Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman.
I would say, first of all, in terms of the surprise of seeing the new class of submarine in the Arctic, that it is really an issue for the Americans as to why it is that the submarines surfaced at the North Pole. Clearly, they wished to make a point by doing so, and I think they were successful.
Concerning submarine control in the Arctic, first of all I'm not convinced that submarine movement actually does bolster any national claims. Submarine movement is transitory. There is a legal regime to control this that does not prejudice states' claims to anything. In the Arctic, outside of territorial waters and outside of currently established exclusive economic zones, I'm aware of quite a lot of scientific work going on to see what other claims could be made by states in the region. I'm not of the opinion that submarine movements materially affect that type of work.
We heard about a submarine placing a flag on the seabed. I think that was far more for public consumption than it was for any legal claim. And we see other types of demonstrations of Arctic presence and capability that sound impressive but really don't substantively amount to very much more. In fact, we have done similar types of things in the past.