8 pieces of territory. Wow.

I argued this at the beginning, Larry, from the beginning. I said, Mike, my word, Russians will not give the territories back in case there is some arrangements, whatever. It's, it's, it's foregone. It's done. It's done for.

Yeah, the key to this is NATO's— the elimination of NATO. NATO has to be disbanded. That's the only way that Russia is going to ever have security. As long as NATO exists, Russia is going to face a potential existential threat.

And I'm just wondering, what is the purpose of NATO now anyway that the Soviet Union doesn't exist.

The jobs, jobs program for white guys.

Wow, wow, Larry, I can't thank you enough, my friend. Truly appreciate you carving out time. I know how busy your schedule is, and I just wanted to have your insights here for the community because they, they value your insights here.

Always happy to accommodate you, David, and I appreciate the invitation. Thanks so much.

Of course, always, Larry. You take care, my friend.

Bye-bye.

Oh guys, well, I hope you all enjoyed listening to Larry. He has, uh, you know, he said I'll carve out 30, 30, 35 minutes for you. It was kind enough of him to really, because I reached out to him yesterday and he said sure, I'll do it. And he enjoys being here with our community and so forth. So well, just to wrap up all this in a, in a much bigger picture per se, And again, I had a chance to read an article by Professor Rüel Pepa. Rüel Pepa is an academician, so he's been writing extensively about all this. And really, one of the titles of the article that I read, it was about this so-called Istanbul Summit. So, you know, is it negotiations, you know, sort of for peace? Or is it a surrender, uh, uh, of, uh, as the US loses the war in Ukraine? And it became very evident. This is why you are seeing now what the Europeans are trying to do. And by the way, I give credit to Leon Neo for this picture here and this other picture for Stefan Kugler. So you gotta give credit, uh, where credit is due. And Europeans, it's just like, you know, instead of focusing on their own internal dynamics and the problems they have, economic ones. You look at, for example, what's going on right now in England. England now, I just read it yesterday, uh, marked now the highest number of billionaires leaving England. Exit. So, and of course, with what Larry mentioned about Farage wanted to sort of be out of the EU altogether and everything else that comes with all that. So, so Europeans, like I always say, they're like a child that never grows up and is always in constant need of direction and discipline. And this is one of the challenges that I am seeing moving forward with the Europeans. So the one key that I need you guys to understand, and again, using history, As our guide here, it's exactly what I mentioned earlier regarding Japan, when the Japanese had to sort of the unconditional support, the unconditional surrender, I'm sorry, the unconditional surrender aboard the USS Missouri in 1945, you know, and that's basically marked the end of the hostilities in the Pacific theater. Of World War II. I, I could see the same outcome moving forward here because, like Larry said, there is no way now Russia is going to give those territories back. I haven't— we were, we were arguing or talking about, remember guys, last time that, you know, it just would not make any sense for Putin to go physically and attend this. Because to me, when, when comedian Zelensky or President Zelensky said he wants to meet with Putin, that means he did not understand or read the Russian proposals, which, by the way, he had a chance back last year or way back in 2022, but he couldn't take a stand, meaning Zelensky couldn't take a stand and sign a deal, negotiation or peace, whatever that was with the Russians at that time. And that became clear why he is a puppet of the West. In other words, we're just giving him the, the script per se and pushing him forward. And this is why Europeans are adamant about blocking a peace deal, any peace deal. That's why you see in the UK, France, Germany, and even Poland which, by the way, I was talking to a source yesterday in Poland via phone, and they informed me about how Polish people— not all, of course, shall not generalize— they are stepping on the European Union flag. As a matter of fact, they burning it. Yeah, so apparently in Poland people are, because they coming into, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, elections is going to be now, second round is going to be in June, you know. And they are sort of, so far from what I was told, that the Polish people are in for the candidates who wants to put Poland first, not Ukraine, not the EU, not America, Poland first. So it will be very, very interesting to see how those dynamics are going to move forward. So anyway, guys, that's all I have to share with you here. Remember to join me tomorrow at 8 PM for my conversation with, uh, uh, Einar Tengen. So he's gonna be in here tomorrow. Uh, we will be talking, uh, a lot about what's going on with the trade tariffs, geopolitics, and so forth. So, so remember to join me tomorrow at 8:00 PM. So, all right guys, hope you all enjoyed this. Once again, thank you all for being here. Thank you for your kind support. To those who wants to, uh, support the channel, let me— oh, by the way, I forgot to share with you the links for Larry. If you want to check it out, check out his YouTube channel also, Counter Currents. You know, it's very, very interesting. Uh, and he writes on Substack, so I read his stuff there. So, so if you ever get a chance to check it out. So, uh, once again, if you want to support my upcoming Asia trip, I will be very, very grateful to you for that. I intend to go in about 4 or 5 months, somewhere around that time. So I will greatly appreciate your support for that. And here is the link for the channel if you like what you are listening to. And enjoying this, uh, analysis that I provide, and of course the guests that I bring in. So, so anyway, wishing you a good day, good afternoon, good evening, whatever part of the world, and I look forward to seeing you again. As always, remember, geopolitics impacts your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys. Bye-bye.