Thank you, Mr. Chisu.
It's an important question which is very difficult to answer. You ask about China and I don't think I have the time to go into great detail, but China does cooperate with Russia. It acts indirectly in the Arctic. It is a country that wants to ensure energy supplies. China also has a lot of funds. Russia does not have anywhere the funds that China has. I'm not entirely convinced that cooperation is that close. There's also a lot of suspicion between the two countries, but they do cooperate, definitely.
We have to understand the nature of the threat. Mr. Harris, I think you made some important points when you said, “Is there a direct blatant threat? Can we believe the United States would not act if Canada is directly threatened?”
With the greatest respect, that is not the issue. If Russia were to grab Canadian land, if it were to attack Canada blatantly, of course under the agreements that we have with the United States, the United States would have no choice but to act. But that is not what happens often in international relations.
Threats can be subtle; they can be piecemeal, and that's where we need to have, a response. This is why when I talk about the three layers of defence, we must not forget about the third layer. It's not a matter of percentages—we spend 1.1%, 1.5%, 2%. Do we spend what it takes to guarantee our sovereignty? Do we make sure that we are sufficiently secure? Can we rely on an ally that has proven to be not particularly reliable in many instances? Do we strengthen that third layer, while we continuously work diplomatically to strengthen the other layers?
Yes, we do have good cooperation with United States, but is that across the entire spectrum? We don't know in what ways we will be tested. So can we afford not to have a capacity in the Arctic to defend certain crucial interests ourselves directly, not to have the air power? Can we afford not to have the icebreakers that are necessary to ensure passage? This is what we have to ask ourselves. Do we take seriously our sovereignty? Do we take seriously the danger in the Arctic, not just over military force being used there but over exploration?
The Russians are making claims of the entire Lomonosov Ridge, and now they called a claim in to the United Nations for the Mendeleev Ridge as well. That covers much of the Arctic. The track record of Russia in exploration on land is disastrous. Can we imagine what would happen in the fragile ecology of the Arctic? That would not be a direct military threat, but we need to have that capacity in there.
This is why we need to look at Russia's attitude to international law, the misuse of international law. What happens in the case of Ukraine? The Orwellian language, the twisting, the undermining of international law.... If anyone cares about international law, we need to be concerned.
We talk about proliferation. What is the message? What is the message you get from Ukraine? Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, because they were told not just by Russia but by the United States and by Britain that they would assure the integrity of its sovereignty. Had Ukraine retained its nuclear weapons, it is highly unlikely, I would put it to you, that Russia would have risked an invasion of Crimea. What is the lesson? The lesson internationally for proliferation is if you have nuclear weapons, keep them; if you don't have them, get them.