[00:00:00] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:25] Chris Carr: Hello everybody and welcome to Espresso Martini. Matt, how are you? [00:00:29] Matt Fulton: Hey, Chris. I'm good. It's a, it's a rainy day here. Dark and rainy day. Um, you know. Yeah. Uh, yeah. How [00:00:34] Chris: are, how are you? I'm good. You might not be able to tell, but it's actually a bright and sunny day here, but it doesn't look like it in my little home studio 'cause it's nice, dark and dingy. [00:00:43] Matt: Yeah. It's like I said before we got started, we started, we sort of switched weather for the past few days. Yes. Yeah. [00:00:48] Chris: Yes indeed. Yeah. It's very sunny outside the moment and my, my blinds are trying their best to keep the light out, but [00:00:54] Matt: yeah, no, I'm like, I'm like, should take like a, like a match and just hold it up so people can see me in the camera. Better how dark it is here. But yeah, it [00:01:02] Chris: looks, yeah, it definitely looks more evening vibe than daytime. It's quite funny. It good it. So we've got a jam packed episode today. We'll be first of all looking at the latest updates on India and Pakistan. Then we'll be looking at the concerns about loyalty tests and intelligence services, and they'll be wrapping up about the debate on Air Force One and its future. So, Matt, I'll let you kick off with the update on India and Pakistan. [00:01:27] Matt: Yeah, so we have a good, we have a pretty big update on it and, uh, we're definitely worth checking in again. So here's some, here's some details we're drawing from articles from The Guardian, uh, the New York Times, and, um, also there's a, there's a CNN one that I'll throw in the show notes as well. So here's some key points here. So, Indian Pakistan came perilously close to full scale war last week with missiles flying air bases under attack and nuclear fears mounting until a fragile US brokerage ceasefire pulled the two rivals back from the brink. The crisis erupted after a militant attack in India, administered cashmere, uh, last month, killed 26 civilians. We've covered this previously. Um, India responded with missile strikes on what it called. Terrorist camps inside Pakistan. At first, the Trump administration appeared unconcerned. Um. Trump said, uh, quote, they've been fighting for a long time. While Vice President JD Vance dismissed it as, quote, none of our business. Washington's early posture signaled that India had a free hand with US officials reiterating new Delhi's right to defend itself. But as the conflict escalated with Pakistan launching retaliatory drone strikes in India, targeting key Pakistani military installations, including air bases near Raul Pindi home to Pakistan's Nuclear command, the calculus in Washington changed fast fears of nuclear escalation, forced to pivot. Trump tasked Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, with urgent back channel diplomacy Rubio called Pakistan's Army Chief, uh, national Security Advisor and Prime Minister multiple times through the night while Vance dealt with Indian officials and Prime Minister Nja Modi. A shaky ceasefire was eventually hammered out by midday Saturday and publicly announced by Trump on true social where he took credit for preventing a bad nuclear war. Hmm. Pakistan welcomed the intervention and publicly thanked the US while India consistent with its policy of non-alignment and seeing the cashmere issue as like a sovereign issue for them, uh, denied any outside influence and frame the truce as a result of bilateral strength. Both sides immediately claimed victory at home, unleashing patriotic messaging and media spin. But despite the temporary calm, the roots of the conflict, especially in cashmere, remain unaddressed and with trust in short supply, even senior local officials are warning don't count on this truce to hold. Chris, what'd you think? [00:03:51] Chris: Yeah, it's an interesting one. This one the, to me. Initially, um, well I would say this has sort of been a huge positive for Trump and his sort of team 'cause they've helped India, Pakistan obviously negotiate this ceasefire, but obviously I'll put a little caveat on that. Yes. Um, but it, it goes in contrast, the administration's apparent lack of interest in getting involved at tour, which you mentioned. Um, and I just, I can only assume that they realized that the two nuclear armed states gonna get, get into a deeper conflict was probably not a good idea. And the Trump administration felt that they would have to step, step up and broker a deal before India and Pakistan escalated things. So it's good that they finally kind of stepped up and did that. The tag team approach was interesting, having Rubio negotiating a Pakistan and Vance dealing directly with India. Um, and you know, it as a timely reminder of the positive and vital role the US can play in World Affairs, whilst this isolationist stance will ultimately not serve the US well in the long run. However, obviously as you've said, despite the current ceasefire issues over Kashmir persists the roots of the conflict between India and Pakistan lie and the disputed territory of Kashmir a conflict dating back to 1947 when the Monarch, who was the ruler of the region chose to Aede to India despite the region's Muslim majority population, which led to the first Indo Pakistan war. President Trump recently, obviously after this sort of semi success, has then complicated matters when he posts on true social. He said that I will work with both of you to see after a thousand years a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir. This comment was welcomed by Pakistan, which expressed appreciation for President Trump's post. But the idea of the US getting involved in brokering a deal over kmir was less well received in India. Mm-hmm. In an interview the BBC Cheyenne Soran, a former Indian foreign secretary, said that obviously it would not be welcomed by the Indian side. It goes against our stated position for many years. Then Ami Ramesh asked that, have we opened the doors to third party mediation? The Indian National Congress would like to ask if diplomatic channels between India and Pakistan are being reopened. Um, so the Indian government does not appear to be keen or even open to any third party negotiations revolving around cash itself. And so, you know, as you said, this sort of ceasefire is quite delicate. Um. And sadly, you know, there'll probably inevitably be another, um, sort of spat over this issue. And so time will tell how, uh, you know, if it happens during Trump's con, you know, continues on during Trump's term, how they will actually deal with the next phase, right? 'cause we're sort of seen different energy levels with regard to Ukraine. Um, and so how will they cope with if, if, um, this ceasefire gets broken again? So that's the thing that interests me about all of this. [00:06:46] Matt: Right. Well, I think that's, those, those are all good points. I think something also here that's, that's key to note is that this, um. Truce is sort of like, that was brokered, is sort of like an opening kind of halt to then negotiate a more comprehensive, um, ceasefire and address some sort of longstanding issues. Uh, one of which is just really big for the Pakistanis, understandably. We've talked about in the last episode, um, the, um, how India pulled out of the Indi Water Treaty that really, um, potentially screws Pakistan quite substantially as far as, you know, um, agriculture, water supply, a whole bunch of humanitarian issues, right? Mm-hmm. Um, so there's that, this sort of waiting to be addressed or, or resolved in some way. I'm gonna take this conflict and the truth that we have right now, sort of out of the larger issue of cashmere here for a second. Um, because I do think there are, as far as like a negotiating kind of standpoint, they are a bit separate, at least here for the moment, right? Um. I am pleasantly surprised that the Trump administration saw the need to sort of, um, get off its ass and, and, and help negotiate some sort of, at least a temporary cessation, um, of, of hostilities here. Um, yeah, it credit where credit's due. I credit where credit's due. I don't Yeah. Think it from what we, from what we know, it potentially was not any more than Vance and Rubio going out to their respective interlocutors and getting them on the phone together is sort of what it, what it, what it seems like. Um, there was also a, in the, in the c Nnn piece that I mentioned that I'll link in the show notes, they had a bit in there that sort of said that, um, into, you know, Friday, Saturday, uh, there was a, um, I. On Friday, I believe it was, uh, some, some intelligence came across the lines that really kind of spooked the, uh, administration and then got them taking this a bit more seriously. 'cause initially from the start of the conflict, yeah. As, as, as we sort of said, you know, um, the administration seemed like, okay, this isn't really for us, we don't really care. You know, I hope they, I, I hope they stop and I hope they, you know, get back to normal. But there wasn't seemingly much effort or recognition of there, there wasn't much recognition of the seriousness of the situation and showing kind of effort to sort of step in and try to try to mediate this. Yeah. There's no, there's no indication in that CNN piece or elsewhere that I've seen so far as to what that intelligence could be if I'm purely speculating. Um, if I'm gonna Yeah. Purely sort of speculate here on what it could be. Um. On that last day, there were a lot of, um, Indian efforts to sort of push Indian operations to push suppression of enemy air defenses, or seed as we call it, in their, or they would call it in the, in the Pentagon. Um, and also targeting, uh, certain strategic Pakistani air bases, like the one at, uh, NorCon, which holds chunk of Pakistan's aerial refueling fleet. And also some of those strikes were, uh, in and around, um, Rael Pindi, which is kind of the administrative and operational center of gravity for the Pakistani armed forces. Um, the headquarters of Pakistan's, uh, strategic plans division, which governs their nuclear arsenal. Is there, um, the last time we talked about this on the show, I mentioned, you know, Pakistani nuclear doctrine calls for the use of nuclear weapons if a portion of Pakistan is occupied or if it's Air Force is destroyed. And I think. Again, just purely speculating on what that intelligence could have been that got the Trump administration up off the couch here. Um, potentially some, let's say SNT intercepts or, or some other bit of information that came across that suggested that the pakistanians were seeing those strikes on those strategic air bases on, in and around Rael Pendi as sort of pushing the envelope a little bit too far. And perhaps there were discussions, serious discussions about Pakistan upgrading the, um, readiness of its, of its nuclear forces. Perhaps dispersing them outside of storage facilities into the field to kind of a, disperse them from attack and to, so they would be more readily available to, to launch them if, if, if, if the Pakistani high command thought that was reasonable. That, of course. Being seen by the Indians would be a huge escalation and increase the risk for, you know, all kinds of miscalculations, et cetera. So again, credit where credit is due. I'm glad that they got off the couch and were able to get the two sides on the phone together and tamp this down. At least for now. I would just, you know, this goes to show how when you have two nuclear armed major powers like this, if they start shooting at each other, you don't, you know, hang out on the couch for a couple days and say, well, it's fundamentally none of our business. I hope they stop. But you know, there isn't much room for us to be involved here. Um, that's why you don't wait until. Some intelligence comes across your desk that, you know, scares the crap outta you and you go, oh, okay, maybe we should take this seriously because, you know, eventually in this situation, the potential for that intelligence to come across your desk is, is, or you should know is, is highly likely. So you would wanna start working before that, before that happens, you know, before that's on the horizon. Um, yeah. 'cause [00:12:32] Chris: once the wheel's in motion it can be harder to, you know, slow 'em down. [00:12:35] Matt: Absolutely. The other thing that I see here that I find kind of interesting is how this was potentially, I think a really important opening for Pakistan, not for Pakistan, for, for, for China rather, um, to flex its diplomatic muscles here and perhaps show that it can be a kind of reasonable, trusted by all sides intermediary regional hemen in, in Asia, perhaps. Um, yeah, they're going [00:13:00] Chris: for that at the moment, aren't they? They are. They are. And we're, you know, [00:13:03] Matt: not of course making it very difficult for them. Um. Whether, uh, I mean, uh, potentially you would have the issue then that, you know, the Indians would see that, um, Pakistan, that, that, that, that China is, is far too cozy with, with, with Pakistan to be in that kind of I mediator role, that's also a potential. Mm-hmm. I am relieved to see this tamp down for now. Um, there's, I don't, I, I, I, there is a, a, of course, always the potential, likely potential perhaps that the truce doesn't hold and we see another round of shooting between the two. I don't think it's a given though. Um, time will tell. [00:13:45] Chris: No, I, I sadly think it's highly likely, maybe not immediately, but it could be a couple of years time. There'll be something that will flare it up again. [00:13:54] Matt: Oh. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, yeah. This is, this is not, this is not the last confrontation between India and Pakistan for sure. Whether that comes next week, next month, next year, the next decade, I don't know. But, um, I'm glad that this instant, at least for now, seems to be tamped down a bit. And I, and I hope it holds. Um, also one more point here that I have as far as the US getting involved in negotiating a settlement to the wider issue around Cashmere. Um, I, I, I would be really shocked if there's any kind of serious effort or progress made in that anytime soon. I mean, you sort of said as well, you know, that that's a very. Prickly issue for, for, for India and, and how they see it as sort of just a bilateral concern between them and Pakistan. But that's a, that's a separate matter, I think. [00:14:45] Chris: Yeah, indeed. There was, um, one thing just to add to what you were talking about earlier about the airstrikes and targets of airstrikes. So in the war zone, um, they've got a recent article that kind of summarizes some of the sort of latest of the conflict. And apparently there were unconfirmed reports that suggested India had targeted, I don't think they actually struck it. Yeah. But they had targeted a nuclear facility in the Ana Hills. Yep. In the Sara Goda district. Is that how you pronounce it in of Punjab, Pakistan. Mm-hmm. Um, and that's where Pakistan hold some nuclear weapons and have done nuclear testing in the past. Right. And that would've been a major escalation had they had attacked the nuclear, you know, a nuclear base basically. [00:15:24] Matt: Right. That would be a major escalation. It would also be, if, you know, if I, I, I didn't mention it in, in, in the intro 'cause I wasn't sure how. Confirmed it was, or the extent to which the Indians actually took action or targeted that facility. But even if, even if, if Pakistan had some indication that, that, that the Indians were thinking about targeting that facility mm-hmm. One crazy, crazy escalator action to do so. But I think that would also force the Pakistanis to discuss, you know, dispersing those weapons outside of those, uh, outside of those storage facilities into, you know, other. Protected areas where they could be, where they could be, um, you know, hidden until the order came if and when it came to launch. And that's something that, you know, we would definitely not be happy to see and that would cause us to get off the couch for sure. [00:16:15] Chris: Yeah. 'cause I know the US has traditionally been very concerned about Pakistan and nuclear weapons, the bleed even plans to try and sort of get them out should a certain situation arise. Yeah. And um, you mentioned that before in an earlier episode. Yeah. [00:16:27] Matt: We've mentioned that in a, in a few past episodes there are JS O has the Joint Special Operations Command. Definitely has highly classified plans on the books, or at least they did too, to respond and sort of sweep up those nuclear weapons in the event of like a jihadist coup, you know, something like that. [00:16:43] Chris: Yeah, [00:16:44] Matt: indeed. Is there anything else you'd like to add? Because I think we've kind of covered everything there. Yeah. I think important to touch base on this again and to sort of update listeners. Um, I. Yeah, I am, you know, I am glad to see that, that the White House recognizes series of the moment and, um, and didn't leave it to fester any longer. But, you know, you, you shouldn't, you don't, your, your imagination should be able to tell you that a serious escalation of that degree, uh, could and likely is coming if you do nothing, therefore do not wait for it to slap you in the face to do something, but. They did get off the couch and do something and I'm, I'm, I'm happy for that. [00:17:21] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. It kinda reminds me of an intelligence saying, I think from M mi five where it's forewarned is forearmed. Exactly. Um, and you know, exactly the role of intelligence is to kind of give you the heads up that something that's going on in the early stages mm-hmm. You shouldn't wait till it gets so bad that, uh, you know, that it's harder to sort of deal with it. So, um, yeah, I'm glad that the Trump administration did at least sort of pivot away from their earlier disinterest publicly, but it's, they do tend to have this thing now and maybe this is a growing pattern where they say something publicly but then end up doing something else in private and then come out and try and make it a win. I don't know. Yeah. It's very difficult to see how that all, all kind of translates from kind of bluster to reality. [00:18:02] Matt: Yeah. Is that something that's a good, you know, question too then, is that when they say that. Do they, do they believe it themselves in the moment or is that just sort of a messaging thing that behind the scenes there are, or, you know, do they say it and then the people, the institutional career people who are left in their positions come out and say, Hmm, no, I don't, I don't think that's too smart. We should do something about this for X, y, and z reasons that are entirely foreseeable in a situation like this. That's, uh, I'm not sure. I can't, I can't speak to which of that is, which of that is the case, but it's, it's interesting. No, [00:18:36] Chris: I, I don't think either of us are in a position to really answer that currently, but one to keep an eye on, definitely. Mm-hmm. I'm sure as other situations arise, we might start to see, um, you know, a pattern of behavior that makes more sense with that, but we'll see. Yeah. But, uh, but there we go. Well, I think let's take our first break and be right back with more. Well, welcome back everybody. So our next story is an interesting piece from the Cipher Brief titled When it Comes to National Security, loyalty Says, should Have No Place. And this is written by General Michael V. Hayden, who is a retired four-star general in the United States Air Force, and he served as director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009. And he was also the director of the NSA from 1999 to 2005. And I believe there's a picture of him with Edward Snowden. Didn't he give Edward Snowden some sort of certificate in Snowden's early days at the NSA? I have a funny feeling. I remember that image. And they've met each other. [00:19:46] Matt: Probably. Probably, yeah. He was, he was director. I could be. Robert. I have a, that's the case when Snowden was around, he was working in the special collection service. Yeah. [00:19:54] Chris: Yeah. And he's somebody I would love to get on. I know he had a, a stroke, um, which affected his speech. But I think he's made a significant recovery. Um, so I'd love to get General Hayden on in the near future if he's feels able to do it. It'd be really interesting to get his perspective on things. 'cause I think he, um, as I've kind of come to a bit later, I think he's a very serious, knowledgeable person and somebody one should listen to when he raises the alarm about something. Right. You know, he strikes me as a very kind of a straight shooter on certain topics. And this is. His area of expertise. So, so key points from the article. So he mentions National Security Advisor Mike Wal and NSA Director, general Timothy Hawke were dismissed following a meeting with Donald Trump and right wing activist Laura Luma, who urged a president to remove officials she claimed were insufficiently loyal. Their removal had nothing to do with policy failures or qualifications. Traditionally, national security roles are filled based on experience and competence with loyalty focused on the constitution and the country, not the president. Personally, the growing expectation of personal loyalties to Trump is undermining that norm sound. National security decisions rely on a diversity of expert views from military intelligence agencies in the State Department. When officials are afraid to speak candidly or dissent, the quality of the US policy suffers. This shift could lead to poor decision making at home and diminished credibility abroad. Senator Marco Rubio now holds four high level roles simultaneously, including Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, an arrangement that removes necessary institutional friction and debate. This consolidation combined with a loyalty first culture may deter skilled professionals from public service. So, Matt, what are your thoughts on this one? [00:21:44] Matt: I think the first thing is really important here is to remind folks again, as, as, as, as EU has said, who, who Michael Hayden actually is. You know, and he's not some blue-haired woke activist yelling about microaggressions on TikTok. Mm-hmm. You know, this is a, as you said, a retired four star Air Force general former director at both the NSA and the CIA under George W. Bush. This is the guy who is the architect of some of the most aggressive and frankly controversial intelligence programs of the Post nine 11 era. Um, you know, a lot of the concerns back then around around, um. Ethics Enhanced, enhanced interrogation techniques, I'll say, you know, civil liberties and stuff as far as like domestic wire tapping, everything. A lot of those controversies that we sort of remember from that time during, during the, the heart of the war on terror, he was, he was right in the middle of that, you know, director of the NSA and the CIA through that time period. Yeah. Yeah. So if, if you were to build a car, a caricature, perhaps, of a hawkish Republican national security official from central casting, it'd look a lot like him. Mm-hmm. And so here he is warning loudly that the Trump administration's obsession with personal loyalty to the president is not just corrosive, but flat out on American. Um, so I think when, when someone like, like General Hayden who spent decades in the intelligence world and served a Republican president says this stuff, it should scare us. You have to stop and listen. Um, because this isn't about partisanship, I don't think, I don't think there's anything partisan all about what, about what Michael Hayton has, has said here? Um, he [00:23:23] Chris: probably traditionally swings Republican until, you know, recently, I think, but yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Mm-hmm. I would [00:23:28] Matt: imagine was, um, no fan of the Obama administration and certainly probably had many reservations about some of the ways in which the Biden administration conducted his foreign policy. Um, for sure. I think that's, that's very safe to say. He would've, he would've felt that way. Um, you know, it's, this is about professionalism. It's about how national security actually works. And Hayden is telling us in no one certain terms that the White House is purging people, not because they're wrong on policy or incompetent, but because someone whispered in the president's ear that they're not loyal enough. Um, it's not only abnormal, I think it's, it's, it's dangerous. Um, and so, you know, this also isn't some. Abstract beltway etiquette problem. These are people in charge of nuclear policy, cyber defense, intelligence, coordination, diplomacy. You want dissenting views in these areas. You need the Pentagon, the State Department, CI, A, national Securities Council staff to, to disagree. Sometimes that's entirely healthy. Um, yeah. [00:24:28] Chris: And, [00:24:29] Matt: and [00:24:29] Chris: yeah, that institutional friction as he put it. Right. I think that's a very vital thing that a lot of people don't seem to understand. [00:24:35] Matt: That's how you test ideas. You know? That's, that's how you avoid disasters, at least me in my own, in my own life. If there's people around me who say, you know, Matt, you're great. You're perfect, you're awesome. You're never wrong. When anything I bring to 'em, you're like, yep, you're right. Exactly what you think. Boom. First indication. That's just shitty advice. It's not some, you're never, [00:24:55] Chris: I call it George Lucas syndrome, but [00:24:57] Matt: yeah. Yeah. Um, [00:24:59] Chris: we ended up being surrounded by yes men on the follow up to the star, original Star Wars right in Yeah. In the crinkles. Yeah. They didn't end well. [00:25:07] Matt: Um, yeah, this is not good advice. Like you're never, you are never that Right. All the time, just based on your own gut first instinct. It's just not true of, of anyone. I'm sorry. It's just not [00:25:17] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. [00:25:18] Matt: I, I, I think what, what Hayden is describing here is a chilling effect for sure. You know, smart, experienced people staying quiet or staying out of government entirely, getting out of government perhaps because they know what happens if they speak up, if your boss is going to fire you because a conspiracy theorist influencer from social media [00:25:39] Chris: and nine 11 truther. Crikey. Yeah. [00:25:41] Matt: Right. A nine 11 truther, no doubt. Um, says, you know, you didn't clap hard enough for the dear leader. That's not loyalty, that's paranoia. Um, that's dysfunction. And it's not how any serious country is supposed to run. Um. So for all the talk we hear about restoring strength, restoring deterrence, restoring order, this is the opposite. I think this is weak, brittle leadership that equates personal grievance with national interest and people who consider themselves conservative, especially who've historically, um, voted Republicans should take a hard look at what general Hayden's saying here. Um, because even if he's this worried, then maybe it's not just the other side making noise. I would say [00:26:23] Chris: yeah, talk about strength. I mean, there's like true strength and then there's performative strength. Exactly. And I think true strength is what Michael Hayden described, where you have these sort of dissenting views and very educated and smart people actually sort of, who understand the issues, discuss these policy issues and have a kind of a back and forth to make a, a good decision. Whilst performative strength is where everybody just appears to be in synchronization of each other no matter what they say. And I think that's a really bad thing. Yeah, and I think, you know, there's a lot of examples of this in the business world, let alone, you know, politics and the, uh, intelligence world. And obviously it kind of reminds me of the early days. Uh, it reminds me of the KGBA little bit and where it could have got to, but you've got a point there. I think [00:27:06] Matt: performative strength insists upon itself. Performative strength is not concerned with its own operations and its own endurance. Over time, it is concerned with people simply seeing it as strong and fearing it. And that's not. That's not real strength, you know? Yeah. It's like, it's like that line from the Game of Thrones. You know, any, any true king does, I'm, I'm paraphrasing here, but any true king does not have to keep, you know, yelling that I'm the king. [00:27:34] Chris: Mm. Or, or even if in economic terms, you know, the idea of keeping up with the Joneses where you project this idea that you're super wealthy, got it together, got a perfect marriage, whatever, whilst behind the scenes you're in great debt because you're buying all these new cars and perfect clothes, et cetera, and then your marriage is suffering because of the stress over money. You know, it's kind of a bit like that too, you know? Yeah. It's a similar kind of thing. Yeah. Um, and, and so appearances can always be deceiving and I, yeah. And that's the one things I've learned about intelligence actually is not everything as it seems. And, you know, people who are sometimes the, who project the image of being the most trustworthy can actually be the most duplicitous, you know, new examples of traders and things that do that. Yeah. So, uh, yeah, gotta be so careful about that. So, gotta lots of analogies there, so apologies about that. So obviously there is this big danger that US intelligence services as a whole could end up being served by yes men who are afraid to speak truth to power and will start to curate information based on how it'll be perceived by the sitting president. And that's very dangerous. Um, now as far as we know, the in US intelligence services has gone to great lengths to avoid this situation. Though one could argue, there have been times in the US government's history in which its relationship with intelligence has been questionable. And I would quote the Iraq War and how intelligence was curated to build a justification for the US invasion has been well documented. And to note that effort was actually led by the Bush administration. It was not an the intelligence community telling or forcing the Bush administration to go on a path to an invasion. The Bush administration clearly wanted to invade. They saw the, the nine 11 attacks were a good opportunity to do that, and they sought intelligence to justify that position. Mm-hmm. Because I have noticed a lot of people over the years tend to get it the wrong way around. They seem to think that it was somehow the CIA went to Bush and said, Hey, let's go and invade a rock, and hey, here's all the documents. When in fact it was the other way around where the Bush administration went to the CIA and said, we wanna invade a rock. We need information about it. [00:29:33] Matt: Or, um, people like, uh, around Cheney or Rumsfeld created certain new intelligence. Structures within the Pentagon that their marching orders were certainly to sort of take anything that came out of the traditional intelligence community that was going against the idea that, you know, Iraq weapons and mass destruction stuff and Bo cold water on that. Yeah, indeed. So [00:29:55] Chris: with loyalty tests, lessons from that chapter of history will get passed over and we'll possibly see more abuses of power via politically led intelligence than before. So that, that's a real concern there. And also then there's the other risk that intelligence services might start wasting resources on the wrong thing and not putting enough focus on something more important. And certainly there was certain aspects of the US focus and the war on terror, you know, which did have some very important aspects. But there were other things like, you know, the intelligence to facilitate and sustain the invasion of Iraq, which pushed resources away from the hunt for bin Laden. Yeah. It also pushed resources away from deterring Chinese and Russian espionage against both the us mm-hmm. And its allies and we kind of live in that world now. Yeah. Thanks to. Some of that. Yeah. Um, and then obviously this loyalty test approach, which we've seen in the current administration, you know, leads to candidates who are considered unqualified by their peers and they're kind of pushed into areas of great responsibility because they're 'cause of their loyalties to Trump. And they also get protected, as we've seen with Pete Hegseth, who shared classified details in these signal messages in the now infamous Signal gate, uh, signal Gate scandal. Yet he has not so far really faced any serious repercussions for sharing those details on an insecure app. So this is the other side of the, of it as well. So as we said at the beginning, and I'll finish it up on there, general Michael Hayden is an experienced man and when he issues concerns about something, people really need to listen. Mm-hmm. So sleep well, [00:31:25] Matt: well said. Well said. Sleep well after that. Well said. I mean, if there is, between stuff like this and, you know, the gutting of the FBI or, or orienting DHS entirely to be just super hyper-focused on, on immigration. All of that stuff, right? That's going on right now. If there is some major catastrophic terrorist attack, there will be no shortage of indicators of, well, how did this get passed this, you know, how did, how did, how did this get through? How did we miss this? We know damn well how they missed it. This is it. [00:32:00] Chris: And, and, yeah, you mentioned earlier the FBI and ice. I mean, all I see on their social media is how the f FBI is involved with, um, yeah. ICE operations now, which is not really the remit. Talk about performative strength. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's crazy. I mean, I'm assuming it's curated to make, uh, to make Trump happy, but, uh, you know, yeah. But it's plus, um, the kind of the, the MAGA base, but, uh, yeah. Yeah. Not good. So yeah, concerning all that's concerning. Um, so yeah. Is there anything else you wanna add on that or? [00:32:31] Matt: No. Great, great. Um, great, uh, great, great piece here. Um, I. We'd love to, you know, certainly would, would be great to have Michael Hayden on to, to speak about this in a bit more detail. If if, if he's available at some point. [00:32:44] Chris: Yeah. Willing and available. It'd be good to get him on. So. Yeah. We'll, we'll see what we can do. Mm-hmm. Well, but let's take a break and we'll be right back with more. So our next piece is, uh, an even more kind of, uh, interesting, uh, titter tat [00:33:14] Matt: grift grift force one. Yeah. [00:33:17] Chris: Oh my. Is that what they call it now? I like it. I like it. So I'll hand this over to you. [00:33:20] Matt: Yeah. So I'm drawing from two really good articles here from, um. This one's from Garrett g Graff, uh, in on, on his substack. And there's the other one that, um, that the war Zone did. That's a really good breakdown of just, you know, the cost and, and, and the man hours that have to go into this proposal. But here we go. So. This week a story that sounds almost too absurd to be real. President Donald Trump is moving to accept a quote unquote gift from the Qatari government, a customized Boeing 7 47 8 a flying palace once used by the Qatari royal family to serve as an interim air force. One, the $400 million aircraft would be outfitted with military upgrades and pressed into service until Boeing completes the long delayed VC 25 B replacements. Uh, then in a twista has raised a blizzard of ethical red flags. The plane would transfer to Trump's presidential foundation as a permanent fixture of his yet to be built library. Setting aside the constitutional concerns, the proposal has triggered serious alarm among national security experts. The idea of placing the president and board and aircraft once operated by a foreign government for more than a decade raises staggering counterintelligence and cybersecurity risks. Even a total strip down and rebuild of the aircraft wouldn't erase the inherent vulnerabilities. Then there's the timeline. Um, Trump reportedly wants the jet operational by the end of the year, but that's nearly impossible unless you cut a whole bunch of corners. Um. The current Air Force one aircraft. So, I mean, I think most listeners probably know this, but Air Force one is just a radio call sign that is taken upon by any Air Force aircraft that the president is, is currently on. Mm-hmm. But so the current Air Force one aircraft that, you know, you traditionally think of as Air Force one, um, known as VC 25 A are based on the now antiquated 7 47 200 platform, and are notoriously expensive and difficult to maintain costing nearly $180,000 per flight hour. Their successors, the VC 25 Bs are 7 47 8 I airframes undergoing, undergoing a massive retrofit effort that's already billions over budget and years behind schedule. Upgrading the Qatari jet for presidential duty would require not just secure comms and attack countermeasures, but also structural and power generation overhauls at great costs and in a condensed window. So them saying, oh, it's just $400 million, it's gonna cost. Way more than that to put this thing into service, um, as like up in the billions, uh, as one Air Force official put it. Meeting the strict requirements for secure presidential transport is non-negotiable, especially the president's ability to connect to the National Command Authority under any conditions. Cutting corners to fast track this jet for a couple years of Trump's use doesn't justify logic. It could jeopardize core elements of US nuclear command and control. In the end, it's hard to see the gesture as anything but a high risk vanity project with a kleptocratic sheen and one, the Secret Service, air Force and national security community will be hard pressed to defend. And I finished that just as the lawnmower drives by. Chris, what'd you think? [00:36:37] Chris: I was trying to work out if that was a plane or a motorbike for a second. But it's actually a little mud. It's Air Force [00:36:41] Matt: One. It's the, it's the junkyard Air Force one that's flying over and an engine's gonna fall into my bedroom overnight. Just like Donny dark. [00:36:52] Chris: Oh my goodness. Yeah. What, what an interesting. Kind of topic really on so many, so many levels. And I just realized, look at my notes. I've kind of only really focused on the plain stuff and, uh, not even into the ethics, because there's a whole ethical thing there. [00:37:04] Matt: There's so you could, you could, we could do a whole episode on this. There's, there's, there's so like, it's, it's one of those things that like you look at and it's like, where do I even begin? You know, like, like, like working on these sort of notes to go through and talk about. It's like, what do I focus on more? You know? Yeah, yeah. The, the cutter Hamas, uh, Taliban hosting issue. Is it the cost ethical kleptocratic nonsense of it? Is it the national security issues, is the sort of technical infeasibility and, and. Just general unnecessary ness. That's not a word, but I'm using it of this whole thing. Like there's just, it, it's, it's a target rich environment. But I'll let, I'll let you go, [00:37:46] Chris: Chris. Yeah, totally. It's, well, it's all of that. Yeah, there's all of that. So, um, I, I'll focus a bit on the plane stuff for now and then, you know, we may or may not go into the other things, but, um, yeah, I mean. Obviously part of the problem aside for President Trump's desire for a new plane is that Boeing is taking so long to get these new ones ready. And you've mentioned before the Boeing, um, you know, 7 4 7, which the VC 25 A is based on is no longer in production. And for the VC 25 B, Boeing had to go out and seek some Boeing 7 4 7 8 iss 'cause they don't make Boeing seven four sevens anymore. So in the end they did find two planes that were built for a defunct Russian airline and they were found to be the only planes kind of available that were to fit the Air Force's requirements. And then conversion started on those planes in 2019 in specialist hangers constructed Andrews Air Force base. So why now? I understand it's a complicated thing and obviously Boeing is a very professional. Company that has like all sorts of ties to military. So exactly why it's taking as long to convert these two planes. There's only two planes with all the necessary equipment to make them secure and suitable for the president to fly on ears a little bit beyond me and I'm surprised it's taking this long and I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. Other journalists and aviation stuff, similar concerns. So, um, now Matt, did you have something else to say there? Because you looked like you did. [00:39:12] Matt: Well there's, there's, Boeing has had numerous, numerous issues over the years. Oh, on its, oh yeah. Boeing seven, seven max. Right, right. With this, yes. Numerous issues with, this is just one more monkey on their back, I'm sure. But yeah, so I mean, yeah. Just to sort of, this is a, a recurring issue with presidential aircraft, you know, the, the, the fleet that is under the ultimate control of the White House military office. Um, you know, so the, uh, replacements for, um, Marine one, you know, the classic, uh, VH 3D, um, was it a Sea king? Yeah. The, the sea King variance. Yeah, it is, [00:39:52] Chris: it does, it is a sort variant of the Sea King. Yeah. That had been used, which we've long retired ourselves. Well, [00:39:56] Matt: yeah. That had been used. Um. I think it was first started being used under Reagan or Bush Senior that had been in service for a while. Right. So the, the program to upgrade those into, what is it, VH 37, I believe is the ation. Yeah. Which is based on [00:40:11] Chris: a more modern airframe, but Yeah, yeah. Yes, yes, [00:40:13] Matt: yes. So that program to replace the helicopters that are traditionally used under hmx one, that, that Marine Squadron, um, have also been through all kinds of issues for years, was ongoing during Trump's first term. Um, and recently, the first time that a president flew on those helicopters, on those new helicopters, um, was, uh, Biden flew on it, um, last summer during the Democratic National Committee to get from Chicago's O'Hare airport into the middle of Chicago by the convention center where the DNC was taking place. Right. Um. So that's, you know, that had been ongoing for years, went through all kinds of issues. I think the bulk of the issues were on the communications suite that are onboard these, these helicopters was, was getting that right. Um, and they'll still be, I think the, the VH threes, uh, won't be entirely phased out until about 2030, is what the schedule is right now. So this takes a presidential aircraft, whether that's, you know, rotary or, or fixed wing takes an enormous amount of time and effort to get it right because these are such like just custom off the shelf, one of a kind aircraft. It's true of, of, of the limousines also. I mean, yeah. It's, it's technically, you know, based on a, on a, a Cadillac limousine, um, at least like the body is, other than that, those limousines have more in common with like a tank. Then they do, you know, a limo that would pick you up and take you to I. Would take your kids to like the prom, you know, more in common with a tank than a limit like that. [00:42:03] Chris: Well, the, the VC 25 B is gonna have, um, obviously you mentioned communications. Mm-hmm. It's got special secure communication systems. Yeah. He's also got classify capabilities that we don't know, which I'm assuming are round defense. So you've probably got some sort of electronic anti-missile system. Yeah. Maybe chaff dispensers there. And possibly a level of a light degree of armor for probably small arms fire, I would imagine. [00:42:27] Matt: Small arms fire for sure. Yeah. Uh, degree of, of protection against that. And we, we also know just from photos and analysis of the VC 25 A that had been in service for almost 40 years now. Yeah. There are various, um, countermeasures for surface air missiles such as, you know, chaff flares. Um, probably been upgraded to some sort of IR kind of laser system as well. But the exact details of, of that and, and what would be in place on, on these new aircraft. Um. Those are, that, that's classified, but we can speculate that it's along those, [00:43:00] Chris: along those lines. You can't just slap this stuff on a new plane. [00:43:04] Matt: No, no. Which is what, which is what's, so I don't understand and I haven't really seen this much anywhere. It's just like why, okay. I get he's, Trump is really kind of obsessed with this plane in particular. Like there's a big model of it that's on the coffee table in the Oval Office. You can see it in all kinds of pictures inside the Oval Office. It's, it's there. Mm-hmm. So he has this kind of weird personal obsession with this aircraft, but I haven't heard any indications from the Air Force. Previously that the, the two VC 25 a's seven 40 sevens that are typically Air Force one that pop into your head when you think Air Force One, um, that they're somehow unsafe to fly and operate that I haven't heard that at all. I think it's just he, he wants a new plane and he's fed up that he has to wait so long and that he may not be able to get to use it before his term expires. [00:43:58] Chris: I think that's it. That is the issue. That is the issue. I think he wants a new plane. 'cause there's a certain status with having being the first president on the new plane that every president will fly on. And also this idea that 'cause the plane's 40 years old, it's now no longer the, to most laypeople, the older something gets the less safe you think it is. Whilst with airplanes, I wouldn't say it's the reverse of that, but old planes like the B 52, the B 52 will probably stay in service till it's a hundred years old. Yeah, maybe even longer. Oh certainly. And it doesn't mean it's unsafe. 'cause those planes get changed, they get, you know, inspected, et cetera. [00:44:35] Matt: The last B 52 pilots are in like elementary school right now. [00:44:38] Chris: Yeah. [00:44:38] Matt: Yeah. And that's been in service since, since, since the fifties. That airframe, [00:44:43] Chris: there's nothing physically wrong with the plane at all. It's just, it's an old model. So it's, it's like going round in a classic car basically when everybody else is maybe, you know, going round in something slightly newer news, not always better. Um, but I think Trump just seems to be in this mindset that he also, he doesn't like the interior. I think he's never liked the interior and it's the interior. You can't change. It's not like, um, the White House where you can change things. [00:45:10] Matt: Yeah. It doesn't have that gaudy Middle Eastern dictator chic that he's, that he's looking for. Yeah. [00:45:13] Chris: Which the Qatari jet does. The, if you look inside the pictures of the Qatari jet, it looks very on point for Trump so I can understand [00:45:21] Matt: which, which, which creates all kinds of issues. Like this is just so, mm. Patently ridiculous. To that point, Laura Loomer, who we talked about the last in, in the last segment was on Twitter saying like, I love Trump. I would take a bullet for Trump, but this is like, eh, this is icky. I don't like this, this, this doesn't make sense. Right. [00:45:41] Chris: Loyalties now, uh, yeah. Going out the window. Yeah. Really? We gotta, [00:45:44] Matt: yeah. Ship her off to the gulags for that one. Yeah. [00:45:47] Chris: Be gone with her. Sorry, Laura, you're done. [00:45:50] Matt: Yeah. In order to sort of do this, okay, so you, you take the airframe of this 7 47 right? That the guitars are, are giving us supposedly that's worth $4 million. Yeah. Right? Yeah. You would then between, um, the Air Force, uh, the White House military office, which includes the White House Communications Agency, the Secret Service, um, air Force Material Command, which overseas like lifecycle management of, of aircraft and development of, of new aircraft and such. You would take these. Is it? Is it 2 7 47 or is it just one? Because Air Force, [00:46:32] Chris: no, it's just one from Qatar I believe. Obviously the Air Force have got two, the Air Force have two that they're converting currently. You [00:46:37] Matt: need, you need two. Um, yeah, so you have a, you need two and spare that you can, like if one breaks down on a foreign trip somewhere and you can't get the pieces part for it right away. Okay, we'll put, we'll put the boss on the other 7 47 to fly home. So there's issues with that. [00:46:54] Chris: Yeah, well the Air Force ones as well have the, um, so this is why the 7 47 or the VC 20 fives are important 'cause they have the capability and a nuclear conflict that Yeah, you could all be run from that. I don't think even the other jets that the Air Force have, have all of that capability [00:47:10] Matt: that gets, that gets tricky. So this was, this was a problem back, um, during nine 11 on that day. Right. So Bush and, and his crew, or they were famously at that elementary school in Florida when they found out. Right. And then they took off and then Air Force One went out over the Gulf of Mexico on those first. Few hours with a fighter escort and everything. The communications suite on Air Force one at the time was not nearly sufficient to conduct, you know, the, the conference calls and all the meetings and stuff that they needed to do in those immediate hours after on, on, on nine 11. Right. Which is why they landed at, um, off foot Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, which is the headquarters of us, uh, strategic command. Right. And there's a well documented, you know, how they went down and there's a pill box that's on the, that was on the front lawn of the, of the building where, um, STRATCOM is headquartered. They went into that pill box on the front lawn and went down into this bunker onto the facility. Um, and where they had, you know, the, the communications equipment stuff that they needed, um, to, you know, meet about nine 11 at the time. Um. That's all since been upgraded dramatically on, on Air Force one on these same aircraft, um, since then, but no, to that point, I mean, you would have to, they would have to strip the, strip the aircraft down to the bare fuselage, right? So all the gaudy, middle Eastern dictator chic fittings and interiors, that has to go right. And then you kind of have to build it back up again with these really sophisticated, advanced, secure, classified communication suites. Um, countermeasures, uh, yeah, there's all like, it's just, it's just. You know what they could [00:49:05] Chris: do, Matt, [00:49:05] Matt: you know what they could do? What's that? [00:49:06] Chris: Take the interior from the gifted jet. Just shove it in the new, the ones that they're already working on? Yeah. Just, just, and they might just finish it in time, right? [00:49:14] Matt: Just give him a gold plated toilet and like he'll be happy or something. Maybe. Um, I don't know. It's just like, put it, put a tanning bed in the front, you know, and, and he'll be like, okay, I can use this now. But the idea that they would be able to do all of that, which would cost billions the process that I'm, that I'm just, that I just explained, [00:49:36] Chris: and especially it would cost more if you try and speed it up unnecessarily as well. Because you have to throw money at the property. [00:49:40] Matt: Absolutely. So you're taking a program that is already over budget, over schedule by years, and you're making it so much worse. Yeah. To, to potentially cut all kinds of corners around national security and safety and counterintelligence and all kinds of those issues. You're cutting all those corners just to give him a, a, a plane that is aesthetically more pleasing to him that he can then use for a couple years. All of this done at the public expense and then after that, okay, he says it's going to his presidential library and that it would eventually be like a fixed exhibit at the library. Like there's a, an old Air Force one that, that Reagan used. I think it was, it was the model before the VC 25 a's came online. Mm-hmm. That is at the Reagan library in California. Um, he says that that's what it would go to, but there's. No indication that that would happen immediately, that he then wouldn't keep flying around in this for his own purposes. Um, afterwards. It just, it's, it's something that just patently makes no sense, that is just so egregiously corrupt and wasteful and unnecessary and, and, and self-obsessed. That just so goes above and beyond totally. That you have people like Laura Loomer saying, hold on, I'm not sure about this. It's insane. It's insane. [00:51:14] Chris: Yeah. I was just looking at the Boeing C 32, which is the kind of dubbed Air Force two. [00:51:20] Matt: Yeah. That the First Lady and the Vice President and the Secretary of State used. Yeah. [00:51:25] Chris: Yeah. Now, if you are all about saving money. Theoretically you could just use that plane instead. [00:51:30] Matt: You could, yeah. And sometimes the president does. Yeah. Use those aircraft for President Biden use it a lot. Yeah. Uh, Obama has used it before. Um, I'm not sure if Trump used it at all in his first term. I would be surprised if he did not set foot on it at all. It would make sense [00:51:47] Chris: for domestic flying because it's two engines which saves money on fuel. Yeah. I think the 7 4 7 is probably better for international stuff. But the 7, 5 7, which the C 32 is based on, is more than capable to fly abroad and do refueling stops. [00:52:01] Matt: I could see, I could see real reasons why consistently using a C 32 for presidential airlift operations would not be a. Option in the long run. I see reasons for that, but I also go back to there. He wants to do all this stuff just for himself, just for a couple years when there's nothing actually wrong with the current Air Force ones. There's nothing wrong with it. So he's gonna, again, we're gonna Okay with the, with the economic message and stuff around the tariffs and stuff. He's saying that your kids at Christmas time, maybe they only need two dolls, or they need five pencils instead of like a hundreds, but he's going to get a new plane simply because he wants one at public expense. When, you know, we have this huge deficit issue when, you know, there's all kinds of, we gotta cut spending or we're gonna go broke and I'll be yada, yada, yada, yada, yada. And then he goes, and then he's gonna get to keep it afterwards. It's just utter, I mean, good luck at the midterms with this message. Mm-hmm. Mm. Oh, no, totally, totally. There is no way that the Air Force and the Secret Service, the White House military office, can ever be a hundred percent certain that that aircraft is entirely secure for presidential use. [00:53:21] Chris: Yes. [00:53:21] Matt: None. None. [00:53:22] Chris: No, no. Because there could be bugs deeply in it. I mean, the one example I was gonna bring up was the US Embassy in Moscow, which was discovered to have bugs, you know, built within the building structure. We don't know where this plane's been and who's had access to it. And it would require, it would require probably months, if not a year plus, just to do a proper check. 'cause a lot of these devices might be so deeply embedded in the airframe, they might not even be switched on, you know? Yeah. Um, it's not like you just go and get a magic wand and a movie and go around doing your bug test. Yeah. It's not quite that simple. No, my, my, my, my worry is. So he is gonna be gifted this jet, and we know Trump is a bit of a, should we put it politely? He's a bit of a maverick and kind of is known to do his own thing despite what people tell him to do. Putting it politely. Yeah. Yeah. And my, my concern is that he'll order a repaint of the plane, which will probably happen and he might just start using it despite what people tell him. Like after he's outta office. No, I mean, in office. Whilst in office. I could see it. I could see it happening. Yeah. I could be wrong, but I could see him doing it. [00:54:26] Matt: There is, which is, which is to the point that like, if, if, if. They do this, if they take this airframe and they modify it and go through all the stuff that would need to be done to make it even remotely suitable for presidential use, it costs billions of dollars and takes years probably just as long as he has left in his term, to do so effectively. Right? The only way he gets around that is if he says, no, just put me on it anyway. And I don't know where the friction comes in with the Secret service in the Air Force, putting the National Command Authority on a plane that is entirely not suitable for use. It is. It is. Crazy Town is the clinical term. [00:55:08] Chris: It is. And I, and I, you know, I, I, I won't say it is gonna happen, but I could see it happening. Um, so let, well, only time will tell. [00:55:15] Matt: I don't know. Time will tell as of this recording. I don't know that this is entirely, there is, this is one of those things where like, you see it once in a while where they float something, they come out with something and they're so high on their own supply that they don't really see how this is gonna play in advance. And then the backlash is just so patently like, you're doing what? Why, you know, something even like Laura Loomer's coming out like, Hmm, I'm not so sure about that. That they then tend to, I don't know, I just get back to, there's nothing actually wrong with the current. Air Force ones? [00:55:51] Chris: No, not at all. So it's, it's all for show. Yeah. So it's, it is all ego driven and performative. Yeah. Is where I would say it's, but you know, [00:56:00] Matt: yeah. The current, um, air Force ones that have been used by presidents of either party for 48 years, um, it doesn't have a gold plated toilet. Uh, and there isn't a tanning bed in the front, so he can't, he can't use it. I can't think of, there is no other reason. [00:56:16] Chris: Yeah. No, indeed. Indeed. Well, that is us for today. Now, a couple of things before we leave you B, um, so we're not gonna be. Doing an espresso martini next weekend. Um, so we're, we're taking a small break, so that means there will not be a show on the 24th, but there will be a show on the 31st of May, and that show we would like some listener questions. Now, we, uh, traditionally do listen to questions sort of on our last show. Of the month. Um, so please drop us an email at Secrets and Spies podcast@gmail.com. Send us your question or the topic, send us a link that's relevant to the topic you would like us to discuss. And please also include how you'd like your name read out on air and, you know, the attributed location. Whether it's, you know, you know, you can say just the country. You can say your town. Don't say your street address because that's probably not a good idea. But, you know, just give us a general idea of where you are and where we can read it out. Um, we did get some listener feedback regarding our episode in Australia, but I'm gonna save that for the episode on the 31st. 'cause it's not, it's good to consolidate feedback and put it into that show rather than. Every week kind of having a major feedback session. However, if we see we get a lot of feedback all the time, then we might change that. But for now I'd rather just save that to the 31st so we could address it properly and even incorporate into, you know, our kind of question answers session. So that will be out on the 31st of May, which is the SA day. So please get your questions and topics in by the 27th of May, the 27th of May, get them in. We have some interesting episodes coming up. I've got a very interesting one on the kind of, uh, connection of sort of pagan beliefs between Ukraine and Russia coming up with Ross Downing. That's gonna be quite a detailed episode and quite niche actually and and quite unique. Um, and there will be an element of it that will benefit people watching on YouTube. So if you don't traditionally watch this on YouTube, that particular episode, there is a section that will be of a great benefit to you if you watch it on YouTube. 'cause we're gonna be looking at some images of symbols. But I'll remind you in that episode to do that. Um, and then apart from that, just a huge thank you to everybody who has been supporting this show, listening to us regularly. You know, we're, we're, as I mentioned in previous episodes, we really have been seeing a massive bump up in the last few months, um, which is very encouraging. Yes. Um, and, you know, if you're enjoying this show, if you're enjoying the show, please do leave a review. 'cause, uh, as you may have noticed that we've been bombarded with a lot of negative reviews in the last few months, and it'd be nice to kinda get the balance back to what I think is a fairer place. So leave a, a fair review, you know, if you'd like what we do, say that if you think what we do is good and. Fine. I'm sorry you don't like what we're doing, but, you know, but I, I'm pleased to say that I think the majority of people who do listen to this show on a regular basis do seem to like what we're doing. Just, you know, keep us posted if there's anything we could be doing slightly better or there's something you want us to talk about, you know, that's, that's what we want. So, uh, Matt, anything for you you wanna mention before we park company or? [00:59:27] Matt: No, I am, um, very eager to hear that, to hear that episode that you just, that you just described. It's, it's an interesting one. Yes, I've heard it, uh, in the pre-production and a bit since it was recorded. I'm, I'm eager to hear it myself. Yeah, [00:59:40] Chris: yeah, yeah. No, Ross is a fantastic guess and it's gonna be very detailed and, um, yeah, very, very interesting. And, and, you know, honestly, it was something I didn't even really think about until Ross approached me and I was like, Ooh, this is very interesting. And it kinda links in nicely with a few. Kind of requests we've had from, um, you know, from regular listeners as well to talk about some of the religious aspects of both the war and Ukraine. Um, and even some of the, the things around sort of, uh, the rise of the far right in, uh, Western culture as well. So we're, we are doing, you know, we're sort of slowly crafting some episodes that are kind of, uh, that were cater to that. So, uh, yeah, so bear with us. So thank you again, everybody for listening. Just a reminder we're not on next week. We will have those interviews coming out. Um, and then apart from that, we will see you on the next show. Have a wonderful weekend, and we'll catch you in next time. Take care. Bye. [01:00:45] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and spies.