I think in that particular article I was saying that it could be perceived as an arms race. There's a difference in terms of understanding an arms race. An arms race is creating a conflict when neither side has intent of offensive action against the other. You start buying equipment, and then the other side thinks, “I don't know what they're thinking about. I better buy those battleships or aircraft carriers myself.” That facilitates and creates a tension of its own.
The difference, I would argue now, is that we are facing an aggressor state. In other words, we know that the Russians have utilized military force in putting down the Chechen effort to get self-rule. We know that the Georgian war occurred in 2008, and we know about the Ukrainian war. In other words, what we are doing is responding to the actions of what the Russian state has done. It's not an arms race but rather trying to develop that capability of deterring an aggressor. It's different from World War I, when the Germans entered into that arms race with battleships and other contexts. It didn't necessarily want to have World War I as opposed to World War II, when the Germans were clearly the aggressor state and we needed to build up. We did not have an arms race in World War II, even though we were trying to build up.
That's the difference, I would say.