Thank you very much.
The discussion of metrics is the most important conversation we need to have because part of the conversation of course around the relevance of NATO is always tied to money, and while money is only one benefit in return for that, spending has to be another part. Qualitative and quantitative measures will help us to define how, why, or whether or not we're being successful.
But I do understand we've almost confused or intermingled the conversation around the benefits and metrics of a mission, or a military intervention versus the metrics and value of membership in NATO. I just want to be clear, do you agree those are two separate things and must be viewed and measured separately?