Thank you.
Yes. Making decisions among 28 members always takes a bit longer than making them alone. However, if we look at the recent past, it took not even one day to invoke article 5 after 9/11, and it took not even nine days to operate in Libya. If you compare these to the months or more around Bosnia and Kosovo, I think it's a good example and a good demonstration that, even at 28, we still can operate and decide relatively rapidly.
We also would like to point out that many risks in the threats and challenges we're facing now are non-state risks, some because of the fact that they emerge in small groups, others because they are global and are hardly identifiable, such as cyber threats, for example.
In NATO, we do not base our capability and requirement development work on perceived threats, but on the types of missions that we may need to face. A good example is ballistic missile defence. Ballistic missile defence is not aimed at any state. It's aiming at protecting our territories and populations against a possible limited ballistic attack. We think there's a growing possibility of this in the future because of some states, but also because of some groups, some non-state actors, because ballistic technology is proliferating, like so many others.
On cyber, we address cyber defence very strongly. We have a new mission, which was decided in Lisbon, a new strategic concept, for ballistic missile defence and cyber defence. We'll do it especially through the computer incident response cell, which is in Brussels. We'll do it through a standard of excellence that we developed in Tallinn, Estonia, for obvious reasons. We are ready to face attacks coming from who knows whom?