Former Mi6 Chief Richard Moore On The Changing World Order

TITLE: Former MI6 Chief Richard Moore on the Changing World Order | WSJ CHANNEL: WSJ Events DATE: 2026-05-20 URL: https://youtu.be/f-7h2GTuOX8 ---TRANSCRIPT--- This is a consequential Davos, I think we can all agree. Um and I was going to start by actually citing the chief executive Dow Jones, who I was at a dinner with last night, who said, “I can’t work out whether I’m attending the last Davos of the old world order or the first Davos of the new world order.” So, I wanted to ask you which one you think it is. Well, I it’s a it’s a it’s a great phrasing, isn’t it? But these things never tend to be a sort of moment in time. They’re a gradual reckoning of uh various things happening in the world. And and you know, I spent 38 years in in intelligence and diplomacy and I’ve never seen the world as contested and uh with as few guardrails as it has at the moment. You have the rise of China and everyone coming to terms with the huge growth in economic, uh political, and and military power of China. You have the most blatant challenge to the international order uh through Putin’s aggression against uh Ukraine and still unresolved. Uh still an issue which I think should be at the top of the international agenda. You’ve got the rise of many other powers, India. We were before we came on stage and we got Turkey, a lot of powers which are, you know, making their own imprint on the world stage. And and you have an unconventional US president um who, you know, thinks that the uh former sort of traditional methods of statecraft um haven’t really delivered the goods and is determined to do it differently.

So, this time a year ago, all of this sort of new, these new um things that we’re having to get used to would have been on your desk. Uh but because you were still in in post a year ago, how relieved are you that you’re that you got out just in time? [laughter] Well, it’s very nice to be sitting in Davos observing uh what others are doing. I’m not relieved. You know, it was time for me to to move on and I was lucky enough to hand on to a superlative successor in Blaze Metreweli. Um but you know, again, there’s no particular moment, isn’t it? But it certainly has been a pretty extraordinary start to the year.

It has. Now, there’s a lot to get through, but before we sort of get into the sort of meat around the Greenland and all the rest of it, I just wanted to ask you specifically about the decision by the British government to give the go ahead to the mega Chinese embassy. Uh there are people who are saying that this is a big threat to British security. There are even American lawmakers saying this is a threat to US intelligence. Do you think it was the right decision to give it the go ahead? Well, I’m I’m always slightly bemused by this. You know, countries have to have embassies. You know, that we have one in Beijing. Uh they’re going to have one in London. Uh there is a lot of talk about the size of it. You know, you I’m you know, I’m sure that can be debated. Um but one of the point which people seem to lose in this is that uh the Chinese had uh seven sites before and they’re being consolidated on the one place. And I can tell you that my colleague Ken McCallum, and he said this publicly, is much happier having that in one place. And of course, uh embassies um activity comes out of embassies, which I’m sure my colleagues in MI5 will monitor. But I don’t think this is probably the foremost issue we should worry about and when we think through the challenge that China presents.

Okay. So, um on Greenland, which is obviously the big talk of the of the week and certainly of today, do you I just wanted do you have any sympathy with President Trump’s position on Greenland? Well, look, let’s let’s step back from this perhaps in more than one sense. And look at the issue and there is a genuine issue of strategic competition opening up in the high north because of climate change, the polar caps are melting and there are sea lanes opening up, which of course Russia as an Arctic power, China as a new category that it has invented, a near Arctic power, um are keen to exploit those and that poses a threat to the West, to the alliance. And it’s important that we address that issue. It’s a real issue. Um but I think it’s addressable. Um there is a was until very recently a very obscure 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark and under the terms of that agreement forged in the beginning of the Cold War and without limit, there is no end date to this, the US is able to deploy into Greenland all of the troops and equipment to be able to do space defense and all the other things that people are talking about. That is possible now. So, I very much hope that we can be respectful of the national security needs of the United States as part of the broader alliance. We can all work together and we can find a way where we satisfy the administration’s perfectly genuine needs to satisfy its national security agenda.

But so, regardless of what the outcome today is or in the next few few weeks [clears throat] on Greenland, I think it’s fair to say that there has been a rupture of trust between uh Europeans and the US. What does that mean for intelligence sharing? Uh intelligence sharing uh tends to be, uh I’m glad to say, pretty insulated from the ups and downs and the occasional uh spats within the alliance because that sharing of intelligence is done in the national interest of both parties who are sharing it. We, you know, we don’t do it. It’s not an act of charity for the United States to share with the United Kingdom. It’s not an act of charity for us to do likewise. It works for both of us. It’s part of an incredibly close partnership. So, you know, I’m not there, Emma, but I very much doubt it’s having any impact on that. Really? So, you think sort of normal channels of communication are all up and running? At the moment, we’ll see. You know, we’ll have to see how things develop. But not, you know, I do nothing has happened yet.

Um and then still on Greenland, is there any evidence of I mean, you mentioned that the, you know, the geo the sort of geographical landscape is is changing as well as the geopolitical one. But is there any evidence of a more imminent threat from China or Russia in the Arctic or or is it as it ever was? I think it’s a slow boil. I think it’s a, you know, as as the ice melts, therefore the opportunity to push further into the high north presents itself. But look, there’s a very straightforward example of Russia backed by China challenging the West and it’s in Ukraine. Uh this is the most blatant challenge to the international order posed since the Second World War. It’s ongoing. We still need to ensure that Putin does not succeed in that and he is backed to the hilt by China. This is something that sometimes I feel people sort of think China’s over there. With without China, Russia would have lost. It’s as simple as that. The the headlines are grabbed by uh the North Koreans, you know, donating troops in Kursk or uh those Iranian drones that came in at the beginning uh of the conflict quite early on the conflict. But the thing that keeps Putin uh in Ukraine is Chinese support. Chinese support in terms of supplying uh the chemicals that go into his artillery shells, Chinese components that go uh into uh his drones and his missiles. And so, if you want to push back against uh Russia and China, I would say the most urgent issue is Ukraine and the issues of the high north are real and they need to be addressed, but the urgency for me is in Ukraine.

So, it’s sticking with Ukraine then, what how would you see given the reality of where we are on Ukraine, what would what would be a good outcome for you? I mean, would it be that they very soon agree on some sort of peace plan uh that involves, you know, various clauses around security. I don’t know. I mean, what what for you would be a realistic and good outcome for Ukraine? obviously everyone wants to stop the slaughter in Ukraine. So, uh and I see uh in the Ukrainians, in particular in President Zelenskyy, someone is prepared to make extraordinary sacrifices for peace. He’s prepared to give up de facto 20% of his country. That’s an extraordinary act, but he’s prepared to do it to stop the fighting. Um and of course, the Ukrainians are under pressure. Uh they have to be in these circumstances. So, I would like to see that outcome with proper guarantees that Putin doesn’t just come back. And remember, you know, this started in 2014, not February 2022. And uh he stopped for a while and then he came back. So, if you’re a Ukrainian, you have to have the sort of guarantees that people are talking about in order to stop it. And a final comment, Emma, is this is all lovely, but it requires Putin to desire to stop. And this is the problem. There was never a sign when I was in that job and I am not aware of anything since to suggest that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin wants to stop grinding forward in Ukraine. Until until the pain level goes up for for Putin and until uh we lean in harder with the Ukrainians to help them to stop defense the civilians being bombed out of their apartments and houses, him destroying their energy supply in the in the midst of winter. These are war crimes and somehow we’ve all become a bit normalized to it. But every time you see that on your television, that is a war crime happening in front of us. So, we should be supporting the Ukrainians and we should be hammering Putin at home. There is still more we can do to make it painful and when we get his pain threshold up and he begins to feel that his grip on power might be threatened if he carries on in Ukraine, he’ll come and [snorts] do a deal with you.

Okay, so how do we get that pain threshold up and is there a role for intelligence there? I mean, we saw how smart the Ukrainians were with that operation that they did with the the drones that were hidden in the trucks. That was a very smart operation. Are there more things we could be doing to get that pain threshold up? Yeah, sure. But a lot of this is is fairly obvious to us. It’s you know, give them more air defense so that they can do a bit you know, better job of protecting their people. Allow them to use long-range missiles to cause pain to the Russians back in the deep. At the moment, you know, the the Ukrainians fight on their soil against the Russians. The Russians fight from all over a very large country Russia with impunity in in many cases. So, that yes, there’s lots more that can be done. Of course and the Ukraine this this place Davos, I mean I I’ve been here a couple of days is full of conversations about the extraordinary innovation and ingenuity of the Ukrainians. Everyone in the defense groups that I’m going at is all talking about how on earth do we replicate what the Ukrainians are doing. So, we have a system to play into. Their their defense industry is still under capitalized. Just pure cash enables the Ukrainians to build more drones.

So, we I think it’s one of the interesting things that has come out of Ukraine as you say is this incredible ingenuity and we did have that great example of how they hid the drones in the trucks and which led to sort of Brilliant operation. Brilliant operation. Not not dissimilar to the operation that we saw in Syria and Lebanon with the Israelis and the the exploding pages. Both of these point to a new form of sort of tradecraft if you like that’s more about sort of amateur operatives on the ground and brilliant technology coming from outside or within. Tell me a bit about how the craft of intelligence or or tradecraft has changed from when you started it out in the intelligence world. Well, it in some ways it’s new and old, isn’t it? So, some of the tech clearly in that brilliant Ukrainian operation where do you remember they you know, they they smuggled drones in secretly into Russia into the far east of Russia and they were able at the given moment to with drivers who knew didn’t know what they were carrying were able to you know, take the top off remotely and then the drones lifted off and were controlled from back in Kiev. Remarkable. Drone technology didn’t exist. But if you were to go back to the extraordinary Norwegian heroes who carried out with the help of the special operations executive the destruction in operation Telemark of the German heavy water factory in Norway, you’d see some resonance there and and that’s why Blaze Metcalfe alien her first speech talked about plugging into that old tradition. So, I think there’s a new and old there. I mean, the difference from when I when I I joined in antiquity you know, in 1987 and I learned to type on a manual typewriter. You know, the whole kind of tech thing. It’s always been there. You know, we did secret writing in the early part of the 20th century. Technology’s always been part of our game. But it’s of a massively different order clearly now than it was.

I think I will take a little sidebar if you to tell everybody about how you were recruited because of course in popular imagination your tutor at Oxford invited you in for a fireside chat and a a glass of sherry tapped you on the shoulder. Is that what happened back in 1987 or whatever it was? I mean, I have to start by saying this is not how we do it nowadays. Any any any Brits of viable career stage please apply online. Happy to look at your application. I’m sure my old my old team. But I’m I mean slightly tragically it was I don’t remember the sherry. [laughter] But you do remember the fireside. I I absolutely do. I was approached and I even to this day even though he’s passed away I won’t name the the dawn the the tutor. Was he a history dawn by any chance? No, don’t start fishing. Don’t start fishing and don’t start fishing. But he but he said I remember he said Richard he knew I was interested in the foreign office at that time. And he said Richard would you be interested in a career in an alternative field of foreign affairs. And I must have been a very naive 20-year-old because I had no idea and then I turned up at a very posh building just off the mall. And somebody interviewed me and the rest is history as they say. And at that point the penny dropped. The penny well they did actually tell me at that point. [laughter] Which I was very excited and I’m afraid the foreign office And and started to fade in my in my favor.

How and just tell us a bit about what it was like living a sort of double life if you like. I mean, how many people in your immediate circle were you able to talk to and what kind of strain did it put on you and your family? It’s may some people may not know in this room. But I as the chief you’re the only avowed the only named member of staff. So, everyone else is under is undercover. Now, if you’re very senior and you’ve been around a bit then probably people are beginning to begin to guess or you appear under a loose alias in the Financial Times or something like that. But but people starting out yes, we do still ask them not to tell everybody. I mean, they they they can tell close family. That’s fine. But you know, as soon as you tell somebody you’re you’re you know, you’re opening the circle of trust and it does put a particular strain not just on on the individuals because of course you’ve got to kind of fib a bit about you know, where you work and you know, you can’t talk about stuff down the pub. But I think uniquely as an organization we then ask that of close family members. I’m always really conscious of that. And the moment that you decide when you’re going to tell your kids for example. So, tell us about that moment for you because I I know there came a point where you decided you had to tell your kids. Yeah. And they were in their teens, is that right? Yeah, mid teens. Everyone does it at you know, some people don’t. You know, it’s it’s a personal choice whether you tell them or not. But we decided that mid teens is the right time and they’ve been brilliantly discreet throughout [laughter] and very loyal.

Good. Um So, but latterly then in your role what what how did you how did the kind of person operative you were looking for change? I mean, presumably you have a much more a different kind of intake now. So, what what what is MI6 looking for in an operative when it when it recruits? In in terms of our officers and the people you know, in many ways MI6 hasn’t changed. You need people who are pretty entrepreneurial pretty adaptable but with a very strong ethical center because I’m going to ask them and put them in my former job. I’m still struggling with my tenses. You’re going to put them in situations which are difficult ethically. You know, because you are talking about you know, deceit and all of these issues. So, you need people who are very ethically centered. So, we look for that. We don’t want Walter Mittys. We don’t want large egos. How do [snorts] you screen? who can do the job. What’s the sort of screening process? So, how do you know whether you’re dealing with a a Walter Mitty or a sort of flake for want of a better word? I mean, what what are you looking for? It’s a very very thorough process. You go through a lot of stuff a lot of psych evaluation. You go through a lot of security vetting. You are being asked to give up a lot of your privacy in that in that process. So, it’s a very demanding process to try and ensure that we do get the right type of people and I have to say you know, generations of various letter letters at the end of them you know, the the commitment to mission and service is as strong now as as it was when I joined.

But nevertheless is the role of the kind of sole operator the sort of double 07 if you like. Is is is that less important now than it was because of technological changes? It was never very accurate and you know, it’s it’s a wonderful thing Bond and it gives us you know, global reach in terms of our brand that you know, people would I think many people in this room and at Davos would die for in the in the commercial world. But it is slightly misleading, isn’t it? It’s a lone operator who uses violence very frequently is is almost always insubordinate to M the job that I used to do. So, that’s not what you want. You want teamwork and as Blaze said in her opening speech you’re nowadays you’ve got to be we’ve got brilliant technologies. Maybe a quarter to a third of the people in those in the service are technologists proper. But even if you’re a case officer someone like me in my earlier incarnation to go out there and recruit and run secret agents in the most difficult places in the world either in a hostile state or in the margins or in the in the heart of a of a terrorist group then nowadays you’ve got to be digitally literate. You’ve got to understand both the threat technology poses to your operations and the opportunity that technology presents for you to do your operations more successfully.

So, tell us a bit more about the threat that that technology poses. I mean, with how is AI disrupting the intelligence world or or or what kind of challenges it’s posing? Well, AI disrupts everything, doesn’t it? As we’re all learning. So, of course, we’re not immune to that. And it has both it has both positives and negatives. It It on the one hand, AI means that your ability to fill in data and and identify people who might be, you know, one of those brave men or women in in Russia or whatever who might be prepared to work with you, then really helps. On the other hand, clearly, our job is to keep relationships with these extraordinary men and women secret. They are often taking significant risks to work with us, and they have to trust us look after them. And we have a, I think, an unrivaled track record in doing that. And in order to do that, you have to be fully aware of the sort of surveillance environment that people are operating in.

Do you Have you I I I think I may have read somewhere I mean, I don’t know whether it’s true that you hire people, you know, in order to have the right sort of the people with the right qualifications, you’ve hired hackers in the past to help meet this technology a very dramatic term, isn’t it? But I mean, I you know, you you’re surrounded at Davos. Not many of them describe themselves as hackers. They describe themselves as cyber security specialists. So, we have cyber security specialists, Emma. And do you find it hard to recruit people who who really have that sort of level of intelligence? You know what? We We don’t find it hard to recruit people because the the mission is such a strong pull. And MI6 is a cool place to work. So, I think that isn’t an issue. You know, I I I always felt very strongly that I needed to look after my senior and experienced technologists because I was very aware that a number of the companies on the prominent you know, prominently on the promenade would snap them up and pay them a huge amount more. So, they got a lot of love. Yes. Because replacing somebody 15 years into a career with a skill set they have adapted to intelligence work is is tough.

What do you think sort of looking into the future now? What do you think of the sort of threats that that we haven’t sort of that we’re not thinking about, the sort of black swan threats that might come as a surprise? Well, the great we need any more, but you know. Yeah, I think we got plenty. I mean, the great cop out, Emma, I think is to say that if it’s a black swan, You don’t know. I’m not going to spot it. But do you think are there parts of the world that we’re not paying enough attention to? Ah. You know, I think focus is required in this. You can’t dash around too much. You need focus. That’s why, you know, you heard how passionate I feel about Ukraine. Yeah. It’s because it’s the one. If we If we lose the test of wills there, then, you know, you have to really worry about the message that we’re sending both to Putin, of course, whose, you know, stomach will grow with the eating, but but also Xi Jinping, the leader of China, will draw conclusions if we don’t see it through and make sure that Ukraine gets a peace which is a fair and a sustainable one. But of course, there are a whole pile of of issues that probably don’t get either the attention because of scarce resources of my of my team perhaps as much as as they might have wished or indeed the media. And you just have to look at some of the issues around Africa, sub sub, you know, sub-Saharan Africa, some of the really very difficult issues between herders and and farmers and the way in which climate is driving instability, migration, all of these things. It’s quite a cocktail, and it’s quite difficult to maintain focus on those with some of the other things which are taking up our attention.

Talking of which, I want to go back to China and some of the sort of story lines or or sort of developments that are playing out here you know, this week. Some people are saying that with America President Trump sort of disrupting things the way he is, it’s it’s it’s inevitable that Europe will be moved back towards China because it needs to have a partnership with somebody predictable. And if America is going to turn its back on Europe, then, you know, inevitably they’ll be pushed more towards China. What do you What do you think about that? Do you think there’s a real risk in getting closer to China? Do you think where we were with this sort of standoff was a better place to be than than one where we’re sort of hugging China or China is hugging Europe more closely? What What would I say on that? NATO is the most successful alliance in history. It should be nurtured and valued. And I think it is hugely to the benefit of the United States and all the other allies. So, you know, that’s my comment on that. Let’s look after that. And then I don’t see the scenario you describe in any way being likely. But of course, China is a very large power. You can’t ignore it. And all of us trade with China. My own country has over 100 billion pounds worth of bilateral trade with China. And and my my the government I formally serve is very keen to increase that trade with China as are most including the United States. But China also presents And by the way, there are some issues which, you know, if we think about how we’re going to evolve AI in a way that we all feel comfortable that agentic AI is under the control of the human race, then a conversation with the Chinese is going to be necessary on that subject at some point. And then there’s a whole pile of ways in which China is pushing against our interests within the international system. And indeed in our own countries, you know, they’re very active in the United Kingdom in terms of cyber penetration and efforts on that. They’re very active and sometimes in ways that we find intimidatory towards their diaspora populations. That’s not acceptable in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in a democratic country. And it’s very clear that, you know, we we want our academic freedoms protected in those countries. So, I think it’s a mixture with China, as always, of having a robust engagement with them in order to advance those things where we can cooperate with them. And then being very very firm about our red lines on on unacceptable behavior.

Okay, so I’m going to open things up to questions in a minute. So, get your thinking caps on. But I’ve got two more questions first. First The first one is about drones. We’ve talked about AI, but the other huge technological development that we’ve seen has been drones, which have become the sort of defining technology of the modern battlefield. Who do you think is going to win that race? And how much does it matter? Oh, I don’t know that you know, that would be highly speculative on my part. But it is an extraordinary thing, how isn’t it? Over the last 3 years, we have seen played out on the battlefield in Ukraine just how dominant drones are. I think it’s something like 80 or 90% of the battlefield casualties are now caused by drones. I think most people understand now that, you know, the front line in Ukraine is not at all a sort of World War I sort of trench. They are often in trenches. But it’s very small groups of people moving around the battlefield space and very very rarely exposing themselves to what’s above because drones are everywhere all over that battlefield space. So, it is very dystopian, I have to say, in terms of the way it looks. So, it’s it’s very dominant. And you can see that using underwater or water drones I I’m I’m sure there’s a better technical term somebody in the room will know. But, you know, the Ukrainians have used drones at sea to drive an entire large navy out of the Black Sea. It’s remarkable. So, it is future. I’m again, I’ve had been surrounded by conversations today about that type of technology and the way that it’s evolving. Everyone [clears throat] is is developing their their own ways of doing this. And I have to say, you know, the Russians have been faster followers than perhaps we thought they might be in terms of their own drone development because they’ve been helped first by the Iranians and and then by the Chinese. So, yeah. But I come back to the point I made earlier on. If people want to learn about drones and how you produce them cheaply, fast, you go to Ukraine and you see the extraordinary ingenuity bootstrapping sort of approach to to to doing this that Ukrainians are are employing.

So, final question. What is the single most important piece of advice you would give to your successor? Oh, Anne Flis does not need any advice from me. She’s an highly experienced intelligence officer who knows a huge amount about technology. As you may know, she was Q before she became C. Strange use of initials in the British system. So, no, I have no advice. She knows what she’s doing. And she’s floating around in Davos. Is she? Spot her if you can. Oh, I didn’t know that. [laughter] Well, we do know what she looks like. I believe. Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That is Yes, of course.

Great. Okay, so does anybody have a question? We have one over here. Yes. Just if you could wait for the mic. Thank you. Thank you for the interview. And really, it was amazing. Quick question. When you were referring to the threat of Russia, you referred a lot to Vladimir Putin. I’ve I’ve checked that he’s 73 years old. Do we know what’s happening next? He’s not going to live forever. And you or the West, do we know what’s coming after Vladimir Putin? So, I I don’t think he’ll live forever. I I I see no sign that he’s in imminent threat of demise. And you may recall that slightly extraordinary conversation between him and Xi Jinping when he was talking about ways of ensuring longevity. So, maybe he’s cracked it. Uh we’ll have him for a while. Um I I don’t It’s impossible to tell what would what would come after Putin. It depends how Russia evolves uh over the next few years. You have to hope for the Russian people that that it evolves into a slightly more benign leader, but there’s no guarantee on that. And of course, what Putin has created in Russia um you know, unlike you know, China where there is the Communist Party has a structure and there’s an institutional place. Xi Jinping is perhaps the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao, but there is a structure. There isn’t really in modern Russia. Uh there are competing power centers and Putin uh plays those power centers off against one another. And whoever takes over from him has going to have to get up to speed quickly with that plate spinning um to stay in power. So, I don’t know what what will happen, to be honest. Um I often used to say in my former job that my job was to steal secrets um not to solve mysteries. [laughter]

And we have a question here. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Oh, it’s on? Okay. Hi, thank you for being here. It was really exciting to come and uh hear you speak. I was wondering if you could give us both a diagnosis and a prognosis of where Turkey is at. Um early in the 2000s, it looked like it was on a wonderful trajectory, sort of BRICS plus T. And uh was trying to join the economic uh union, not just a commercial trading area, very aligned to the West. And we now know what the last uh 20-plus years looks like. Has its hands in many pots and the economy’s in the toilet. So, wondering if you could comment on that given the time you spent there and what you know about it. Well, I think um what can I say about this? I think um people probably projected their own hopes uh onto Turkey back in those early years of the 21st century. And Turkey Turkey, you know, has uh throughout the period after Ataturk had, you know, it’s it’s not been quite the same democracy that you would see in other bits of Western Europe. Um it So, it’s still in that it’s still in is still in that stage. And clearly, Erdogan is a an extremely dominant leader who is, you know, he he does win elections. And he does deliver in many ways for the Turkish people, which is why he has been so successful over this period. Sometimes that’s uncomfortable because we may not agree with all of the methods that he employs to do that. Um my job was to look at uh Putin. It’s not my It’s up to the Turks how um Turkey is run, like most other countries. Um but it’s a very consequential country. Um it’s a very important, of course, because of its geography. It’s always going to be utterly critical to all of us us around it. If you look at all the issues, Black Sea nation looking up at Ukraine or Iran as one uh neighbor, Syria uh as a as another neighbor, and across uh the Mediterranean Sea, Israel and Gaza. So, it’s a it’s a it’s a hugely consequential uh partner. And we all try and um and manage our relationship um to best effect with this very important country. But I’m going to sort of I I’m not going to sort of go into my prescriptions for how um Turkey should be run.

Okay, one last question here. Thank you. Uh yesterday, our Prime Minister Carney talked about US-led rule-based order not coming back. Um he called on middle powers to band together for strategic autonomy. Um given the deep integration of all of our intelligence systems and uh you know, close relationship that historically we’ve had, how practical is that change to see middle powers come back for a new strategic autonomy? So, I I I repeat what I said uh slightly earlier on. Uh NATO is most successful alliance in history, and we should um we should hang on to it and really nurture it. And the Five Eyes relationship, which uh is the extraordinary relationship of trust that emerged out of the Second World War, starting off between UK and US, and then expanding to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, is a jewel uh in the crown uh of uh of the Western alliance. And uh it again, it’s not a sentimental construct. This is one where all five partners, and of course, there are huge disparities in size between the United States on the one hand and New Zealand on the other other, but we all contribute. And it helps us all. So, I think we’ll um try very hard to hang on into that. There is a broader issue, I think, particularly for Europeans. Is successive American presidents, some of them, you know, some of them have used different language than the current president, but all of them have called for Europe to do more in its own defense. And indeed, for Canada to do more in its own defense. That is a legitimate ask. And we are beginning to respond to it, I’m glad to say. But it’s still the case that uh Europe’s ability to deploy hard power is woefully inadequate. And we need to get onto that and focus on that. So, I think we should all Canada and uh Western Europeans up our game in terms of our defense capability.