The Dangers of DeepSeek and Chinese Drones: Medal of Honor Recipient Florent Groberg

[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] “They picked me up, and I’m hopping on one leg. And I saw Commander Griffin, Major Gray, Major Kennedy, and then USAID [officer] at the time, Ragaei Abdelfattah, were all killed by the same bomber that didn’t kill me,” said Florent Groberg.

Groberg is a retired U.S. Army Captain who fought in Afghanistan and was severely injured attempting to thwart a suicide bomber. For his actions, he received the Medal of Honor, America’s highest award for military valor.

“Everything that we have in this nation is because of men and women who put their lives on the line and didn’t come home. And their families—they have to live with the consequences of that,” he said.

I spoke with Captain Groberg on a wide range of topics, from DeepSeek AI and swarming drones to the war in Ukraine and the threat from China’s communist regime.

“When I first heard about DeepSeek and its battle with Open AI … I saw it as an opportunity for the Chinese government to have free access to all of our data as they see fit,” said Groberg. “The Chinese have been developing the majority of the world’s small drones. I believe that the majority of the Russian [drones] come from China. … I know that Ukrainians are also using their own specific drones, and they’re creating as much chaos on the other side. So, it really has changed the landscape of warfare.”

Views expressed in this video are those of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jan Jekielek:

Florent Groberg, it is such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Florent Groberg:

Thank you for having me. I’m excited.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’ve been writing about DeepSeek. It’s available to any American to be used in whatever way. Why is this a problem?

Mr. Groberg:

I would say it’s a very important topic when it comes to national security. When I first heard about DeepSeek and its battle with OpenAI, and the concept of doing it much cheaper and more accurately, and that a lot of people here in the U.S. had access to it by just downloading it, that scared me. Personally, it scared me. My first thought was, why would anyone in the United States download this application? Specifically, because it’s owned by a Chinese company. 

My second thought was, what does it do that’s much better than ChatGPT, Grok, Claude, and the other applications that would entice you to download this one and put your property, your IP, and your personal private information at risk? Then I started to peel back the onion and realized people don’t know. They just think this is a new application that’s available to them, for cheap, for free, and it’s better than the rest because it’s a lot cheaper and you can do things faster—whatever the story was sold to them in the media, and they’re going to use it. But they forget it’s a Chinese company that has to abide by the 2017 Chinese international law in terms of regulations for companies to provide their data to the Chinese government. 

In essence, I saw it as an opportunity for the Chinese government to have free access to all of our data as they see fit because people are utilizing it to do everything from asking normal questions to planning their day to financial questions to doing their taxes to potentially putting the IP of their own businesses and products that they’re developing at risk to gain a better understanding or maybe a competitive advantage. All this is now being just transferred over at the mercy of whatever the Chinese government wants to make of it. 

Mr. Jekielek:

The thing that was really astonishing to me was this hype that was created. They did it so cheaply and it was so good without really any evidence provided.

Mr. Groberg:

No evidence, no facts. We don’t even know where the chips come from. Do they come from NVIDIA or not? We have no data. There was actually no proof of what they were claiming they could do. Finally, now we’ve had the ability to take a deeper look into it, and it’s nothing special. It’s not better than anything else out there already on the market. They just can do it at a fifth or an eighth of the cost, supposedly. I have a question regarding this. 

How much is the Chinese government actually paying for that? What’s the government’s involvement in terms of the financials to make this company move forward? Does that change the math there? Maybe, maybe not. I have no idea. These are questions we should be asking ourselves. But instead, a lot of us just jump right to the conclusion: it’s cheaper, better, and faster. We really need to start pointing fingers at OpenAI. And what are you doing, NVIDIA?

Mr. Jekielek:

What is the full nature of the China threat? When did you first become aware of this?

Mr. Groberg:

I’ve served in the military. I’ve served in the intelligence services for a little bit of time. I am not a well-versed historian, but I pay attention to what’s going on around the world. In 1949, the Chinese made a hundred-year commitment to become the sole world power when it comes to economics, military, and technology. They’re working really hard at that mission. That mission requires passing the United States in many different facets. To do so, you need to invest, you need to capture, and you need to lead. It’s a massive threat to our way of life, specifically to the United States and to the free world. 

When I see the opposition taking advantage of our own way of life and the freedoms we enjoy, like freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and our ability to utilize these types of platforms with no consequences, it worries me a little bit. Because I’m also aware that they’re trying to surpass us, and we’re giving them a free pass. They’re making massive investments on the technological side. You’ve seen their military grow. They’re capturing a lot of territories around the world in Africa, South America, and Europe. They’re bailing out Russia. That worries me concerning national security.

Mr. Jekielek:

The unspoken thing is that it is a totalitarian dictatorship.  Some people perceive America as being responsible for the Opium War and treat Americans as such. We’re talking about the fentanyl crisis. A lot of the precursors and even fentanyl are being facilitated by the Chinese regime. But actually, the regime treats its own people worse than the people responsible for the Opium Wars.

Mr. Groberg:

Yes. When it comes to the Opium War, there are a lot of responsible parties. We need to figure out a way to stop it. Unfortunately. I’ve lost friends recently who were using drugs. One of them specifically was using a different drug that was laced with fentanyl and he passed away. He was struggling. He was a medic and a great kid. 

But it’s a problem that we really need to fix, and there is responsibility here in our own country, obviously. There’s a lot of responsibility over there. This is one of those situations where I believe this should not be a competition. It should be a partnership which would benefit all parties involved.

Mr. Jekielek:

The only way that the Chinese regime can be encouraged to stop the flow of fentanyl is doing something that will cause them more pain than the actual benefits they get from letting the fentanyl flow. Your thoughts?

Mr. Groberg:

In a perfect world, I would love for there to be no war. I’ve been at war. I’ve seen how horrible it is, the idea of having to take someone else’s life. More importantly, it’s your friends that don’t get to come home and the families that have to deal with the consequences on both sides. War is the worst potential outcome out there. But I’d love to have a partnership with everyone. 

I’d love to be able to have dinner with my Chinese counterpart, Russian counterpart, French counterpart, British counterpart, and for all of us to be peaceful and talk about how we can better this earth and do better things to support each other’s economies and communities. But unfortunately, from my understanding and personal experiences, we face too many individuals who don’t think that way.

Mr. Jekielek:

Many would argue that less benevolent forces take advantage of these sentiments that many Americans share with you. Of course, you served in the military and received the Medal of Honor. Let’s talk about that.

Mr. Groberg:

I did. I served in the Army and joined in 2008 as an infantryman. I joined out of Fort Benning, Georgia, and was stationed at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs. I completed two tours in Afghanistan, one in 2009 and one in 2010 as a platoon leader in the Kunar province. I led a very specific team of 24 Americans in the remote parts of eastern Afghanistan. 

I learned a lot about being a man and a leader, but also a follower. I learned a lot about myself in those mountains. I faced some pretty difficult enemies, but most importantly, I was surrounded by some of the best people I’ve ever met in my life. 

In my second tour, in 2012, back in Afghanistan, I was running the specialized security team for the brigade commander, who is now the vice chief of staff of the Army. About six or seven months into the deployment, we were targeted by a suicide bomber in Asadabad, again in eastern Afghanistan. My job was to lead that security team. 

Luckily, I was close enough to the suicide bomber. I saw him come out of his structure after they created a diversion with motorcycles. I couldn’t see a weapon on him. I saw him as a threat but couldn’t confirm he was a threat, so I couldn’t engage him with my rifle or my service weapon. I devised my own form of escalating force. 

I ran at him and said a lot of words, hoping he would respond and confirm he was a bad guy. If he was a bad guy, I would do my job. I ran at him, hit him, and confirmed he was wearing a suicide vest. The only thing I could think of at that moment was that I had to get him away from the team as quickly and as far away as possible. I was followed by one of my guys, Sal Mahoney. So I threw him, and Mahoney was right behind me, ready to roll. 

He landed on the ground and detonated. I don’t know how—call it the grace of God, luck, or whatever you want to believe, but I lived. I was thrown 30 feet. My foot was facing me, and I had blood everywhere. I lost hearing, and my head was spinning.   

My number two came out of nowhere, grabbed me by the handle of my plate carrier, and dragged me into a ditch. My 22-year-old medic at the time, who had a torn MCL and PCL, saved my life because he applied a tourniquet. My translator helped him and also helped save my life. It was probably one of the most difficult moments of my life on a physical level. 

But what made it worse was that when I came to my senses a couple of minutes later, my number two came to me and said, “Hey, just want to give you a sitrep.” I asked him, “What’s the status of Mount War VI?” which was a colonel. He said, “Mount War VI is okay.” I asked, “What’s the status of Mount War VII?” which was a commandant’s sergeant major. He said, “We lost a commandant’s sergeant major, and we lost three others.”   

I said, “Get me out of this hole.” They picked me up, and I hopped on one leg. I saw Commandant Sergeant Major Griffin, Major Gray, Major Kennedy, and then USAID at the time, Ragaeni Abdelfattah, were all killed by the same bomber that didn’t kill me. A few minutes later, I was put into a vehicle on top of ammo cans, and I was cazevacked to the nearest military hospital where my war ended. 

I received a Medal of Honor on November 12, 2015, from President Obama for my actions. I tell people there was no heroic act that day. It was just that my entire team did their job. Unfortunately, we still lost Americans. The fact that I was recognized as a hero for that was a really tough pill to swallow. It’s a tough one for me to digest even to this day. 

But I’ve also come to understand that this is an opportunity for me to have a platform, to continue serving, to say the names of my friends who didn’t come home, to highlight the true heroes of my personal story, and to remind people that everything we have in this nation is because of men and women who put their lives on the line and didn’t come home. Their families have to live with the consequences of that. 

Yes, we are the greatest nation in the world, hands down, without a doubt. That’s because we bleed for it, and that’s because we have individuals who put on that uniform and are willing to deploy thousands of miles away for years at a time to ensure that we get to keep this way of life, and I don’t take that for granted.

Mr. Jekielek:

There was a second suicide bomber who was also going to detonate. But because of your actions, they were prevented from the detonation having any impact on the team.

Mr. Groberg:

Correct. I did not know this, but there was a second one still in the building. What we understand based on forensics and the storyline is that because we got there so quickly on the first one, it prevented the second one from actually exiting. Their goal was that he gets in the middle of it, detonates, and then the second one finishes the job. But because we got there so quickly and because I got to throw him so quickly, the first one detonated, and the second was still in the building. The first bomb caused him to detonate, probably shocking him, so he detonated inside the building. 

For a long time, I thought the second bomber was the one that killed Command Sergeant Major Griffin, Major Graham, Major Kennedy, and  Ragaeni Abdelfattah. It wasn’t until I actually read the report, maybe a year later, after Sergeant Mahoney received a Silver Star, that I realized, “Hold on, you’re telling me that the guy who blew up at my feet is the one that killed my friends 30 feet away?” That really threw me for a twist because I started replaying the scenario over and over again, thinking, “How? Why am I here? How did I live?” 

Then one day, I realized that I needed to stop asking those questions. One day you’ll figure it out. You’ll meet the maker and someone you know, and you’ll get your answers. Hopefully, in the meantime, do something about it. Be a better person, serve your community, honor those guys in common, do your job as a father, do your job as a husband. That mindset gets you back on track, if that makes sense.

Mr. Jekielek:

It makes a lot of sense. Was there a moment you realized this could be the end, but you still chose to act? 

Mr. Groberg:

I get asked this all the time. Once you’re scared, how do you react this way? Don’t you know you’re going to die? You don’t think that way. In combat, I call it the power of love. You love your brothers and sisters so much that you’re willing to do the impossible for them, and you’re willing to die day in and day out for them. This whole concept of dying, even though it is always in the back of your head, is shelved because the concept of protecting them becomes the priority.

For me, I didn’t go into this situation calculating, “Okay, here we go. I’m probably going to die right now.” I went in thinking, “He’s going to kill my friends,” and my job was to protect them. Literally, my job on that tour was to protect Command Sergeant Major Griffin and at the time Colonel Mingus. If I died and they lived, then that was my job. 

Yes, it’s not a great way of putting it, but that was the reality. I’m designed that way. As a warrior, you have to trust your instincts, your training, and your love for brotherhood and sisterhood, and then you just allow it to develop. I’m blessed that I’ve been in combat before. I’m blessed that I was serving alongside some fine people. I’m also blessed that I had really good training, which allowed me to make a decision. 

The last piece is that we all wonder, who am I at that moment? I don’t know. If you had asked me, “Would you bomb Russia or face a suicide bomber?” Before that, I’d probably say, “I don’t know about that one. That sounds a little stupid.” When the situation happened, I had to do my job. I just did my job, and Mahoney followed me right into it. 

That tells me I’m not the only one. I tell people, “You don’t understand. When you’re in the moment of combat, you can see so many heroic acts. We’re all ordinary individuals, but we become something special to each other in those moments.” You’ll see people running into burning buildings or vehicles, or across open ground to pick up their friends and put them on their shoulders while being hit. When you hear the story of Sal Giunta, when he was in a cornfield, seeing his buddy down, running across enemy lines, taking out the enemy, picking up his buddy, putting him on his shoulders, and running back through enemy lines, you think, “Wow, how would you ever do this?” 

To us, it’s simple. It’s our job. We love each other enough that if we’re going to die trying, that’s our duty. That’s what makes the professional so different and special. The only other one I can think of that comes close to it—though it’s still different—is firefighters. I have so much respect for the idea of just running into a burning building day in and day out to save complete strangers or your friends. It’s unbelievable.

Mr. Jekielek:

Do you hope the same feeling exists among Americans, despite this increased polarization being fueled by nefarious parties?

Mr. Groberg:

I believe that if we spend more time actually having conversations with people who differ in ideas from us, we will go a lot further than we possibly could ever imagine in terms of bridging that gap. I ask questions of my family and my friends. I didn’t live in the 60s and 70s. I’ve watched a lot of reports, seen movies, and read books. I’ve learned about it in history, and it sounds like those days were pretty tough too. 

We had a very unpopular war, we had a hippie movement, we had a lot of racism in this country, we had the resignation of a president, and we had the Cold War. There were a lot of issues. There were a lot of changes in our society with growing technology. I ask this question, “Did you guys think it was the end of the world at that moment the way we think about it today?” 

I look at those moments and the concept of this nation, and the beauty to me is the idea of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that we’re all going to have great conversations with each other and listen to each other. Freedom of speech means that we’re going to very much disagree. At times, it’s going to be very notorious, even nefarious. That’s going to create this concept or idea specifically for our enemies; that we don’t like each other very much, that we are a country on the brink of civil war.

No, we are a country that is utilizing our God-given rights and our constitutional rights to disagree. Sometimes we take it too far; we are taking it too far right now, 100 percent. But to me, that’s human nature and it’s a cycle. I hope that we find a way over the next couple of years to say, “Okay, this is a little bit too much. I really want to better understand why you’re thinking that way.” Then maybe we’ll find some common ground. 

Will it happen? I don’t know. I’m not Nostradamus and I don’t have a crystal ball. But I do know one thing. As someone else decides to mingle in and really take a shot at us, you will do the job for us. You will bridge that gap rather quickly. I hope that doesn’t happen that way. I hope that we’re able to do it internally. 

But it does create a little bit of worry for me because I don’t want another war. I don’t want my son to have to make a decision when he’s 18, 19, or 20-years-old, while my country’s at war, that it’s my turn to put the uniform on, like Dad did, like Grandpa did, like my uncles did around the world. I don’t want that. 

I want him to think about how he can become, how he can go on, and how he can go to Mars. Actually, I hope doesn’t go to Mars because he’d be gone for a long time, and I’d be scared. I want him to think about how to become a doctor, how to do whatever he wants to do, right, instead of going to war. I hope that by the time he’s 20-years-old—though I really hope we fix this a lot sooner—he lives in a nation where people start to listen to each other a little bit more. There’s a lot of responsibility to go around. 

Right here on the Hill, that’s a big responsibility, but it comes down to our communities. It comes down to people just like you and me. We have a responsibility to do our part. Why should I expect anyone else above me to do the job for me if I’m not willing to do it myself? 

I challenge myself, my friends, and my community around me to be a little more open-minded and potentially grasp the concept that they might not be right. If this person is thinking completely opposite of me, why? What am I missing?  Have some curiosity and then have conversations. 

It doesn’t mean that you’re going to agree with them. It doesn’t mean you’re going to solve all the world’s problems. I’m not saying it will happen overnight, but I do believe that we have the opportunity here to be just a little more mindful. If we’re willing to have a conversation and not be judgmental from the onset, we potentially have an opportunity to heal a little bit faster. 

But I’m an optimist by trade. I can get that some people who are listening to this are going to dismiss me, probably call me an idiot, saying, “What country do you live in? You’re not reading the tea leaves.” That’s fine. I’m the dude that sat there at the bottom of a draw with three enemy firing positions on top of me, and everybody else was probably thinking we were dead. My mindset was, if I take this one out, then I’ll be able to take these two out. So I stayed optimistic. I’m an optimist by trade, and I’d rather be an optimist than a pessimist.

Mr. Jekielek: 

You’re an immigrant. What was it like growing up as an immigrant in America?

Mr. Groberg:

It was awesome. I don’t come from much. I was lucky enough to have parents that loved me and cared about me, so that’s a huge benefit, whether you’re an immigrant or not. I came to this country, and I didn’t speak English. I learned it really rather quickly, and I had friends from the moment I got here. I was never judged for who I was or who I wasn’t. I was embraced by the community, and it made my life decision to join the military really easy because I felt American.

To me, that is why I’m an immigrant who loves this country more than anything else in the world. Because I understand what this country gave me—the opportunity to become one of its own, to become one of its sons, one of its citizens. I’m blessed, and I would never take that for granted. That’s why I’m always committed to serving our nation, no matter who is in power. That’s my commitment. 

Seeing some friends die serving this nation has definitely changed my mindset a little bit. It made me more patriotic in the sense that I want to continue being a positive influence in my community, for my country and for the people around me. That’s why I’m more open-minded. That’s why I’m willing to have those conversations with everybody and learn more.

Mr. Jekielek:

You’ve been writing about unmanned aerial drones. This is a technology that has been rapidly growing, especially during the Russia-Ukraine war. Over the course of two years, these systems have been evolving during this war. What is the situation right now, and what is the China threat here?

Mr. Groberg:

First of all, the situation is that the concept of warfare has changed. We have probably one of the most fascinating battlegrounds you could ever imagine happening in Ukraine, which is a World War I-style trench warfare fighting with the utilization of technology, specifically drones; Group 1, small, and Group 2, mid-range. 

The devastation of these capabilities is significant. The concept of terrorizing your enemy is what I see from these small drones. You could be in a trench or hiding in your bunker, and you hear that zzzz sound coming up. You don’t know if it’s coming right for you or if it’s been watching you, tracking you. Then you see it, and if it’s on you, you try to run away or try to shoot at it. 

The next thing you know, you have a small type of explosive detonating on you. The sheer chaos and fear it creates is terrifying. I didn’t have that issue when I was fighting the war. It would have been a pretty significant change in our battle concepts and tactical concepts to fight this type of warfare.

It is absolutely imperative for our military—and we are doing that as a nation, and I’m sure others are doing as well—to identify ways to employ these types of technologies to protect our troops, but more importantly, also on the counter-UAS [Unmanned Aerial System] side. 

How do we stop these swarms of drones? How do we stop these one-off drones? How do we intercept a drone that’s 10,000 meters in the air, looking at us, utilizing ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance] capabilities through their gimbals? What can we do about that? I’ve obviously been really interested in this and working across with some of my companies, but then I also study it.   

Yes, you’re right. The Chinese have been developing the majority of the world’s small drones. They believe that the majority of the Russian drones—fact-check me on that—come from China. They’re cheap, they’re effective, and they do their job. They don’t have a ton of technology on them, but they do enough to make a difference on the battlefield. I know that Ukrainians are also using their own specific drones and creating as much chaos on the other side.

It really has changed the landscape of warfare. Now, the question is, what is the counter-solution for that? Counter-UAS is a very big topic of conversation across the world right now. You need to identify how to protect your assets, your tanks, your people, your infrastructure, and your utilities.

Mr. Jekielek:

But also, if your potential enemy is producing this weaponry, that may offer them vast advantages. I’m talking about communist China here.

Mr. Groberg:

Of course, it offers them a lot of advantages. I believe that we have an administration right now that is taking this very seriously. I am a firm believer in our armed forces and the direction they’re going in this space for the U.S. and the whole U.S. platform, whether it’s air or sea. The Chinese are experts now in small drone warfare. 

I would say we’re pretty good at this whole counter piece, and we’re going to get much better. We’ve made significant investments in this nation and with our allies as well in different types of drone capabilities that some of us can’t really talk about. But let’s just say I’m pretty confident in where we’re at right now.

Mr. Jekielek:

A major push of this administration is to build up the manufacturing sector. There is a huge opportunity here for manufacturing growth.

Mr. Groberg:

First of all, I am a 100 percent firm believer that we need to bring back a lot of manufacturing to the United States. We have incredible talent here. Yes, it’s more expensive, but there are ways to get around it. Some people misunderstand the concept of what this specific administration, and the previous one as well, is trying to do in terms of bringing back American jobs in manufacturing. 

On the national security side, it should be an absolute requirement because of what you’re talking about. There are technologies that need to be built here within our borders due to national security implications. You’re right. We should not be utilizing any type of Chinese drone to protect our streets or our people. Also, there are certain laptops that I wouldn’t recommend buying, because I did a little bit of research. Whether I’m right or wrong, I just don’t feel comfortable with them.

Mr. Jekielek:

I’ll just say it. Lenovo.

Mr. Groberg:

There are certain laptops that I wouldn’t recommend buying. You have great products here in America. I’ll plug Microsoft, and I used to work for Microsoft. There are some really good laptops from HP and Apple. I would say that we need to be smart. What you’re seeing here on the national security side, on the manufacturing side, is that we have massive opportunities to bring a lot of jobs, a lot of concepts, and build up our industries within the United States at a reasonable cost.

We’re going to pay a little bit more, but I’d rather pay a little bit more and be safer down the road. Does that make sense? I’d rather have a little bit of pain now but bring jobs and opportunities back into this country and be safer, protecting our national interests vs. getting something a little cheaper today, but potentially selling to someone who could do me a lot more harm in the future. That’s just not a risk that I’m willing to take. Therefore, I’m hopeful that over the next couple of years, we’re going to see a pretty drastic change in that. I’ll be part of that solution, hopefully.

Mr. Jekielek:

What are you working on right now?

Mr. Groberg:

I’m working on the national security side, some of the things we just talked about. Another aspect of my business that I’m developing with some really good teammates is the concept of what’s happening in Europe, particularly the war in Ukraine—not the war itself, but post-war. There is a requirement to rebuild. It’s disastrous what has happened to Ukraine. The whole community, the city, has been completely leveled. History has been destroyed there. 

Therefore, there is going to be a need to rebuild. I think this is going to be a pretty big endeavor, and I want to be part of that. I know my company and the groups I work with want to be part of that solution. We want to allow these 10 million plus refugees who left Ukraine to come back home and have the opportunity to rebuild and restart.

For example, I know that partnerships with different European countries and companies like heavy lift helicopter providers are imperative to the rebuilding of Ukraine. We own one heavy lift helicopter that’s the best in the world. I think about this reality. Out of Poland, there are about eight border crossing points. It’s already hard to get through today. 

Imagine when you bring all these people back and all these companies that are going to want to be part of the rebuilding. It could take days to cross the border. Once they open up the borders and the airspace, you could have these heavy lift helicopters lifting 10, 20, 30 thousand tons and 10, 15, 20, 30 people at a time. Cranes could move what would otherwise take days and hours. This will help the country rebuild a lot faster.

These are concepts that we’ve been discussing as we figure out how to play a part in the rebuilding of Ukraine, and it’s by bringing American jobs to Europe, bringing American companies to Europe, and partnering with good European companies and governments. Another exciting part of my job is that I get to work on national security, but I also get to help build some great American companies that are doing a lot of good around the world.

Mr. Jekielek:

This has been a great conversation. Any final thoughts as we finish up?

Mr. Groberg:

I’m an optimist. I’m not looking to pick fights with anybody around the world. I’m looking to bridge gaps and heal. That’s what I want. I’ve done enough fighting, too much in my life. But in this country right now, I’m excited to be a part of what I see as bridging that gap. I’m committed to being that individual who’s in the middle, trying to listen to everyone and bring everybody together. Because to me, that’s too important. 

There’s no way you’re going to sell me on picking one side because it doesn’t make sense. I think we’re going to be just fine. This is not the end, folks. Sometimes it’s good to take a step back and appreciate what we have, reminding ourselves of how hard it is and how hard we’ve worked to be where we are and who we are. We have to continue earning it every day. It’s not free.

Mr. Jekielek:

Florent Groberg, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show.

Mr. Groberg:

Thank you.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.