That's an interesting answer from the standpoint of it being a paradox. That the more the relationship gets exposed, the less manoeuvring room the U.S. administration or Congress has and the more difficult it is for congressional and Senate members to be anything other than “strong on Russia”.
My question may be wrong. It may be in some respects that rather than lengthening this conflict, there might be some possibility that it contracts the conflicts. Maybe that's a little optimistic. I take your response. It's an interesting response. Certainly, I lived the paradox for the last three days. I was in Washington. A Canada-U.S. group met with 85 senators and congressmen. There was a lot of mumbling into the coffee cups when these kinds of issues arose.
Circling now into Canada's response because this does create difficulties for both our military and non-military response. I can only see us as staying the course in the present context. What's your response, if you will, to the political turmoil? We have to rely on the Americans for leadership. We're standing up a brigade group in Latvia. We're re-upping in Ukraine. We're taking over missions in Iraq. We're thinking about what we could do that would be effective in Africa. Yet all of it is highly dependent upon the working assumption that the Americans will be taking the leadership.