I think that's a very good question, and I think that's a lot of the debate at the moment—what will we be able to do, what will we be able to afford? I don't want to speak for the United States. You might want to get somebody from the U.S. embassy or from Washington in here to talk to these issues. But the U.S. has been very clear that it still considers NATO, the indivisibility of its security with that of Europe, to be of fundamental importance to U.S. national security and interest. They'd like the Europeans to do a little bit more, as we all would.
The other thing that I think is important to pull out here is that it isn't just the raw dollar cost of what you spend in defence. It's then how you deploy and use those assets. It's a point that Canada has been making for ages. It isn't about what your percentage of GDP is. It's how much you actually make available when the needs arise. We have a lot of NATO allies who have a lot of assets who sit on their home territory and don't do anything. If they were more disposed to use them a little more frequently, then maybe we'd get better burden-sharing, notwithstanding all the things I've said about domestic, democratic processes. Everybody has to challenge themselves as to what we can bring to this collective effort, which is a preventive effort, a capacity-building effort, and occasionally, unfortunately, a fighting effort. There's an awful lot in NATO's collective resources.