Okay, I'll be very brief.
I read the report. I disagree with the recommendations. What exactly is NATO going to do except in the context of flight paths, which is something we have already dealt with? The key thing is the Arctic is a transit point. We're talking about transit of both air and sea, and increased transportation up there. Those issues are regulatory and co-operative. You need to sit down with the Russians, whether you do it through the Arctic Council or through the Law of the Sea process, or you simply do it on a bilateral, trilateral, or multilateral basis of the actors who are involved to sort out the rules of the road, if I can put it that way.
NATO has no role to play in that. Happily they can talk about it. That's fine, because NATO likes—and don't take this badly—to talk about everything, for a variety of political reasons within the delegations. The key issue for NATO is the nature of the Soviet fleet: their long-range aviation and the bastioning of their submarine-launched ballistic missile fleets, which takes place in the area north of Norway—not north of Canada. That's the key strategic issue for the alliance. It's not questions around the security of the Arctic. That is for the key Arctic players, and NATO's formal involvement will simply be seen by Moscow as provocative: “What are you doing up there?”