The soft kind of intrusion is very hard to respond to because you can't respond to it very easily militarily. That's exactly the problem, and that's why the tool of NATO, while it's an important one in terms of the security commitment, is not the only tool needed. That's why, ultimately, it depends on the integration of the population in the political structures of the country involved to build the best defence against that kind of intrusion, and that's something we can try to contribute to.
We can make as strong statements as possible on the hard security guarantee, and it's important because of the ambiguity that's been bred by some of the discourse in the American campaign. But on the other issue, it's hard to say how the Russian population in the Baltic states is responding to the situation. From what I've read, they identify as Estonians, as Latvians. They see their future there, but they also have a different understanding of Russia. They're less distrustful. They hear Russian media because it's in their own language. Of course, the leaders of those countries are aware of this, but this is why, I think, a continuing discussion about how better to respond to these challenges in integrating minority population groups is very important.
I don't know if we can contribute to it, but I think dialogue is very important in terms of sharing experience and trying to push that forward.
I don't know what else can be done about it, frankly, because you can't respond to that with an army. It just can't be done. I don't see how you can make a military response to that kind of a risk.