[00:00:00] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:30] Chris Carr: Hello, everybody. Welcome to our latest Espresso Martini. Matt, how are you doing today? [00:00:35] Matt Fulton: I'm good, Chris. It's, uh, kind of a shaping up to be a rainy day here. I got my, my State Department hoodie on. I'll kind of, [00:00:41] Chris: I was gonna ask you about that. Yeah, that looks really cool. [00:00:43] Matt: Hold that up for the camera there. Yeah. Um, you know, I'm sort of like a NASCAR driver, I gotta wear my sponsors on me. Um, it's been kind of, uh, it's been kind of rough around here since the USAID checks dried up. But, you know, we're, [00:00:55] Chris: Well yeah. [00:00:55] Matt: we're, we're struggling. If we had real integrity and were real voices of truth here, we would just take 400 gRAND a month from the Russians and not really ask questions about it. [00:01:05] Chris: Well, indeed, I can't even afford my steroids anymore, so my hair's grown back, uh, in the space of a week. It's been amazing. [00:01:11] Matt: You seem a lot calmer, though. You're not like, breaking stuff as much, you know? Yeah. Your skin's cleared up. It's, you know, nice. [00:01:18] Chris: Yeah. Seemed pretty good. [00:01:19] Matt: Might be a blessing in disguise for you. [00:01:20] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. Seemed pretty good. My, my vein on my neck seems to have calmed down a bit. [00:01:25] Matt: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. [00:01:26] Chris: Yeah. Oh, dear. Well, yeah, yeah. I think somebody in the comments on YouTube, um, implied with some sort of Poundland Bellingcat or something. [00:01:38] Matt: We do completely different things from Bellingcat. [00:01:41] Chris: Oh, oh, yeah. So we're not sponsored by George Soros, but it was USAID apparently, or something like that. I, I don't know. Very weird. Our last episode made me chuckle because YouTube has been, YouTube's been a bit slow. We do much better on Apple and on YouTube is a bit slow until last week's episode and only that episode, [00:02:00] Matt: It's a growth area. We're tweaking it a bit. [00:02:02] Chris: Yeah, yeah. But we, we'd mentioned about, like, we talked about the GRU and things like that, and it just seemed to go wild for one episode and, um. [00:02:10] Matt: Can't imagine why. [00:02:11] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. And, and a lot of accounts, which had no content, left a lot of comments that, it made me laugh. [00:02:19] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:02:19] Chris: I was like, if I were a suspicious person, I would think something was going on, but I'm not a suspicious person, so. [00:02:25] Matt: Yeah. Yeah. It's fine. [00:02:27] Chris: No, the world is all, all daisies and rainbows, so, uh, yeah. So, so on, on that note. Oh dear. Well, today's show, apart from daisies and rainbows, we're gonna be looking at, uh, Dan Bono's journey from infowars and podcasting to being a deputy director of the FBI. So it gives us hope. We may, you know, maybe we'll be deputy directors of, I don't know. God, you may be CIA. [00:02:50] Matt: There's hope for us yet. [00:02:51] Chris: Yes. Maybe, maybe I get MI5. Who knows, you know? [00:02:53] Matt: Neoliberal Cucks United, that's our, that's our association. [00:02:57] Chris: Yeah, that would be fascinating. But, um, then after our, our chat about Dan Bongino, we're gonna look at the Global South's views on Ukraine. Because we've just come past the, uh, third anniversary of the war on Ukraine. Then, um. There's a new interesting report that's come out from the RAND Corporation about China's military readiness. And then we're gonna wrap up with a great article from former CIA officer John Sipher and his take on Hollywood spy fiction. Um, and I'll just say he's a man to my own heart, really, with regards to what he was saying in that, uh, in that article. Yeah. But we'll go into that later. So, so Matt, we're gonna kick off with, uh, podcaster extraordinaire Dan Bongino and his journey to the FBI. [00:03:38] Matt: Yeah, so the Wired, uh, Wired has a, has a great article breaking this stuff down. There's another one that just dropped like an hour before we started recording from CNN that talks about Kash Patel's first week as director. That's gonna be incorporated a bit here as well. Both of those will be linked in the show notes. But so to start us off, President Trump has named conservative commentator and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino as a new deputy director of the FBI. A former NYPD officer and Secret Service agent who served on the protective details of President's George W. Bush and Obama, Bongino later pivoted to right-wing media amid three failed congressional runs. He built influence through talk radio, Fox News, and his own podcast, starting on the fringes with Infowars around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting before becoming a major force on Facebook and Rumble after YouTube banned him in 2022 for COVID-19 disinformation. [00:04:31] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:04:31] Matt: Bongino has spent years attacking the FBI, calling for it to be dismantled and branding it a political weapon for Democrats. Now, despite having no experience in the bureau, he's been tapped by Trump as its new deputy director, overseeing day-to-day operations. Bongino's appointment follows the confirmation of Kash Patel, another Trump loyalist with no FBI background, as the bureau's new director. Both men are deeply tied to the president's political orbit and have promoted baseless conspiracy theories. The FBI Agents Association had been assured that the deputy director role would remain a career special agent as it has for over a century. Just an hour after their internal memo reaffirming that standard, Trump announced Bongino's appointment. This isn't just about Bongino. It's part of a broader effort to remake federal law enforcement in Trump's image, potentially turning it into a political weapon. Bongino himself has openly stated that "owning the libs" is his primary motivation in life. And that's not an exaggeration, Chris. I can read that exact quote if you, if you'd like in a bit. [00:05:30] Chris: Yeah. [00:05:31] Matt: Uh, but with Trump reshaping the FBI's leadership, the question isn't just about qualifications, it's about intent. Is this about reform or about ensuring law enforcement serves a political agenda. Chris, what'd you think? [00:05:43] Chris: Yes. The appointment of Dan Bongino, uh, my first comment I've put down is this is not healthy. [00:05:48] Matt: Nope. [00:05:49] Chris: Um, you know, you've got a man who believes the FBI should no longer exist in its current form, and now he's deputy director. And I think putting conspiracy theorists partly in charge for a powerful organization like the FBI, I think this is a recipe for disaster. Um, you know, you can play out your deep state exorcism fantasies, but it will get in the way of the real business of the FBI, which is ultimately to protect the public from threats from terrorism, crime, foreign espionage, just to name a few. Um, so yeah, he, he wants to disband the FBI because he believes it's a partisan organization that swings to the left. Now, typically law enforcement agencies tend to have more employees who are considered to be more center-right or traditional right from the kind of Ronald Reagan bent. Um, so to say that the FBI is this sort of left-wing armed branch of the Democratic Party, I think is just a bit ridiculous. Um, and Bongino I think reflects a, a wider problem in which mainstream conservatives has sort of maybe turned a blind eye to extremists from the right. And those extremists have now kind of redefined mainstream conservatism in their image. And now there are many traditional conservatives, ones who I wouldn't have a huge problem with people. The, as you were saying, the Ronald Reagan kind of conservative, who've now been sort of left behind scratching their heads and asking what happened, and they've kind of become irrelevant in their own movement. And I think Bongino kind of reflects, um, you know, reflects this sort of extremists sort of taking over the right. Um, also Bongino has no FBI experience. Now he did serve the NYPD and he served protective details in the Secret Service, which not to be sniffed at, but he's not been in a leader, leadership position at either agency. Also, he's an outsider to the culture of the FBI and he's coming in hot with this sort of conspiratorial mindset. Now, as you mentioned before, the deputy directors traditionally oversees the day-to-day operations of the bureau, and this role is for somebody who has been a kind of career FBI agent with extensive experience within the bureau. For instance, Mark Felt. Um, he served as deputy director from 1972 to '73 and had a long tenure in the FBI and obviously he was famously Deep Throat from the Watergate scandal, but that wasn't revealed until a long time later, I think. Was it when he died or was it just before he died that was revealed? Then you've got Andrew McCabe, who was deputy director from 2016 to 2018 and he had two decades of experience at the FBI holding various leadership positions before his appointment. So, Bongino's appointment does mark the first time a political appointee without prior FBI experience has been put into the position of deputy director and it does sort of fly in the face of this meeting Director Patel had where it was agreed that with the FBI Association that the role should be filled with a career active special agent. But I think that falls more onto the president than it doesn't to Kash Patel. I don't think Kash Patel has any power over who's appointed as deputy director. Um, so I won't blame Kash Patel or Director Kash Patel for that. I'm fascinated by Bongino and wondering if he actually believes the nonsense he puts out. Considering his law enforcement experience and being trusted to protect the life of the president at one time, or two presidents, one would think that he would know what he accuses the FBI of is nonsense. And I'm just trying to work out if he's a grifter who's realized that there is money to be made on the internet pumping out deep state nonsense and other conspiratorial content. And he certainly isn't alone in that as there are a few characters that won't name, um, who clearly realize that there are serious dollars to be made claiming you have inside a knowledge and then go on to make vast, wide claims about all sorts of things. There are plenty of people on the internet who do that, and sadly some of them are former CIA, FBI, et cetera, who've done that. Um, so my question is, does Bongino really believe the nonsense he's putting out, or is he gone so far that, A, he has to kind of keep going to stay relevant, or, B, is he starting to believe his own hype? I can't really tell at this point where he's kind of coming from with things. Yeah, so it's, it's just sort of frustrating to, you know, see that he's managed to get into this position. Same with Kash Patel. Kash Patel, there's a lot of things he said that are deeply problematic, equally problematic. And now you have these two problematic individuals effectively in charge of the bureau. And I think what's also interesting is characters like Bongino who like to cry foul, um, you know, talk about the so-called politicization of the FBI, I think this is exactly now what's gonna happen to the FBI or whatever it becomes, it's gonna become a very deeply political organization. [00:10:19] Matt: For now, at least. Yeah. [00:10:21] Chris: Yeah. And, and I think, you know, there's this real fear that, you know, the FBI could now become what people on the far-left and far-right have accused it of being, which is a lawless, Gestapo-like organization. And I don't believe the FBI was that, I know the FBI is far from perfect, and there have been many cases where things have gone wrong, they've operated on the very cusp of the law, et cetera. They're not saints. Um, but the FBI largely is not, is not the Gestapo, but I'm worried now that if it's not careful that it could turn into that, and I'm not alone in that concern. [00:10:57] Matt: Yeah. [00:10:57] Chris: So yeah, very worrying. Very worrying. [00:11:01] Matt: I have a big question about this sort of timing of Kash promising the FBI Agents Association that the deputy director would remain a career special agent and then Bongino being appointed. Um, we're gonna talk about this, I'm gonna ask about this a bit more with a guest I'm speaking to next week. [00:11:19] Chris: Brilliant. [00:11:19] Matt: Um, but is it, I don't know, was it a matter of, I don't have an answer to this, is it a matter of did Kash lie when he was speaking to this FBI, to the, to the FBI Agents Association? Or is it a matter where, like, where Kash Patel was almost forced on Gina Haspel as her deputy at CIA? [00:11:41] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:11:41] Matt: Um, at the end of Trump's first term. Um, you know, so like, did Kash negotiate with the Agents Association in good faith? Yes, no, I think we should have a, a career special agent as deputy director, and then Trump came in, or the White House came in, and said, Nope, we're gonna have Dan Bongino, and that's it. You know? I don't, I don't, I don't know. [00:11:59] Chris: Mm. [00:11:59] Matt: But, either way, um, his, uh, Kash's first week has of, uh, Kash's first week as director has been anything but steady. And Bongino's appointment is absolutely, um, indicative of that for the reasons I just said. Uh, he came in with a plan to purge over a hundred FBI officials, many of them tied to January 6th and Trump-related investigations, but even some of his own allies pushed back. Um, so these are, uh, conservative-minded former career FBI officials who've, who've, who've been public with, with their concerns about the way the bureau is structured between headquarters and the field offices, right? That's too, it's too top-heavy, right? Okay. Fair argument if we're to look at just that. But, um, and yeah, after the January 6th purges, a lot of those people that were supposed to, a lot, a lot of those former agents that were supposed to serve with Patel on like a director's advisory council, they all dipped. They were like, No, we don't want a part of this. So seeing that as politically motivated rather than as legitimate, uh, house cleaning effort, um, that early misstep clearly left Patel on uncertain footing rather than restoring order. Trump intervened of course, as we said, by appointing Bongino as deputy director. So what does that mean in practice? Um, for the first time, as you said, for the first time in its history, the FBI's top two leaders have no experience inside the bureau. Uh, Patel has a background in national security, but not in law enforcement. He did briefly for a few years, I think from 2014 to 2017, um, served as a trial attorney in the National Security Division of the Justice Department. Um, but all of his other postings throughout Trump's first term were elsewhere within mostly the Intelligence Community. Uh, Bongino has law enforcement experience, as you said, Secret Service and NYPD, uh, but has spent the past several years in, in conservative media openly attacking the FBI as corrupt. That's a serious shift for an agency that, for all its flaws, depends on institutional knowledge to function effectively. You're just sort of wiping that out from the Seventh Floor, essentially. Also, consider all of the, um, executive assistant directors of like the Criminal Branch, the National Security Branch, below the deputy director level, were all cleaned out like right after the inauguration. Um, like the whole bureau was just decapitated. Uh, so now there is a fair argument to be made that the FBI headquarters has grown, uh, bloated and detached from the bureau's core mission. Many agents in the field have long felt that headquarters is too bureaucratic, too political, too disconnected from the work being done on the ground. Um, but I think this speaks to more of an overcorrection rather than a look at like actual reform. Um, he's ordered the relocation of 1,500 agents out of DC, a shift that might make sense in principle, but is being rushed in a way that career officials say is simply unworkable. Like, I think Patel wanted that process for those agents to start being moved by the end of the month, February 28th. So, tomorrow as we're recording this. [00:15:06] Chris: Yeah. [00:15:07] Matt: And the bureau was like, that's just not feasible. Like, we can't do that on that timeline. [00:15:12] Chris: And that's lives being upended, you know? FBI agents have families and as do analysts, et cetera. It's ridiculous. Yeah. [00:15:19] Matt: Yeah. And I think, you know, meanwhile, Bongino's appointment sends an even clearer message. This isn't about restructuring, it's about redefining the bureau's priorities. Career agents are worried that Patel and Bongino aren't simply cutting bureaucracy, but sidelining professionals who have spent careers on intelligence, counterterrorism, and organized crime cases. Um, and when experienced agents start heading for the exits, it's not just an internal staffing issue, this is a real risk to national security. Keep in mind, guys, that this is happening at moment when the US faces significant threats from China, Russia, Iran, and domestic extremist groups. [00:15:55] Chris: Yep. [00:15:55] Matt: Um, adversaries will definitely take advantage of this disarray. They'd be foolish not to. [00:15:59] Chris: Well, yeah. Terrorism, man. I, I, [00:16:01] Matt: Yeah. [00:16:02] Chris: You know, there's gonna be a terrorist attack if you're not careful. Um, [00:16:05] Matt: Yeah. [00:16:05] Chris: because 9/11 happened when, you know, CIA and FBI weren't communicating well. The FBI is too busy chasing his own tail. What the hell do we reckon is gonna happen? [00:16:14] Matt: Yeah. So I mean, I think the real question is, does the leadership team here strengthen the FBI's ability to do its job or does it weaken it? Patel and Bongino are coming in with a clear agenda. That's obvious. Um, but you know, when the pendulum swings back too far in one direction, and I think you can make that argument across the federal bureaucracy right now on a whole multitude of issues, um, the mission of the FBI risks being reduced to little more than political score settling. Um, and that's a problem no matter who's in office. But if, if owning the libs, to quote Dan Bongino, the new deputy director, if owning the libs is now the top priority of the, of the FBI, to your point, it'll be a miracle if we get through the next four years without a major terrorist attack. [00:16:55] Chris: Yeah. Yeah, indeed. And I want to know what's happened to Brian Driscoll. Does anybody know? [00:17:01] Matt: Good question. [00:17:02] Chris: Because, um, [00:17:03] Matt: I don't know. [00:17:03] Chris: he seemed like a top man from what I read. And he seems like the perfect material really to be either deputy director or eventually a future director of the FBI. But who knows what's happening. [00:17:12] Matt: Yeah, he was, um, before he was named acting director, he was SAC of the Newark, New Jersey field office. Um, before that he ran the Technical Operations Section out of Quantico, which oversees the Hostage Rescue Team. Um, so yeah, I don't know, I don't know where he is right now. [00:17:31] Chris: Yeah, yeah. No, I've just not heard any mention of him. Because the last mention I saw of him in the press was regards to, he was standing up to the Trump administration who wanting a list of FBI agents who'd been involved in investigations against Trump. And he was refusing to do that. Yeah. Um, and also there were these memes that had been pop, uh, popular within the FBI. Uh, one of them says, What Would Drizz Do? Um, you know, with a picture of him on a coin. Um, and he has quite a, you know, he doesn't look like a typical FBI agent. He's got kind of curly hair and a really cool, very, um, hipstery kind of mustache, uh, goatee thing going on. [00:18:05] Matt: He looked like he would go by the nickname, the Drizz. [00:18:07] Chris: Yeah, exactly. I feel like. [00:18:08] Matt: Like, it fits him. [00:18:09] Chris: Yeah. I feel like I'd see him in some hip coffee shop in like, uh, New York somewhere. Yeah. Rather than running the FBI, so, you know. No, he seems like a cool guy. So hope, I don't know, hope. Well, if he's out there, I'd love to get him on at some point. It'd be interesting to chat. You know, I'm always, uh, [00:18:23] Matt: Probably not for a while. [00:18:24] Chris: Yeah. Hopefully he's too, he's too busy doing real work, but, uh, we'll see. Yeah. [00:18:29] Matt: He, he'd have to be out of the bureau for that. [00:18:30] Chris: Yeah. I mean, one thing I will say, um, is, and I, and I, I must admit, I'm, I'm hoping this is the case, but I don't believe it will be. But I hope that Director Patel and Deputy Director Bongino see where they are and the importance of the mission of what they're, what the agency's there to do, the FBI, what it's there to do, and they rise to challenge. I don't think they will. But I'd like to believe they could. Um, and I wonder, this is where like then somebody like Bongino, that's why I was questioning does he believe the nonsense he's been putting out or has he just been putting it out, because he is making money? Because this is one of the things that really frustrates me on the internet these days is people are rewarded for putting out nonsense and um, it's really bad. Um, and it's not getting any better. Um, so I could unders, well I'd say I understand, I can see why somebody like him would kind of continue on doing what he's doing and there maybe there is a part of him somewhere that doesn't believe what he is been saying. But I think that's being very generous. But we will, we will see [00:19:38] Matt: I'm, I have no doubt they would love to spend the next four years, you know, just focusing on owning the libs. At least Patel and Bongino. Um, but the reality is those are not the only threats that this country is gonna face over the next four years. And if they're just hell bent, sort of horse blinders on at owning the libs and, you know, their agents in field offices and stuff are busy filling out, you know, forms and questionnaires about any case they may have touched that could offend, you know, the president's fragile sensibilities. [00:20:13] Chris: Mm. [00:20:13] Matt: Um, and there is a tele and, and there is a terrorist attack, it's on you, bubs. [00:20:18] Chris: Yeah. [00:20:18] Matt: You caught the car. You caught the car. You break it, you bought it. Good luck. [00:20:22] Chris: Yeah, totally. Totally. Yeah. If, if a major terrorist attack happens whilst always is going on, then yes, I think that anybody who supports the Trump administration needs to take responsibility for that. I don't think it's gonna happen, but, um, I don't think people will take responsibility because I think what the Trump administration's really good at is passing the buck, uh, and, and making it out there's some sort of left-wing conspiracy or something as to. I mean, Trump managed to make out that COVID was somehow conspiracy against him and his presidency. So, so, uh, yeah. [00:20:54] Matt: We'll see. [00:20:54] Chris: Yeah, I just. [00:20:55] Matt: We'll see. [00:20:56] Chris: Yeah, I worry, if something terrible does happen on a 9/11-scale, that it would probably just be used to further empower Trump some way, but. [00:21:03] Matt: Well, it doesn't have to be even, even be on a 9/11-scale. [00:21:06] Chris: Mm, mm, mm [00:21:07] Matt: There's types of attacks below that even that would be quite disruptive, that would get, you know, a lot of attention. And it's the same point if there's a plane crash somewhere now. [00:21:17] Chris: Hang on. [00:21:18] Matt: It's gonna be, [00:21:19] Chris: I hear one. [00:21:20] Matt: Well, you're, you're, you're quite far away. [00:21:22] Chris: Yeah, [00:21:22] Matt: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's on you. [00:21:26] Chris: Yeah, it's, no, and then on the plane thing, I mean, my goodness, you've had so many near misses recently. I, because I'm a aviation enthusiast and my goodness, I'm, I was saying to my wife the other day, I think we might just hold fire on flying to the states for a while. I could let you guys sort that out. [00:21:42] Matt: Yeah. Uh, I'm getting on a plane next weekend. [00:21:45] Chris: Oh, are you? Oh, God. I'm sorry, Matt. [00:21:47] Matt: It's alright. [00:21:50] Chris: Uh, I'm sure it'll be fine, but, uh, it's still quite rare. [00:21:52] Matt: Yeah, I'll be alright. [00:21:53] Chris: Oh gosh. [00:21:53] Matt: I'm actually not, I'm, I'm, I'm fine about it, but yeah. [00:21:56] Chris: Cool. Okay. Well thank you for that story, Matt. Well, I think let's take a break and we'll be right back. Welcome back, everybody. So our next story is from New Lines Magazine about the complicated views about Ukraine in the Global South. Um, so I'll do my best to summarize this quite lengthy article. Many Global South nations, particularly BRICS members, have adopted a stance of non-alignment regarding the Russian-Ukraine War, abstaining from UN votes condemning Russia. The BRICS nations, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa faced a dilemma regarding the ICC warrant for Vladimir Putin. South Africa, a signatory would've been obliged to arrest him, causing friction within the group as Russia, China, and India are not signatories of the International Criminal Court. The spotlight on South Africa and BRICS countries raises the vexing question of neutrality as to the Russian-Ukraine War. Whilst China, India, and South Africa have abstained on UN votes to condemn Russia's invasion, Brazil has formally voted to condemn it. But this vote was attacked by Brazil's far-right then-President Jair Bolsonaro, who declared solidarity with Putin. Such non-alignment fits with the stance of ruling elites within the BRICS countries as they position themselves as challenges to the power of Western states that have led to the international defense of Ukraine. Western hypocrisy is often cited as an explanation for the refusal of some of the governments in the Global South to stand with Ukraine's anti-colonial resistance. The article points out that the Western powers supporting Ukraine's resistance have a different view regarding the decades-long Israel-Palestine conflict and the associated human rights violations. The article also points out that Western governments now supporting Ukraine's resistance to Russian imperialism were previously the colonial powers ruling the peoples of the Global South. While the USSR often supported anti-colonial struggles, this especially resonates in South Africa whose apartheid policies the US and UK were the world's last major countries to break with, whereas the USSR long supported the anti-apartheid struggle. Despite the governments of many Global South countries position towards Ukraine, surveys suggest that public opinion in many is more supportive of Ukraine than the official government positions indicate. For example, even though the South African government has seemed to be leaning towards Russia, surveys show that the people of South Africa have a low approval rating of Russia. So, yeah. So in summary, it seems that the governments, these countries are saying one thing, but the people seem to think something else, which is a positive sign. So, Matt, what are your thoughts on this? [00:24:51] Matt: Yeah, I was, I was glad that you included this one today. Um, you know, this idea that the Global South, you see, I think you see this a lot on activist spaces on social media and everything, right? I mean, I, the IR realist in me that I've tried to suppress for years is gonna come out a bit here, so I apologize for that, but, I think, um, this idea that the Global South is uniformly neutral or even sympathetic to Russia is, is just misleading in general. Um, yes, some governments abstain or, or hedge their bets, but that's driven by elite interests, uh, not some grassroots, um, anti-colonial consensus, right? Uh, the actual public sentiment, as you said, you know, polls cited in this article suggests there's a lot more support for Ukraine than these so-called neutral governments would like to admit. Um, I think that has to speak to the strength of Ukraine's messaging towards the rest of the world, not just Western allies, um, getting out and working to burst, uh, Russia's propaganda bubble. Um, I would like to think that there's some sort of reason behind why the sort of ordinary people of these countries see Ukraine a lot more fondly than their governments would suggest they do. Um, a lot of the ambivalence we see from countries like India, Brazil, and South Africa isn't about principle, it's about power. These states aren't anti-imperialist champions of the Global South, they're emerging powers playing their own geopolitical games. They're maneuvering for influence between the West, Russia, and China, not standing on some grand ideological pedestal. Um, and South Africa's neutrality here is anything but. Let's be real, it's leaned pro-Russian in everything but name when it comes to Ukraine. This is a country that held joint naval drills with Russia and China on the anniversary of the invasion. Not exactly the actions of a neutral state. A big part of South Africa's stance comes from the ANC's historic ties to the Soviet Union [00:26:48] Chris: mm, mm. [00:26:48] Matt: during the anti-apartheid struggle. I think we've talked about on that on here previously as to like why the South Africans see the Russians the way they do, right? They feel that they have some kind of kinship to them because of that sort of anti-apartheid past. And in a way that someone understandable. But you're not, Putin's Russia is just not the kind of anti-imperialist power that, that, like, you would think you would see some kind of kinship in that. But even, even the so-called neutral countries in Africa aren't getting much respect from Moscow. If you look at what they're doing in parts of the countries, where the former bits of, you know, Wagner have run rampant for years. When an African peace delegation went to Kyiv for, uh, a ceasefire, um, Putin welcomed them by launching missile strikes on, on, on, on the city. Uh, so if South Africa and others are expecting gratitude from Russia in the future for their kind of balanced stance, um, they might wanna rethink that. Another officiated, uh, another underappreciated factor here is money. Some of the positioning is ideological for sure. Um, but a lot of it's also I think about economic ties. Uh, Russia is a key arms supplier. It always plays a role in energy and BRICS is trying to move away from dollar dependency. So, I don't see this as much about solidarity with Russia. It's just about economic leverage and emerging powers jocking for influence and their piece of the pie. [00:28:12] Chris: Indeed. Well, this is it. I mean, Russia's been involved in a lot of coups recently in Africa. And, um, you know from my interview I did last year about sort of Russian mercenaries in Africa, I think a lot of the ordinary people are probably not very happy with what Russia's been up to and they're kind of seeing it in their own, you know, own communities and things. And um, you know, there was some terrible stories that were relayed to me in that interview I did last year. So, um, yeah. So I'm not surprised that there are people who are sort of out of step with their kind of government's sort of political positions. Um, taking this a little bit to some personal experiences, because what's wonderful about living in London is you get a chance to meet people from all parts of the world. Um, you know, and I've met many Nigerians who, you know, some are very pro-Ukraine, some have been very anti-NATO, and some are somewhere in the middle. Um, and then the moving away from the kind of Global South, more to the Middle East, um, you know, I've got family members who are of Iraqi heritage. I've got friends of Iraqi and Turkish heritage and colleagues who are Turkish. And a lot of them, you know, some, or sorry, some of them, not all of them, some of them tend to take a very pro-Russian stance in Ukraine. Some of the older members, uh, in particular I know have taken a very surprisingly pro-Russian stance with regards to Ukraine. Um, and, and I, I, you know, and it's sort of anti-NATO sentiment seems to be kind of connect, from what I gather, the anti-NATO sentiment seems to be connected to the sort of War on Terror and the role Britain and America played in Middle Eastern politics during the Cold War. And so then Russia is sort of given the benefit of the doubts. Um, again, connected to how Russia positioned itself and portrayed itself in the Cold War as this sort of anti-imperialist, pro-independence kind of force, which when you look at history, it wasn't quite that straightforward. And, and in fact, there are many people on the left who, who, um, like, when talking about South America and the CIA and South America, there is a missing story, which is Russia in South, [00:30:12] Matt: yeah. [00:30:12] Chris: um, South America. Because a lot of people talk about how the CIA, like the, the quote I I see often as in like Archer a lot, actually. The CIA overthrow democratically elected governments. And the interesting thing is, the CIA, some of the governments, they overthrew during the Cold War, and I don't, I condone doing this by the way, but when you look at it, a lot of the governments overthrew were backed by Russia. So one has to argue were they really independently, [00:30:38] Matt: mm-hmm. [00:30:39] Chris: you know, elected or were they somehow elected because Russia were manipulating the local population, whatever? So that's for historians to look at and us to further dive into, because obviously that's speculation there, but, um, but Russia has hardly got clean hands, so I'm always surprised a little bit by, uh, people who kind of take this very anti-NATO stance with regards to Ukraine and things. [00:31:02] Matt: You know, I also just find it interesting to, to, to your point there, that like Russia's role in propping up Assad and butchering thousands of, of innocent Syrians, just kind of never registers. It's just, they, they just get a complete pass for that. And I don't, I don't understand it. It just seems almost just, just [00:31:22] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:31:23] Matt: willful. [00:31:23] Chris: Yeah. [00:31:23] Matt: Like, it doesn't meet up with the narrative of that, so just, whoop, ditch it. [00:31:27] Chris: Well this is it. And there's been cases in the UK where Syrians who've experienced it firsthand tried to give talks at like, um, at rallies and things, and they've been silenced by members of the anti-war left. Um, [00:31:40] Matt: That's insane. [00:31:41] Chris: It is. [00:31:41] Matt: That's insane. [00:31:42] Chris: Yeah. [00:31:42] Matt: That's insane. [00:31:43] Chris: And it was some, there was even some scandal I think in 2014 where somebody was disinvited from a, a Syrian was disinvited from some talk at Parliament because they were anti-Assad and, and [00:31:54] Matt: Crazy. [00:31:54] Chris: it's just like, I just don't get it. So it it, it's just bonkers. There's some, there is a group of people who are so kind of quote, unquote anti-imperialist that they seem to give Russia a free pass to do whatever they want. Um, you know, and it, it's just crazy. And the other thing as well, I've always seen Russia as an imperial power, even during its communist era. I believe that just through all the interviews that I've done and books have read about the Cold War that Russia used its communism to spread its influence in the world. And, you know, that's kind of what the Cold War is about really, because America was trying to counter that. Um, and you know, America also backed dodgy regimes. And I think when you look at the history of Iraq, you know, um, Saddam Hussein both was trained, had training, and his people had training both from the CIA, MI6, and the KGB. Um, you know, and, and I'm sure there are many manuals about torture and stuff from, you know, there's the Russian method, the American method, the English method. You know, even the SAS went out and trained his bodyguards for crying out loud. So, so there are no saints here and there's nobody got clean hands. Um, but I think there is a, obviously with regards back to the Global South, there is a, a wider issue about how does, how does the West kind of, and again, I don't have the answers, so I've only got the question, but how does the West atone for its sins of the past to the point where we can move on from it? Because the problem is there are too many, I think there are too many people who again, use this sort of anti-imperialism narrative to then, um, stop dealing with injustices. Um, now obviously Britain and America were involved in the War on Terror and there are many things that were very questionable about the whole thing from invading Iraq, Afghanistan, to torture. So yeah, I think the West doesn't help itself at all sometimes, but I think there's, I don't know, it'd be nice to see if there was some way to kind of, um, kind of a tone for the West's imperial past and move forward, just so it doesn't kind of, because if we are going down this road, we've talked about it before, this sort of World War III scenario that might involve Russia and China versus the West. Then from the West's point of view, it's gonna need to have as many allies as possible and currently, certainly in Africa, Russia and China are really big there right now. And America and Britain have taken a big back step. Um, and so at least strategically, that's bad for Britain and America and the West. So yeah, there is a, there's a lot of work to be done with regards to the Global South. And the other thing as well, obviously Russian propaganda loves to, you touched upon it last week as well, I can't remember the name of the operation, but where the Russians like to, um, both stoke racial tensions within the West, but also they love to bring up, um, you know, the West's imperial past and things. So yeah, I think, yeah, so something it does need to be addressed, um, both from a humanity point of view and from a political and strategic point of view. There needs to be some sort of process to kind of atone for our past sins so that these bad things can't be used against us. But, yeah. [00:35:03] Matt: I think how you would atone for that is just sort of classic soft power kind of policies. You know, programs like PEPFAR that has saved millions of lives across Africa working to eradicate HIV/AIDS. [00:35:17] Chris: Yeah. [00:35:17] Matt: Um, all sorts of, of outreach work that USAID did, you know? [00:35:24] Chris: Yeah. [00:35:24] Matt: In, in all seriousness that, uh, yeah. That's, that's how you atone for those, for those sins, in my mind at least. [00:35:34] Chris: Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I think, you know, um, aid, et cetera, and helping, trying to help, you know, keep the lights running in certain countries. I know like, um, on an aviation side of things, there's a whole scheme about having, um, radar towers staffed across certain parts of Africa that are very, [00:35:52] Matt: That's a big problem [00:35:53] Chris: Yeah. That are not [00:35:54] Matt: in Africa. [00:35:54] Chris: populated. Yeah. And that's how planes can just disappear. We live in a world where planes can disappear if there isn't satellite coverage in certain areas or radar coverage in certain areas. So, you know, it's little things like that, really. But, yeah, yeah. It's, so, no, it's a complicated thing. Um, obviously the, the West does choose what it wants to talk about because obviously, again, a lot of people feel that the West has not stood, um, kind of done enough to help with the Israel-Palestine situation. And on top of that, top of that, the West was quite quiet about Russia's, um, actions with Grozny, et cetera. Um, you know, so it's, it's, there's all sorts of things where we can come across as quite hypocritical sometimes, and we pick what battles we choose to talk about. But I've always been very pro-Ukraine. I think that the Ukraine conflict is terrible and I think it, it does create, um, an existential threat for Europe. I think if Russia are allowed to succeed in Ukraine, I think they will try once they've rebuilt themselves to kind of tackle other former Soviet states, um, or should I say, Soviet-occupied states. And I think that, basically, Russia need to either be defeated or at least, uh, given a massive slap where they won't wanna do it again. But, um, yeah. How, how one achieves that is still, uh, I, I'm not in a position to know exactly how best to deal with that, but, well. [00:37:17] Matt: Yeah, absolutely. [00:37:19] Chris: Yeah. Well, should we move on to China? [00:37:23] Matt: China. Let's talk about China. [00:37:24] Chris: Yeah. So, um, the RAND Corporation just published this interesting report on Chinese military readiness. So, um, for those who don't know, the RAND Corporation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges. And it originated after World War II to address military needs and it broadens its scope to encompass areas like health, education, and infrastructure. And RAND say they conduct rigorous subjective analysis, often utilizing quantitative methods to inform decision making for governments, businesses, and other organizations worldwide. Its reputation for independence and expertise has made it a significant influence on policy decisions across a wide range of critical issues. The report opens with a few interesting points. China has more warships than the US Navy and might soon have more combat aircraft than the US Air Force. The quality of China's stealth aircraft, warships, submarines, and aircraft carriers lag behind that only of the US military. In some areas such as hypersonic missiles, China has surpassed the United States. Commentators warned that China has eclipsed the US military to become the strongest military in the Indo-Pacific region. Commentators warned that China has eclipsed the US military to become the strongest military in the Indo-Pacific region. Senior officials have similarly claimed that China's military might gain a decisive military edge by 2027, after which the temptation to risk war against Taiwan could prove to be irresistible. However, the report suggests that the Chinese military's primary focus is on maintaining the Communist Party's power, which may hinder its combat readiness, as evidenced by significant training time dedicated to political indoctrination. While some experts argue that China's military buildup is primarily for domestic control and deterrence, others emphasize that Xi Jinping's goal of unifying Taiwan by force if necessary, indicates a clear intent to prepare for war. The Chinese military faces challenges related to personnel, including the difficulty of crewing advanced warships with adequately trained sailors and ongoing corruption within its ranks, which may impede its operational effectiveness. There is uncertainty regarding how China defines victory in a potential conflict, particularly concerning Taiwan and the level of force it's willing to use, ranging from a blockade to a full scale invasion, which adds complexity to assessing its military readiness. The report concludes that the prospect of a large-scale, high-intensity US-China war is improbable at this point. If the US tensions escalate to hostilities, China will face strong incentives to favor indirect methods of fighting over large-scale conventional war. And the US defense planning should consider a threat framework that elevates a broader array of threats alongside the remote possibility of conventional war with China. Matt, what are your thoughts on this? [00:40:24] Matt: Yeah, this is an interesting article and I, um, I, I spent some time with the, with the RAND report that, that this is all about, too. Um, uh, we'll, we'll link both in the, in the show notes. Um, but so, I mean, to be clear here, the, the PLA is, is, is no joke. Um, it's got the world's largest navy, as you said, advanced stealth fighters, hypersonic missiles. I think the question of who's ahead in the area of, of, of hypersonics, it's a bit hard to actually say unless you have a top-secret clearance. Um, I'll leave, I'll leave it at that. Um, and a growing nuclear arsenal, I think it, it, it said it increases by about a hundred warheads a year they're, they're, they're producing. Um, so in, in war games, the US struggles that counter a Chinese assault near Taiwan. But here, here, here's, here's the thing, none of that proves that the PLA is actually ready for a modern war. Um. It hasn't fought a major conflict since 1979 in the Sino-Vietnamese War that lasted all of three weeks and six days. Uh, and, and there's a big difference between fielding advanced weapons and knowing how to use them effectively in combat. [00:41:31] Chris: Yes. [00:41:31] Matt: One of the most revealing details in this report is that up to forty percent of PLA training is spent on political indoctrination. Not tactics, not strategy, not combat drills, but ensuring loyalty to the Communist Party. [00:41:45] Chris: That bit stood out for me, too. And it made me wonder if this is the future of the US armed services. [00:41:50] Matt: Yeah. I thought that. I did not include it in my notes, but I thought that. [00:41:58] Chris: Yeah. [00:41:58] Matt: Um, on top of that, uh, PLA units don't just have commanders. They also have political commissars of the type that Marko Ramius broke his neck at the beginning of Hunt for Red October. These commissars can override battlefield decisions, uh, if they go against party interest. That's a massive liability in a real fight, you know, just screwing up that chain of command. Um, history is full of examples of militaries that looked formidable on paper, but fell apart when tested. Think of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, or even Russia's more recent performance in Ukraine. [00:42:29] Chris: Yeah. [00:42:29] Matt: China's military buildup isn't just about preparing for a war, it's also about projecting strength to its own people. A hypersonic missile test or a flashy new aircraft carrier isn't just military progress, it's political theater. Uh, the party needs the PLA to look powerful because that reinforces CCP legitimacy. And that raises the question, how much of this buildup is about real war fighting and how much is just for show? Uh, every sleek new warship launch, every missile test, every military parade, it's all curated. China is highly selective about what it lets the world see, and that means we're only getting a sanitized, tightly controlled version of the PLA's modernization. Like, [00:43:09] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:43:10] Matt: images of a sixth-generation stealth fighter flying around tells you nothing about the avionics or what's going on under the hood. It's just a picture of a stealth fighter flying around in the air. That's not a reason to go, Oh my God, we're, we're behind. Like we've, [00:43:23] Chris: Yeah. I think one of us even said, didn't we? Uh, I can't remember if it was me or you where it just seemed more like it's for show than an actual, you know? [00:43:30] Matt: Right. But I, I, I, I wanna be clear here. I think it would be foolish, and I'm gonna reiterate this again, I think it would be foolish to just say that it's just for show and it's all junk, right? But it's also not quite warranted to say that like, they're leaping over us and we're screwed. Like, I don't, I don't think we're there. Um, I, so I said, again, uh, beneath the surface, there, there are serious issues. Corruption, trouble recruiting and retaining top talent for complex, high-tech systems, and an overall lack of real combat experience. RAND touches on this in their report. There's a lot we don't know and a lot they don't want us to know. Um, so where does that leave us? I think China is absolutely a near-peer military adversary, and again, it would be foolish to dismiss the PLA. But at the same time, there's no reason to assume they're an unstoppable force either. In the Cold War, a lot of people thought the Soviet military was invincible until it wasn't. [00:44:29] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:44:29] Matt: Um, the smart approach here is vigilance, investment, maintaining our edge, not fear-mongering or doom-posting. Um, the US and its allies in the region need to stay ahead in technology, maintain readiness, and keep strengthening deterrents in the Pacific, um, without falling into the trap of either underestimating or overestimating the challenge. Um, again, I would think, if people wanna think about countering China, I would just look back to the Cold War, you know? It was a colossal threat that we faced, you know, and there were definitely times during the Cold War, throughout the Cold War, repeatedly, where we thought we were behind. You know, the Soviets were gonna pass us, there were technologically ahead. There was Sputnik, there was the missile gap, the bomber gap, the Star Wars initiative. You name it. All kinds of issues. And it turned out in hindsight that they were never quite there. And I think when you have an opaque as a society and a, and a political system that, that China is, I, I know that we don't know what we don't know. Um, and to, to just sort of assume that everything going on in Beijing is all, you know, roses and sunshine and stuff. No, it's not. And I come back to, they haven't fought a major war since 1979. Even then, that war was against the Vietnamese, um, less than a decade after the end of the Vietnam War, um, and lasted less than a month. Uh, and their officers now spend forty percent of their time, um, in political indoctrination courses. I just, I, I can't get, those are two big things for me that like, I can't get, I can't get around it. [00:46:14] Chris: Yeah, indeed. No, and, and it's a recipe for disaster. Especially what you were saying earlier about having a commander and a political officer who are both in charge and a political officer is political loyalty over tactical effectiveness. That's a recipe for disaster. Um, yeah. [00:46:29] Matt: It could be. But a, again, I wanna say like this is, they are no joke, they are not paper tigers. It'd be foolish to say that they are. [00:46:35] Chris: Yes. [00:46:35] Matt: But they're also not ten feet tall. They want us to think they are. [00:46:37] Chris: Oh, yeah, exactly. [00:46:38] Matt: But there's. Right. There's real stuff under the surface here to suggest that they're not as big as bad, they're, they're not as big and bad as, as, as we would like it to be. I would also reiterate, you know, as far as like the stealth fighters and stuff, um, we have not yet seen a US sixth-gen stealth fighter, um, in the open. They certainly exist, as we've talked about in previous episodes on this podcast. Different versions of, of one have flown, most assuredly over the US Southwest. [00:47:10] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:47:10] Matt: Um, as far as hypersonics go, I think, again, without a class, without a top-secret clearance, I am pretty sure we've been far ahead in that technology for decades and there is so much about what we are capable of in the field of hypersonics that we the public don't know that we don't know. [00:47:28] Chris: Exactly. There've been obviously reports of sort of Chinese and Russian espionage efforts focused on that technological advancement. So you know, no doubt people are gonna wanna see what the US are up to. [00:47:40] Matt: The other day, recently, the LA Sheriff's Department arrested, I believe two Chinese nationals flying drones around Edwards Air Force Base and the Air Force Plant 42 where Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works is located. Can't imagine why they were, what those Chinese nationals were doing there, flying drones. [00:47:59] Chris: Yeah, and there's been a real issue actually with drones and American military bases lately, but I think we'll probably delve into that maybe on another episode. Because it's sort of an ongoing thing. [00:48:06] Matt: Yeah, that's a thing. [00:48:07] Chris: And it's a big thing that I'm under-read on the moment, so, but I do know it's an issue. [00:48:11] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:48:11] Chris: Um, and certainly a, an American base in England's been plagued by some as well, so, uh. [00:48:16] Matt: It was at Lakenheath? [00:48:17] Chris: Yeah. Yeah, it was Lakenheath was plagued by drones. Yeah, yeah. [00:48:20] Matt: Yeah, that's the big fighter base. [00:48:21] Chris: Yeah. So there's some issues there. Well, to be honest. I've got not, not much else to add really. Because I think we both sort of pulled out pretty much the same concerns. I think for me, you know, obviously it's wise to plan for the worst, but hope for the best. And I think, yeah, as you were saying, China's not a paper tiger. We shouldn't just instantly when they bring out some stealth fighter or something that we think, uh, you know, we shouldn't assume it's subpar. Um, I think, you know, we've gotta take them seriously. Um, I am, I've always been a bit uncomfortable about this. There's this feeling of an inevitability of a conflict with China and I really don't want that. [00:48:57] Matt: Right. [00:48:57] Chris: Because, you know, I'm trying to work out what steers this feeling of inevitability. Because it doesn't have to go that way. Um, so I hope it doesn't. I hope somehow America and China find a way to respect each other and China finds a way not to invade Taiwan. Um, so, you know, because I think that will be the, the trigger point really for something potentially. [00:49:16] Matt: I really think looking at competition with China, it's, it's very, again, helpful to just look at in context of what we know now in hindsight from the Cold War, right? And I think probably where we are in terms of our timeline with this competition, I think in, in Cold War terms, we're probably in like the very late 1940s, like George Kennan's Long Telegram, that kind of phase of things in terms of our competition. So we potentially have a very long way to go. And there are a whole lot of people at every stage of the Cold War, a whole lot of academics, security officials, researchers, academics, you name it, right? Who would've said, um, conflict with the Soviet Union is inevitable. Um, and it, and it wasn't. So to your point, that doesn't mean that conflict with China is also inevitable. [00:50:08] Chris: No, no. [00:50:08] Matt: But it's just perspective. [00:50:11] Chris: And I think also, um, I suppose again, I was talking about this with Dr. Taras Kuzio the other day about like, as obviously we've got, um, in Europe and the last few days there's been some announcements of boosting GDP, um, towards NATO defense, et cetera, which is a good thing. [00:50:26] Matt: Good. [00:50:27] Chris: But I think that, I still think the members, there are a lot of members of the public who are not up to speed with why this is necessary. And I think you're gonna see some pushback, especially on the political left, um, with regards to this, because obviously, generally, traditionally increased military spending is always seen as a bad thing on the left. Um, and I think that, I dunno, I think governments across Europe and, and America to need to come up with a way that's not propaganda, but just a, some sort of way to really help get people up to speed on, on why it's considered a threat and that you've gotta be ready for a potential conflict with China without being jingoistic about it. Um, yeah. How one does that, again, we need a, an master of communication to figure out how best to achieve that. Because at the moment, um, there's so much mistrust towards governments in the West. Which again, I think is not by accident, um, that anything official at the moment kind of gets shot down either by a cynical journalist or, or then some conspiracy theorist. And I think is trying to navigate past the cynical journalists and the conspiracy theorists and people who suffer from my favorite term, late-nineties thinking and just get everybody up to speed. Because I've got so many people of my age group who still seem to think that, um, yeah, still seem to think, like, they're in the nineties and we're really not. So I bang on about this, but it's, it's a real issue I think of people of my generation in particular. A lot of people who read Steve Pinker and think statistically the world's better than ever, but, um, but really it's not, in many ways the world is in a, a very bad state right now. Um, it's, it's, yeah. I mean, yes, the quality of life in some respects is much better than it was in Victorian ages, but it feels like we're kind of going back towards the Victorian age right now. So gotta be really careful. There's not much else to add really on that, unless there's anything else you wanted to say? [00:52:21] Matt: No. I could, um, I, I could go off on the European defense spending for a while, but that's just gonna add another twenty minutes to the runtime, so we'll save that for another day. [00:52:30] Chris: Yeah, we'll maybe cover that next week or something. So, yeah. [00:52:33] Matt: If we, if we must. [00:52:34] Chris: Maybe. Right, well, let's take another break and we'll be right back. So welcome back, everybody. So our next story is one Matt picked, um, by John Sipher, former CIA officer. So, uh, I'll hand over to you, Matt. [00:53:05] Matt: Former CIA officer and previous Secrets and Spies guest. [00:53:08] Chris: Yes, he has been, yeah. [00:53:10] Matt: As you said, uh, John Sipher, uh, recently published, um, an article in Tomorrow's Affairs. It's called the, um, The Car Chase to Nowhere: Hollywood and Spies. So, uh, he, he takes aim at Hollywood's obsession with, um, turning espionage into an action genre. Oh, let me, let me give listeners a little context here before I go off into this. So, um, uh, John runs a production company called Spycraft Entertainment, and their whole mission is to produce authentic, um, true depictions of intelligence work in, you know, yeah, Hollywood and stuff. So that's, that's their, that's their goal there. So, John here takes aim at Hollywood's obsession with turning espionage into an action genre complete with rooftop chases, explosions and shootouts. The reality he says, real intelligence work is far more about psychology, trust, and human relationships than high-speed car chases. Productions like Jack Ryan, the Amazon series, uh, The Recruit and, uh, the Gray Man get a few small details right, maybe a realistic burn bag here, or an authentic-looking badge there, but fundamentally misrepresents how intelligence actually works. Sipher argues that this superficial accuracy makes the bigger inaccuracies even more frustrating. Um. We'll get back to that in a, in a, in a bit when we start talking, but real espionage isn't about lone operatives running rogue. It's about deeply personal, high-stakes relationships between case officers and their sources. Sipher highlights the case of Soviet spy Adolf, uh, Tolkachev, uh, who risked everything for the CIA, even keeping a suicide pill in his cheek during meetings in case he was caught. [00:54:53] Chris: Yeah. [00:54:53] Matt: Intelligence officers are often casually called heroes, but Sipher argues, the real heroes are the sources, people who risk their lives not for their country, but to aid another. Often in total secrecy. While most productions lean into the one-man-army fantasy, a few get closer to reality. The Americans depicted solid trade craft, Slow Horses captures the cynical bureaucratic nature of intelligence work, and The Spy, that was on Netflix with Sasha Barron Cohen [00:55:20] Chris: Mm-hmm. That's a great show. [00:55:22] Matt: showed, yeah, showed the immense pressure that operatives face. Uh, that said, tropes like sleeping with sources, losing tails in dramatic car chases or blackmailing assets are mostly nonsense. While intelligence officers laugh at Hollywood's exaggerations, Sipher acknowledges that myths have their uses. Uh, the British SIS, MI6, benefits from the James Bond image just as Mossad's reputation for targeted assassinations served as a deterrent for anyone who would wanna mess with Israel. Uh, sometimes letting adversaries believe in the legend works in an agency's favor. So intelligence, bottom line here, intelligence isn't about brute force or Hollywood-style moral clarity. It's about ambiguity, judgment, trust, and the ability to operate in foreign cultures without standing out. The real work is quieter, but often far more compelling than the big-screen version. Chris, what'd you think about this one? [00:56:15] Chris: Yeah. Well, john sipher is preaching to the choir here with this piece. [00:56:19] Matt: Uh-huh. [00:56:19] Chris: I've felt this for years about spy fiction generally being very poor and not even caring about how it depicts the reality of espionage. And many people have heard my rants and raves about this. Um, regular listeners will know my taste, um, you know, draw to more realistic end of espionage genre. So, like, Le Bureau, The Sandbaggers, Breach, The Courier, The Assets, and even bits of Spy Game, to name a few, have done a pretty good job of being both entertaining, but having aspects of, having a sort of respect, um, for how things are actually done without sacrificing the drama. Obviously, these examples are not perfect, but they've all made a huge effort to get things as close to real as they could. Um, but a lot of spy fiction on streaming and in cinemas is just a sub-genre of action, which John mentions, uh, in which these films either try to outdo each other or they just take elements of already successful movies and regurgitate them in a new form without anyone involved knowing or even caring about espionage or the reality of it. They just care more about the action. Now, don't get me wrong, there are days where I enjoy a Bond film or a Mission, Mission Impossible film. Um, but it gets boring for me that when every new film just attempts to draw from them as if they're the gold standard of spy stories. On the flip side, there are some shows that have drawn heavily on quality spy fiction, too, um, and the creators have read a little bit of Le Carré and thrown the odd kind of cute quote to as a nod to him. But again, that's dangerous as well. If you just read John Le Carré and that's your only reference to espionage, that can lead to kind of tropes again, or just retreading old ground. So it's a bit tricky. Um, now, there is an issue in that because spy films and shows are generally treated as this sub-genre of action, producers and financiers have certain expectations based on those established tropes. Those films do play well and they make money whilst the more serious spy films and shows that are mentioned earlier tend to have leaner budgets or have not been blockbuster films. So that actually makes it harder for creators to make more realistic content as there's less of an appetite for it from a box office point of view. So taking a project and saying it has an authenticity to many studio executives and producers is not a big pull. They prefer projects to be seen as entertaining and projects that can be marketed in a way that draws audiences in. It is a known rule of thumb in Hollywood that downbeat films or films in which people don't walk off happy at the end don't do as well financially as films that do. Audiences, generally speaking, ultimately tend to choose escapism over intellectual films in greater numbers, hence why we have blockbusters, and then we have prestige films, which are the more intellectual films, quote unquote. In the, in the past, the films, in the past, the model that worked is that big successful blockbusters paid for the more risky intellectual films, I wanna call them that, or the more kind of prestige films. Um, and, you know, because of that, they were likely to be made either at a loss or break-even and nobody was too bothered because the blockbusters paid for them. But because the financial model for Hollywood has now pretty much broken since the decline in DVD sales, Hollywood has to produce bigger films that are more likely to make money than risky ones. And on top of that, a lot of big studios are now run by big organizations that are all about the bottom line and not so interested in creativity. And there are many executives now who are, you know, kind of in a decision making place, but have zero creative background. [01:00:02] Matt: Right. [01:00:02] Chris: And they're just sort of yes men for the corporation. I won't name names. But anyway, but, um, let's not be too pessimistic because there are, you know, the risky, more gritty, realistic spy films, the ones I like, still do get made, but just sadly they're few and far between and, [01:00:20] Matt: You see them on TV. [01:00:21] Chris: Yeah. And so for me, yeah, I would just, it'd be nice to see more. Um, but because I think one of the big problems ultimately is the perception within Hollywood that you need to make spy films as a sub-genre of action. [01:00:37] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:00:38] Chris: And I've faced this problem. I've had chats with Paramount and, um, who was I talking to? Um, Lionsgate about a project I was trying to push and, um, when you mentioned this is realistic, people's eyes roll. They don't give a shit. They really don't give a shit. Um, what they care about is they care more about the marketing of it. It's more about, you know, who is the audience? Why is this entertaining? Why is this quote unquote fresh or disruptive? You know, what's, how's this gonna be spoken about around the water cooler online, through social media, et cetera. Those are more of a concern, a lot of the time, than it being realistic. Uh, and that's, that's the uphill struggle of trying to make realistic spy dramas. But they have been made, and the ones I mentioned earlier are examples that you could pull from as a kind of a blueprint of finding that balance between being entertaining but realistic. I think Breach, The Courier, um, the TV show Le Bureau, and The Sandbaggers are pretty good examples of shows, especially Le Bureau. Le Bureau, the French version of The Agency is a very entertaining show, but very, uh, at its very exciting, intense, but it's very realistic. Um, so it can be done. Matt, what are your thoughts? [01:01:56] Matt: Well, you know, to your point there, I mean, yeah, a lot of these studios are now just kind of divisions of much larger, uh, multinational conglomerates, right? [01:02:06] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:02:06] Matt: And they're, these divisions are run by, um, business people, uh, executives who their sort of raison d'être when they get up in the morning is to produce widgets and increase shareholder value, right? Not, not being creative. Not, not, not storytelling. Not giving a, a faithful representation of this work. And to be clear, I mean, I think when, you know, you and I or John, you know, criticize the genre and, and how it's portrayed, it's not like, we're not so much talking about franchises like Bond or, or Mission Impossible, right? They're kind of like their own things. And they're, and they're fun for sure. And you know, are they, do they come close to getting everything right? No, but they also don't try to, you know, like they're, they're their own things. [01:02:57] Chris: Yeah. [01:02:57] Matt: I think for me at least, and John definitely touches on this here in a way that like, I was like, oh yeah, that's, that, that is true. For me, the egregious case are, um, productions that portray themselves as being authentic depictions of espionage and intelligence work and clearly aren't. And to one of John's points here in this, in this article, you know, they, he mentions, yeah, they, they clearly hired a, a consultant, a former intelligence official, professional in some way, to tell them what color the badges should be or how, you know, the Props Department should design this burn bag. But the underlying story is just like, just junk, has no kind of relation to the actual business of intelligence at all. So it's like, [01:03:41] Chris: Yeah. [01:03:41] Matt: you clearly cared enough and you had the resources to hire a consultant to tell you these little granular details, but do you just not give a shit about, you know, the story itself and, and the larger scope of how this is all being portrayed and stuff, you know? That's a real, like when he said that, I was like, yeah, why? Like, why are you so focused on what the burn bag looks like if, if you, you have no idea what the intelligence process is and how these operations are actually planned and, like, executed and stuff? You know, it's like, it, it's, it's a very kind of strange thing to be focused on if you're not focused on the other, I would think, John would think, you would think, far more, um, important stuff. I don't know. [01:04:26] Chris: It's funny. It's a very filmmaker way of thinking sometimes. They're a bit obsessed with just the, the drama, the, this, the that, and, and, but they think authenticity is just adding realistic props to it. [01:04:35] Matt: Right. Yeah. Do you wanna talk about the, um, the, the, the, the Double O agent in the room? [01:04:43] Chris: Yes. [01:04:45] Matt: Now that I've, now that I've captured you, Mr. Bond, I shall tell you my evil master plan to convert these struggling warehouse workers into a union. [01:04:55] Chris: Well, yeah. [01:04:58] Matt: That might kind of sink our pitch for the franchise. I don't know. [01:05:01] Chris: Yeah, we should, we should. Yeah. Yeah. They might be, uh, out there looking for story ideas right now. So yeah, I mean, if anybody has been, I don't know, uh, not on Planet Earth for the last week, uh, there was a big shock announcement behind the scenes of the James Bond franchise. So, um, Eon Productions who have basically had the rights to the James Bond character and have been the people, the family legacy behind the bond films that we've all seen and know of, um, some that we love, some that we don't love so much, and some that we outright hate, has all been via Eon Productions. They've had the creative control and vision for the Bond movies. [01:05:39] Matt: Since, um, since, since Fleming. Since, since Dr. No. [01:05:42] Chris: Yeah, since Dr. No. So they're the ones, and there was one, um, breakout franchise because there's one Fleming story, which was Thunderball was co-written by a guy whose name completely escapes him. Is, is it Neil McClory? Or something like that. And so you had Never Say Never Again. [01:06:00] Matt: Yeah. [01:06:00] Chris: Which is the, the last film where Sean Connery played James Bond. [01:06:04] Matt: That was in the eighties. [01:06:05] Chris: But it wasn't an official Eon, James Bond production, it was a rival production and came out the same year as Octopussy. So, um, so the loss of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, you know, handing over creative control to Amazon for a cool one, one billion dollars. Not one million dollars, but one billion dollars. How, how does he do it like that one million. [01:06:29] Matt: You gotta get the pinky up. [01:06:30] Chris: Yeah. Um, you know, certainly a billion can pay for a lot of therapy to get over such a decision and of ending a family legacy. Because it is really sad because Barbara Broccoli is the daughter of Cubby Broccoli, who was the producer who produced all the Bond films up until GoldenEye and then he passed away, um, in, I think it was 1996. [01:06:55] Matt: Yeah. This is, this is, this is who this, this, this is who she is. This is what her family does, or did. [01:07:00] Chris: Her entire life has been involved in Bond films, growing up on them. So I think for Barbara Broccoli, it must have been a very, very difficult decision. So, yeah, you know, I'm being a little bit cruel by saying a billion can pay for a lot of therapy, but it, but at the same time, a billion dollars is a lot of money, a lot of money. [01:07:19] Matt: It is. Especially for that, especially for that business. For, for for a producer? Yeah. For, for, for, yeah. For the rights to do a franchise. Um, I mean, it's, it's, it's definitely, jokes aside, there is a lot about this decision, about this move that we don't know. I mean, clearly for the Broccolis to give up control to Amazon, to give up creative control to Amazon, there's a lot that must have gone down over the last few years that we, that we still are unaware of. Um, I'm sure it'll, it'll dribble out here and there and we'll get, you know, a book probably, but, [01:07:53] Chris: Well, Ajay Chowdhury will find out for sure and it'll be, uh, in his next version of Some Kind of Hero, if you ever read that book. [01:07:59] Matt: Yeah, yeah, yeah. [01:07:59] Chris: Talking about the history of the Bond films, it's really interesting. [01:08:02] Matt: I mean, it's, if you think of like the Bond 1.0, like the first iteration of the franchise, I think was definitely up through, under Cubby's control, up to like the end of the Cold War. And then you had, uh, Barbara come in, his daughter. [01:08:17] Chris: Mm-hmm. [01:08:18] Matt: That's Bond 2.0 and now we're into Bond 3.0. And what that's gonna exactly look like? I don't know. I am, you know, I, I think my honest-to-god guess of what it's gonna look like. Of course, I mean, there's also the issue of, of some of the Fleming novels coming out of copyright and stuff soon and how, [01:08:38] Chris: Well, I was gonna bring it up. [01:08:39] Matt: Yeah. How. Right. How, how Amazon handles that and everything. I'll let, I'll let you speak to that in a, in a second, but I think my honest-to-god, um, guess of how this is gonna go is, I think it's gonna look a lot like, I think it's gonna look, it's, I, I think it'll look a lot like Star Wars under Disney. Um, you know, there's gonna be, [01:08:59] Chris: That's a real fear, yeah. [01:09:00] Matt: Well, there's gonna be more content, you know? I fucking hate that word, content. [01:09:05] Chris: Yeah. [01:09:05] Matt: But there's gonna be, there's gonna be more content. Um, some of it's gonna be good, some of it's gonna be bad. Um, you know, I think the difference though between, you know, Star Wars and Bond, A, Star Wars is so much, is, is much bigger. Star Wars is, at its core, has always been for children. The issue is some of those children are now, you know, in their thirties and forties and fifties and stuff, and have very strong ideas of what they saw when they were children and, you know, I mean, and, and they still legitimately need to be catered to in some way. And the good thing about a franchise the size of Star Wars is, I believe, there's room to do both. I think there's room to have stuff for kids and adults. And I think a show like Andor or whatever, which I'm completely evangelical about. [01:09:50] Chris: Oh, I love Andor. It's great. [01:09:51] Matt: Yeah. I, I, I would, I would think that Bond under Amazon going forward is gonna look a lot similar to how Disney is under Star Wars. I think there's gonna be stuff that people like, and there's gonna be stuff that people don't like. It's gonna be very different. Um, I don't see a reason to trust Amazon's stewardship over the, over the franchise until they like, you know, prove it, show what they're gonna do. Um, I would really like to know what happened behind the scenes that, that caused the Broccolis to, to, to give up control. Um, I also really wanna know who steps in to write and or direct and who stars as the new Bond. That's gonna be a big thing to me is like, who steps up for that? Personally, I don't know about you, personally, I would be incredibly self-conscious about being the first like, you know, idiot writer who stands up after the Broccolis leave and is like, me, me, me, me, me. I wanna do it. I wanna do it. Like, that's like, yo, you need to, you don't know what you're walking into. Um, and, and again, going back to the point of Disney and Star Wars, and I'll hand it over to you. I think one of the biggest issues with Disney and Star Wars over the last like decade is they just fundamentally have not yet figured out how to wield the franchise. Um, and I see no reason right now to think that Amazon would be in a similar position with Bond. You know? [01:11:14] Chris: Yeah. [01:11:15] Matt: I, I wanna see what they do with it before I'm able to say, you know, yeah, this is awful, or, yeah, yeah, okay, it's all right. [01:11:21] Chris: Yeah, definitely. I think I, just talking widely, I think what I get from a lot of fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, who are aggrieved by quite a lot of the new content is most of the decisions seemed to be more motivated, um, well, it seems to be more motivated by the creatives wanting to put a stamp, their own personal stamp on the thing. [01:11:44] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:11:44] Chris: And not really caring about the legacy of the project. So Star Trek: Discovery disgruntled a lot of fans because they kind of set it in a kind of pre-Kirk space, which is all very well established, but then diverted from it visually very dramatically to the point where it looked much more futuristic than Star Trek: The Next Generation. Now, I, I, I, um, I don't think people would wanna watch Star Trek on the old sets and stuff. I think that would've been a bit silly. And I think what they've done strangely well kind of respects the old architecture, but kind of keeps it looking relevant for a kind of modern audience. But I, I question sometimes, why don't they just make Star Trek: The Next, Next, Next Generation kind of thing, rather than just trying to reset it back in, in the past? And this is the one of the fundamental problems, I think, with a lot of creative endeavors at the moment is they're too steeped in past known quantities that people already have an established relationship with, but then try and circumvent it and play around with it. And the problem is, you know, if one person sees it in one way, but then somebody else creates it in a totally different way, it just pisses people off. Um, and, and I, and I think a lot of the time some of the creatives responsible for those decisions either don't come from a position of respect for what was there before, or they just don't care. I don't know. Um, bit like with spy fiction, uh, you know, so it, it is complicated, but with the, with this whole Eon moving away from, from Bond, well, they're not completely moving away. They're still in, you know, they're still involved, but they just don't have the creative control anymore. They've see, they've ceded the creative control and moved into a kind of consultant position. [01:13:25] Matt: Yeah. [01:13:25] Chris: So I think my, my suspicion is the move boils down to a number of things. So firstly, I don't think Barbara Broccoli fancied producing more bond films without Michael G. Wilson. You know, Michael G. Wilson was the bridge between Cubby Broccoli and Barbara Broccoli, and he's been there since I think the seventies. He's been involved in Bond movies and he's [01:13:45] Matt: Michael's her stepbrother. [01:13:48] Chris: Yes, her stepbrother, and he's in his eighties now. [01:13:50] Matt: Half or step, right? Yeah. [01:13:52] Chris: Yeah. I, I, yeah, I, I couldn't, I, I met him once, but I can't tell you the full ins and outs of how, how he fits into the Broccoli legacy. But, but, um, I, I do know he, he co-wrote License to Kill, which is actually one of my favorite, if not my favorite Bond movie. But that's a whole other story. Um, and, um, so yeah, yeah, these films are huge undertaking and I think, you know, when it comes to partnerships, you need to be, I think, on the same page with something big like this. I think if, and I think maybe Barbara has looked around the room of who could fill Michael's shoes and realizes that there are, you know, because I, I, there was talk of her, I think her son stepping up, but I, I got the impression that there's a big generational difference of opinion about how Bond should move forward in the 21st century. [01:14:41] Matt: Oh, sure. For sure, yeah. [01:14:42] Chris: And, and, um, so I imagine from Barbara's point of view that she, you know, she's a wise woman who's a very experienced woman and knows about the complexity of film production and realize that, you know, you need a partner who's on the same page as you otherwise is gonna be a fricking disaster. Also, I think the other reason, I think, I think Eon has run out of steam. For me, Spectre was the first real warning sign because the film was so derivative of past movies, that's usually to me a sign that creativity has kind of hit a wall. It's hit a point where it's like doesn't know what to do anymore. [01:15:15] Matt: Right. [01:15:16] Chris: And it was very weird. Because if you take Casino Royale, this sort of reinvention of bond and it's now bond, now stripped down more kind of, should we say Jason Bourne-esque, and then you end up with Spectre where he is in a car with a full of gadgets and you know, weird nods to Roger Moore jokes and things. It was tonally all over the place. It was really, [01:15:38] Matt: They built up all the extras that they had stripped away in Casino Royale, like they got back to where they were. [01:15:42] Chris: Yeah. And it didn't work and it just to me felt like they'd run out of ideas. Um, and then killing off Bond at the end of No Time to Die made me wonder now retrospectively, if subconsciously, the powers that be at Eon had, had enough of James Bond and were unsure what to do next, you know? [01:15:59] Matt: It might be. [01:16:01] Chris: Because Cubby Broccoli was famous for saying don't let temporary people make permanent decisions. And I hate to say it, Daniel Craig, he was James Bond, but technically he's just a temporary person as part of a bigger legacy. And allegedly he drove the desire to kill off James Bond all the way back to Casino Royale. And I, I now wonder if it was a mistake. I enjoyed the film. I actually think No Time to Die is my second favorite of Daniel Craig's Bond movies, controversially, but. [01:16:29] Matt: Perhaps an unpopular opinion, and I'm sure this is in some of the discussions I've seen about No Time to Die over the years, it's, it's definitely is. I really liked the decision to kill off Bond when they did. Um, I don't know, that's just me. Throw your, throw your rotten vegetables at me if you want. I have a thing for killing off characters. I have a soft spot for that. And I was like, good. That is a good, um, uh, bold decision. I like it. But hey, that's, that's just me. [01:16:56] Chris: Well, one thing now, every time you watch a Bond movie, you're gonna wonder, is he gonna die? It at least brings that back. Because the problem is at this time when it came to the Pierce Brosnan era, James Bond always succeeded no matter what. Which actually I, you know, I'll come to this in a minute, but I think there's an element of Bond where that works really well, and I think actually is one of the core things of the character. But, but sometimes when you know the good guy's gonna somehow win at the end, it kind of removes some of the drama. [01:17:24] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:17:25] Chris: So at least maybe the next few Bond films you, you might have in the back of your mind, could he die? You know? Could happen. [01:17:32] Matt: Um, that's, that's a healthy fear for the audience to have in the back of their heads. [01:17:35] Chris: I think so. I think so. And I think Bond needs to have a few near misses. I, I, I, I like bittersweet endings, too. [01:17:42] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:17:42] Chris: Because I think life can be very bittersweet, um, [01:17:44] Matt: On Her Majesty's Secret Service. [01:17:46] Chris: Yeah. Brilliant film, that one. You know, I mean, you know, it's, it's got it's problems, but it's a film of its time. But I like it a lot now. In fact, I, if I were to direct a Bond movie. I think that line about the other fellow at the beginning from George Lazenby needs to come back for the next movie. Yeah. But they were, that's just me. But, um, the other, so one last thing. I think the other thing that has motivated this, you touched upon it earlier, the character rights connected to James Bond are due to go into the public domain in the 2030s. We've seen this with Sherlock Holmes. And what's gonna happen once those character rights goes to public domain, unless somebody's amazing lawyers can deal with this. [01:18:28] Matt: Yeah. [01:18:28] Chris: Maybe, I think you said Disney. [01:18:30] Matt: If anyone could, it's Amazon. [01:18:32] Chris: Potentially. Yeah. Yeah. So maybe, you know, maybe this was, uh, maybe this was Jeff Bezos' master plan to sucking up to Trump. Maybe it was so he could go up to Trump and somehow get the, an executive order written that, that, that James Bond rights and not going the public domain [01:18:46] Matt: It's not a crazy idea. It's not a crazy idea. [01:18:49] Chris: No. So I, if President Trump is listening, you know, you could try that. Um, but, but joking aside, obviously with these characterized against the public domain, I wonder then if I, I, I'm not an expert here, but I wonder then if that completely diminishes the value of the James Bond rights that Eon owned, and this was possibly the last opportunity for the Broccoli family to kind of, um, make a significant sum from the James Bond rights. [01:19:16] Matt: Right. [01:19:16] Chris: I wonder if that was also a factor, too. [01:19:19] Matt: I just think then if, if, I mean, Amazon would have seen that deadline coming at them as well and would they have? [01:19:28] Chris: But I think is a good, it's at least 10 years away, so it's quite a way to wait out. [01:19:33] Matt: But if you think, [01:19:33] Chris: It's not like it's happening in a few years, it's way. [01:19:35] Matt: the amount of time it takes to put a movie into development and produce it and release it. And for a billion dollars you're gonna have to do a couple, you know, like there's, I don't know that they could possibly, Amazon could possibly hope to recoup a billion dollars on this franchise in under 10 years. You're assuming you get some really big hits. [01:19:55] Chris: Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, yeah. [01:19:56] Matt: And that's a big assumption, I think. [01:19:58] Chris: Yeah, I think basically what they might go back to is the kind of sixties mode where there would be a Bond film every two years. [01:20:04] Matt: Well, I mean it was like that up, up until Craig. [01:20:08] Chris: Yeah, yeah, it was pretty much, yeah, it was actually. Yeah. And um, and that's. Uh, yeah, it's the thing. It is. So, you know, you've got quality time and money. The goal's always to get quality, so you throw either time or money at it. So they have no time, so they're gonna throw money at it. So there's gonna be a few writers out there. Um, and maybe a bit of generative AI too are gonna benefit from this. [01:20:28] Matt: Don't say that. Don't say that. [01:20:31] Chris: And, um, you never know. But no, I, I, I think they're gonna probably try and find a Kevin Feige-like character to be the creative head of it [01:20:41] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:20:42] Chris: for a period of time. Because the other thing, you don't want a revolving door of producers. You're gonna need a producer who commits to it for at least 10 years. Because this is the other thing with the Broccoli family, there was a consistency. [01:20:54] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:20:54] Chris: Because that's the one thing in film and TV generally there isn't because people get bored, people move on. Creative people do get bored after a while, wanna move on. And that's totally understandable. Um, but from an audience perspective, that can lead to things feeling like they go all over the place. And some shows you see it like, you know, um, I, I don't really watch Dr. Who that much, but I know a lot of people have their periods they like and periods they don't, depending on what you do and don't like about Dr. Who. And part of that is because of, um, the revolving door of people who run that show. [01:21:30] Matt: Right. [01:21:30] Chris: Um, and so that, that happens. So whoever the kind of showrunner would be of James Bond needs to commit to it for at least ten years, I think. And God hope, God, you know, let's hope is somebody who, people agree with their decisions and it's not some random person who, who, uh, wants to, I don't know, make James Bond, um, a punk or something. I dunno. They, you know, you know what I mean? It is like he's gotta, they've gotta find this careful balance with respecting what's been before, but updating it in a way that, um, yeah, is sensitive to what's been there and doesn't sort of just egregiously fly in the face of what existed before for the sake of it. That's, that's the tricky thing. And to quote Timothy Dalton, because I, I found this article today because Timothy Dalton's been doing the press for 1923, which is the TV show he's in. And Timothy Dalton, for the record, was my favorite James Bond. And, um, he did a quite rare, lengthy interview about James Fox. He doesn't really talk about it much. Um, and he said, uh, about Bond and whoever plays Bond, he says, Well, whoever does it has got to have a very clear sense of what they want to achieve because everybody in the world has got a different opinion about it. And that's the thing. I think Bond only works when you have a strong idea. If I were in movie, you know, uh, dream scenarios where suddenly, you know, I could direct anything I wanted, I'd be very, I would be very careful about doing a Bond film unless I had a strong idea. Because then you don't go into a Bond film half-assed. You either know you've got a great idea, you're gonna knock it out of the park, or you don't do it, is my opinion. [01:23:07] Matt: Yeah. I think to, to, to your point there, you know, kind of final thought for me on this for now, I think if, I would hope that whoever is, like, if, if they do appoint like a Kevin Feige type of, of producer to kind of shepherd the franchise for the next couple years, I, I would think whoever is, whoever's that Kevin Feige figure or whoever signs on to write and or direct the first movie under Amazon's complete control, I would hope that, and honestly encourage, that they approach this with a ton of humility and you know, even if they have to do it kind of secretly on the side, because the Amazon execs really don't want them to, I would use Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli as a resource, you know? Even if you gotta totally kind of meet with them, bit on the side. Speak to them. Use them. Lean on them. Um, because there's so much about this franchise and its legacy that you gotta be incredibly arrogant to think you're just gonna step up with your pitch and just grab it and just make a home run, you know? Without them. [01:24:16] Chris: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And I think it's just finding a careful balance. I think the, here's the one gripe I have with the Daniel Craig era is too many nods to the past. I think what I liked about the Pierce Brosnan era was, yes, James Bond generally drove, um, well, I actually drove mainly BMWs in the Pierce Brosnan era, it was only the last one he did an Aston Martin, but I don't wanna see the DB5 personally anymore. If I ever directed a Bond movie, I would never have the DB5 in it at all. I would have him just driving the latest Aston Martin or the Aston Martin that I think looked the coolest. But I would not have the DB5 and these constant callbacks. I think you could, I mean, obviously with this first Amazon film, there probably will have to be some callbacks, just to remind everybody you're watching a James Bond movie. Yes, James Bond wears a tuxedo, et cetera. But having constant callbacks to past movies, I'm just tired of it. And I, and I think James Bond needs to be a thriller at its heart and forward looking, but respectful of the past. And if you could do those three things, it would be very interesting to see what they do. But I think if they do a film that just tries to rehash it, just turn, it might turn into a parody if they're not careful. [01:25:22] Matt: Yeah. [01:25:22] Chris: Because that's the thing, people who've tried to imitate Bond, it always turns into a parody and feels really naff and it's so, such a careful line you've gotta tread. So, uh, yeah. Good luck. [01:25:35] Matt: Yep, indeed. [01:25:37] Chris: Best of British luck to whoever ends up doing that, so there we go. So, um, I think that is us done for today. Uh, but thank you very much everybody for listening and for watching if you're on YouTube. Hello there. Um, and hello Russian trolls if you're out there. [01:25:51] Matt: Hi. [01:25:52] Chris: So quick thing, just a quick thing. It's come to my attention. Some people have, uh, not quite understood what we're doing. So our plan at the moment is obviously we're trying, we are attempting to make Espresso Martini weekly, and we're just seeing how we get on with that. And we're definitely going that way until April and then we'll reflect on things. Um, but I'm enjoying doing this weekly. I hope you know you are. [01:26:11] Matt: Yeah. [01:26:11] Chris: And I hope people are enjoying listening to us. Uh, but we are not letting that kind of stop us doing interviews. Far from it. We've just been in this sort of period of transition of just trying to move into doing this weekly, balance it with our lives, and also set up some interviews because I've just been recording quite a few interviews over the last few weeks. So we've got some really exciting people coming up. I won't say who they are just yet, but we've got some really cool people coming up. Um, and there will be a James Bond reference in one of the interviews in a very unexpected way. So that's coming to look forward to. You'll find out about uh, a top-level spy who is a bit obsessed with James Bond and we may find out what his favorite spy, his favorite James Bond movie was. So, okay. Possibly. Alright. Um, that's kind of interesting. So yeah, so no, we have got more expert interviews coming up. Um, and yeah, over, um, you know, we, we are still trying to figure out exactly how to position them, but I think we're attending to try and put them out on Wednesdays if we can. [01:27:10] Matt: The interviews will be Wednesdays. [01:27:12] Chris: Yeah. Obviously. [01:27:13] Matt: Yeah. [01:27:14] Chris: Obviously, sometimes we do timely episodes like my interview with Dr. Taras Kuzio that aired yesterday, or aired on Thursday. Interviews like that, I generally just try and sort of put them out ASAP because, um, there's a concern that they might suddenly become irrelevant within a two days if you're not careful because something could happen. So I, I generally, when it's a current affairsy thing that's kind of on the edge of what's going on in the news, I tend to put it out once it's ready. But generally we're gonna try and stick to Wednesdays as our kind of timeless interview spot. Um, my view has always been if we overdeliver, we're doing a good job. If we're underdelivering them, we're not doing so well. So, so I hope we are always in a position of over-delivering and not under-delivering. So, uh, but yeah. So thank you very much everybody for listening. So yeah, you can contact us on social media, Bluesky, Instagram, Facebook, and Spoutible. We are most active on Bluesky and Instagram, at least speaking for myself. Um, we're also on Threads. I forgot to mention the Threads. We're on Threads as well. If you wanna go ad-free, we're currently, we are on Patreon. Um, we're staying on Patreon, but we're gonna probably add some more, um, options in the next few weeks just based on some listener feedback about places such as Apple, um, and potentially even Substack as well. So we will, um, yeah, let you know once we've got that. So, uh, yeah, that's it. So if you enjoyed this episode, please share it. If you enjoy any of our content, please share, share, share. Sharing is doing God's work for us. So, thank you. Sharing is what we need right now, so please share away. [01:28:47] Matt: Indeed, indeed. [01:28:48] Chris: So, uh, yeah. Thank you very much, Matt. [01:28:51] Matt: Thank you. [01:28:51] Chris: And uh, thank you again everybody for listening. Take care and we'll catch you next week. [01:28:55] Matt: See ya. [01:29:10] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and spies.