But Tom, I wondered, you know, who's responsible when you're moving people from France to Romania across what you were saying, these different rail lines, these different borders, these different authorities, who's responsible for getting the brigade there? Is that a job for NATO, Brussels, national capitals? Is there any one clear

So legally, the sending nation is how SACEUR would refer to it, is responsible for paying for it, for contracting it, for getting it from point A to point B.

Practically speaking, though, it's what you said.

It's all hands on deck to get it across the continent, including via NATO.

And so, like I said, 90% of what it takes to move stuff is commercial.

Doctrine says the NATO commander must have sufficient authority over logistic resources to sustain the force.

But in practice, SACEUR just has coordinating authority and he can ask for stuff.

And that's not

I appreciate your time and I appreciate your leadership over the last 10 years in getting after integrated air and missile defense.

Thanks, Ricky.

Yeah, my experience with integrated air and missile defense actually started out as an operator, flying Eagles, sitting alert in South Korea, sitting alert in Iceland, flying Southern Watch and Saudi Arabia.

But the first real spike into the policy world was when I was working on the National Security Council at the White House in 2012.

My deliverable for the NATO summit in Chicago was the European phased adaptive approach.

And the full intention was this wasn't going to protect Europe or US forces in Europe forever.

It was supposed to be the backbone of a command and control system to allow data sharing between NATO nations.

What about on ground in ADA or in our missile defense data? Is that similar at that level of number or is it?

So as the guest with the most recent experience at the alliance, I'd like to turn it over to you for some opening remarks.

Okay, thanks, Scott.

Let me just start with a framing from a NATO perspective.

What I think most allies would tell you is that they see a more aggressive Russia, a more unpredictable America, and a more challenging China.

And those are the dynamics driving allies to make decisions and take action.

I should say first that the overall objective of the NATO summit is not to have a major blow up, not to have a fiasco.

But overall, this year's summit, if I summed it up in one word, would be implementation.

And as far as the Ankara summit itself, what will you be looking for both at the summit and in the weeks and months to follow? What will be your metrics for success coming out of it?