Thank you very much for the question. It's actually very hard to know. I mean, NATO says that, just like NATO said, in the September 20 document I talked about, that the NPT is the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. Of course, that NPT has the obligation on all parties to the NPT to engage in good faith negotiations toward nuclear disarmament, but NATO is manifestly not doing that.
The point I'm trying to make is that NATO is actually going in the wrong direction with this very alarming modernization process that is going to put new tactical nuclear weapons into NATO non-nuclear-weapon state countries. This pledge to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons stands there as a kind of formal statement, but NATO is manifestly not doing that, I would argue. It very much needs to do that.
Actually, I think this step of changing its nuclear posture from a flexible response to a very clear declaration of no first use—the argument being that the only role that NATO sees for its nuclear weapons is to deter their use by anyone—is an easy step for NATO to take, frankly, and yet it would be an extraordinarily powerful message that NATO really was committed, ultimately, to getting from here to there, and therefore recognized, of course, that so long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, they have to be deterred, but there should be no other role, and therefore NATO is going to take that first step in that direction.