Episode 732: Greenland, AUKUS, and the Arctic, with Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan

Waves of different groups seeking new homes from east and west have arrived and disappeared on Greenland’s hostile shores for thousands of years. In the modern era of nation states, it is Greenland’s unique location and potential resources that are drawing attention once again as her strategic position once again brings her to the front.

Today’s Midrats Podcast is going to start there with our guest, Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan.We will kick off with her latest book as a touchstone to our conversation, So You Want to Own Greenland?: Lessons from the Vikings to Trump.

Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan is a senior fellow with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and an expert associate of the French Ministry of Armed Forces’ Institute for Strategic Research. Most recently she was Head of Research for the Royal Australian Navy (Department of Defence). Dr Buchanan is co-founder of the polar warfare program (Project 6633) at the Modern War Institute of the West Point Military Academy. Before joining Australia’s Defence Department, Dr. Buchanan was Lecturer of Strategic Studies for the Defence and Strategic Studies Course at the Australian War College. Elizabeth holds a Ph.D. in Russian Arctic Strategy and completed her post-doctoral studies as a Maritime Fellow at the NATO Defense College in Rome. She has published widely on geopolitics, most recently with Australian Foreign Affairs, International Affairs, War on the Rocks, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Australian, and The American Conservative. Dr. Buchanan has been a Visiting Scholar with the Brookings Institution and was an analyst with Royal Dutch Shell. Elizabeth has three published books:: Russian Energy Strategy in Asia and Red Arctic: Russian Arctic Strategy under Putin. In addition to, So you want to own Greenland, she also has an upcoming book, Competitive Cooperation at the Ends of the Earth.

Show Links

• So You Want to Own Greenland?: Lessons from the Vikings to Trump, by Elizabeth Buchanan
• Australia must pivot to ‘pit-stop power’ for AUKUS to work, by Elizabeth Buchanan
• China's parade of military might raises big questions about the AUKUS muddle, by Laura Tingle
• Episode 708: The Icebreaker Imperative, with Peter Rybski
• Bering Strait Tunnel

Summary

In this episode of Midrats, Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan discusses her book on Greenland's strategic importance, the historical context of U.S.-Greenland relations, and the implications of China's growing influence in the Arctic and Antarctic. The conversation explores Denmark's role in Greenland's future, the challenges of independence, and the significance of AUKUS in the context of U.S.-Australia relations. The discussion emphasizes the need for a strategic approach to the polar regions amidst great power competition.

Takeaways

• The U.S. has a long-standing interest in Greenland, dating back to WWII.
• Denmark's control over Greenland is complicated by post-colonial dynamics.
• China's presence in the Arctic is growing and poses a challenge to U.S. interests.
• Australia's role in AUKUS is as a 'pit stop power' for U.S. submarines.
• The future of Greenland may hinge on its independence from Denmark.
• Public perception of Greenland's relationship with the U.S. is often disingenuous.
• The Arctic is becoming a global commons, complicating international relations.
• Australia faces challenges in defending its vast territory against Chinese encroachment.
• The U.S. needs to adapt its strategy to the changing dynamics in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Chapters

00:00: Introduction
01:41: Exploring Greenland's Strategic Importance
05:44: Historical Context of Greenland and U.S. Relations
12:14: Greenland's Future and Independence
16:42: Denmark's Role and Challenges
21:30: China's Influence in the Arctic and Antarctic

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:30):
Welcome to mid Rats with sal from Commander Salamander and
the Eagle One from Eagle Speak at seer Shure your
home for a discussion of national security issues and all
things maritime. And welcome board everybody. Thank you for joining
us for another edition of mid Rats, And because we
are alive today, always want to do the Altar call.
If you're with us live, go ahead and find the

(00:51):
chat room, roll right in there with some of the
usual suspects. If you have some observations you want to
share during the course of the show, or hey, maybe
you have a question you like for us to direct
our guests, that's the perfect place to do it. Mark
and I will be monitoring that during the course of
the show, and we always love to roll in your
good ideas to the conversation. But today we are going
to go to the High North with somebody from the

(01:14):
Great down Under. As we said in the preliminary discussions,
today we're going to bring on some of our friends
and allies from Australia. Actually a friend from one of
our allies down Under, a doctor Elizabeth Buchanan, Senior Fellow
at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and we're going to
probably touch on additional issues, but kind of kicking off today,

(01:37):
we are going to touch on her recent book and
a lot of the issues she's brought to put a
light on something that seven months ago got everybody's attention.
Her new book is So you want to Own Greenland?
Lessons from the Vikings to Trump, Doctor Buchanan, welcome aboard.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Thanks to having me. Boys really excited.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Well, it's great. You know we're doing this our time,
early evening and of course your early morning tomorrow in Australia.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
The future does arrive.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
Yes, yes, if you you don't have to predict the future.
You just got to get on.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
The phone to live.

Speaker 1 (02:10):
Well. I want to kind of just just as kind
of a scene setter, because you know, I was I
was at the at the last couple of years of
the Cold War. I was a newly meanted junior officer
in the Atlantic Fleet, and so we knew all about
the g I U K Gap, the Greenland Iceland United
Kingdom gap, and of course we all read Tom Clancy,
so we knew that. But then at the end of

(02:32):
the Cold War, Greenland kind of dropped off of most
people's radar. Uh scene until unless you were really paying
attention except for I mention now and then about a
comment related issues. Then lo and behold when Trump too
kicked off, it was above the full information and that
kind of opened a window for you. Wanted to talk
for a little bit about what what grab hold of

(02:54):
your your elbow and said, hey, we need to push
out a book on Greenland.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Incidentally, the on the title losing, so we need to
talk about Greenland or hey we need to talk about Greenland.
But before we jump into that one, which is a
very valid point considering the basic distance between Greenland and Australia,
I just wanted to jump on and give you a
little vignette. So you mentioned your early days on ships.

(03:18):
Was gi UK gap related. When I finished my PhD
in Australia from Russian Arctic strategy, which you know, a
little bit ahead of the curve there and problematic for
my dear parents, I popped over to the NATO Defense
College in Rome and I was given this amazing maritime

(03:40):
fellowship which was for the partners across the globe community
in NATO. They funded one person and you could basically
research to your heart's content, but you had to be
writing and investigating a topic that was of interest to NATO,
and I remember arriving my husband took military leave, so
we had a good six months together in Italy. I

(04:01):
had one one child strapped to my front and my
boss at the time there at the NATO Defense College said, right, Liz,
you know you're a polar expert and the Arctics of
interest to us right now. Now the Giuk Gap, what
do we do. We've got Russian submarines, we can't track anymore.
What's going on? I want you to deep dive and

(04:22):
investigate what we do with the Arctic in the high North.
And it was quite interesting. I sat in this researcher's
sort of bill at the hub that they put you in,
and I kind of stared at the desk and I thought, yikes,
institutional knowledge is something that is missing here. This is NATO,

(04:43):
the Defense College, and they are asking me why there
are Russian submarines working around the Giuk Gap and what's
the plan there. So the point was that all the
way from Australia, I'd realized that any defense and security institution,
wherever it is in the world, if we don't harness
and protect the knowledge and the history and lessons learned.

(05:07):
Then it makes it, you know, really difficult. We do
double the work. So I had basically dusted off the
Harmel doctrine for NATO, smacked it on the table with
my boss and said, right, you've done this before. It's
been a problem before.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
What worked.

Speaker 2 (05:19):
Geography didn't change, you know, history has trepped along, So
let's go back to principles. Roundabout way of saying, I
think what grabbed my arm and said right, the book, Liz,
was a intersection of frustration and passion, of course, and
then a hint of obsession. But this idea that we
were getting in Australia, which I'm sure was hapsing daily

(05:41):
for you guys in the States, that Trump was taking
Greenland or had designs just kind of seemed it was
kind of funny at first for me, and then as
an expert, quite frustrating because you've got a whole US
history there with Greenland, so it felt disingenuous to the debate.
And yeah, it turned into a book.

Speaker 3 (06:01):
Well, and a delightful book it is.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
Yes, go buy it everyone.

Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, it's except for the fact, once again our guest
is going to make us concerned about what's happening with
with another one of our sea lines of communication and
various choke points, because not only have you Greenland, you've
been all over Antarctica and uh and what the Chinese
are doing down there, so you are you're a full
and with your Russian work of course, so you're you're

(06:28):
like a full world cold cold work, cold cold work.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
Yes, yes, yes, And it's kind of ironic because I
was not born in the Cold War, So I think
that gives you some perspective, right, And so when people
say why wouldn't Australian be writing on Greenland? What could
you possibly know? And I swear you know, it gives
distance itself. Physical distance away from a problem, away from
a challenge, really gives you a different perspective, and I

(06:55):
would argue a different kind of objectivity. Yes, So please
rush out and buy the book.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
You can find the link on the show page. Little
podcast requirement is a union requirement of the podcast. You
know mentioned that, but yeah, but the link is there,
and it is Liz. It's what I call digestible. You
know a lot of times that people see, oh my god,
we have a PhD writing the book. I'm gonna have
to get out my Fussaurus and it's not like that
at all. It's very readable. It has a little bit

(07:23):
of whimsy here. But I like what you mentioned before,
we talked about how the argument, a lot of the
argument we saw later in this year was disingenuous like this.
This came as a bowl out of the blue, out
of or something out of Zeus's head. It didn't. All
you have to do is and I'd like to say
all the time. First thing, go find a globe or

(07:46):
get a map, and let's look at it. It's obviously
why why a North American power would be interested, especially
when you know how the Great Circle route goes from
North America to Europe. Why Greenland would be in poor
But this is in the first time that the United
States has looked at it, and right after the US
Civil War there was an inquiry. You know, we had

(08:08):
already you know, buying Danish territory is nothing new. That's
where the US Virgin Islands came from. Yeah, nineteen hundreds,
We've been there, done that. But what I did not know,
and this is one thing that when you read it
you go that slipped through my screen is you know,
here we are in the States, A lot of people

(08:29):
are talking about we have Trump too, we have Trump
won at the tail end of the Trump one administration
in twenty nineteen. It's not like Trump Too just pulled
this out of their back pocket. It was almost like
we were the Trump administration was picking up where they
left off. There was some not insignificant discussions and movement
as you outline back in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty

(08:52):
with American interest in Denmark and its place in North
American security.

Speaker 2 (08:58):
And it is sad. I think it's a sad indictment
of the media landscape to not be pulling up its
socks and doing its job. But there is a whole
story there. You've got, you know, what you call the
Seward Follies eighteen sixty seven. But it my sort of
point of history for the Greenland US relationship that I

(09:18):
kind of I guess it came with my was my
silver bullet if you will, about the enduring interest of
this and it's a basic it's a realist requirement for
Greenland to be closer to the US. I mean, after all,
just geographically speaking, and this is a northern cond island,

(09:40):
it is not European. But there was a section in
the book, just obviously prior to the Cold War era,
where I spoke about World War Two, and I feel like,
you know, world War Two we kind of close our
eyes over and you know, want to skip along. But
it was such an interesting time for Greenland, and I
think your Northern Europe as a whole. But you've got

(10:01):
the Danish is occupied, Denmark is occupied by Nazi Germany.
And using primary source information that is available to any
nerd that wants to dig through all of the cables
and the archives that I've kind of done a quick
cliff note summary for you in the book. You have
this amazing resource in the US at the State Department,

(10:24):
which is your office of the Historian, who and shout
out to James and his team who pulled together, did
classify and weave together your Foreign Policy of the US
History series, and oh my god, what a gold mine.
So in that series, I pulled out the cables and
the letters that were written from President Roosevelt to King

(10:45):
Christian Denmark, right, and this is the time when you've
got the Danish ambassador Kaufman stuck in DC trying to
pull together a way for the US to occupy Greenland,
to keep it safe from Nazi hands, and and just
reading through the series of back and forth letters between
Roosevelt and King Christian of Denmark, it is so clear.

(11:08):
It's there in black and white that Roosevelt is saying,
you would understand you cause them a dear friend. It's
not so friendly towards the end. The significance of Greenland
as part of your Danish realm to the security of
the United States of America. So this is not something
that just appeared under Trump. I guess the slower process

(11:31):
of reopening the US embassy so a consulate in Newark
in Greenland was you know, in Trump one era, but
so much has also occurred. So you've got sections which
I think is so interesting of the National Public Library
in Greenland. Fifty two thousand people live there, so those
that frequent the library are able to see entire sections

(11:55):
that are yes sponsored by the US Embassy. There's some
soft power there. We all do it of books about
the United States, books about history, books about politics, so
the relationship is well ingrained already, but it was such
a it was so frustrating, I think this is the
correct word to see it kind of weaponized in a
domestic political narrative in the way that it was because

(12:17):
it hides the fact that Greenland is your front doorstep, right.
The security of the United States of America sits not
in Washington, it sits out in Greenland. And I'll tell
you from an Australian point of view, we have similar
concerns with our overseas territories. They're strategically located Christmas Island,

(12:43):
Norfolk Island. We can't defend them, and we are rapidly
losing our near abroad to China. So for me, it
was kind of frustrating to watch this debate in the
US where it was like, no, you absolutely need to
be working with Denmark to have a solution because they've
dropped the ball when it comes to Greenland and that's

(13:05):
your back door step.

Speaker 3 (13:06):
Yeah, we have a long history. I mean, my dad
was an Air Force US Air Force officer and his
squadron used to operate out of Tully, which is now
called something like.

Speaker 2 (13:19):
Bore. So take the pee, take the pe. Here's my
aka Australian take on it. Take the p and make
it a b be do thick.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
Fix anyways, call it something different.

Speaker 1 (13:33):
But this is a family.

Speaker 3 (13:37):
Well my point was it going to be that that
the relationship we've always known, and we used Tully has
A as a forward base to allow the Dad's case,
the refueling of various bombers we kept in the air
above above Canada and other airspace to during the Cold War.

(13:58):
I mean, and that was in the fifties. It's not
like this is something that just sprung up or we've
known we've needed this place, and over time, obviously Tully
is as morphed into something else, but uh and and
and into an unpronounceable by me, a name of yeah, okay,
you keep saying it.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
But it also got politicized to the point where you
know it is this whole discussion about Trump taking Greenland
is So this is such a distraction because Denmark end
of the day points to Greenland and says, well, this
is part of our NATO, our alliance investment and our
sense effort. That's what they use. So it's kind of

(14:39):
a free pass to say, hey, this is what we
do for the.

Speaker 3 (14:41):
Alliance, but they what do they do to make that.

Speaker 2 (14:47):
Island? And that's why I wanted to use the real
estate metaphor throughout the book, because it's about having an
early warning front door system. You know, you want to
know if NICBM is going to fly through front door.
But we moved past that. And this is why I
think it's great that they've changed to their air to
the Badufik Space base, because now we're talking about, you know,

(15:09):
the importance of space and the space race, and it's
not the Soviets or the Russians. Yes, they're a bit
naughty up there, but again they've got legitimate strategic interests
and international law says you are the largest player in
the Arctic. But we've got someone who is absolutely not
an Arctic stakeholder, who the US has, oh under Biden,
allowed to internationalize the Arctic into a global commons and

(15:31):
it is not a global commons, you know. So the
Greenland Greenland is such is a thread that once you
pull on it, it brings together so much more. And
I guess at the end of my book I start
talking about the again the weaponization of some of the
polling that came out, which oh frustrated me to no
end because the questions and the way in which they

(15:53):
were stated to the Greenlandic people that were then reported
by the media again not completely rigorously assessed. The way
the question was set was either in either all so
would you like to leave Denmark and join the US?
Of course it's a no, but that is not an
overwhelming no. But that is not a reflective of what

(16:14):
the Greenlandic society and the Greenlandic people want. They want independence,
it's already been agreed. That's what they're heading towards. It's
not an either or, it's just on their own. They'll
need support, and I hope it comes from the US
and not from China when they're wedge to take Chinese money.
But yeah, I could go on forever about that. But
the way in which this whole political story is being

(16:35):
told is I'm going to say the word again disingenuous.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
And it's frustrated. I mean, there's a certain thread from
a North American point of view, there's a lot of
frustration with the political thinking that comes out of Scandinavia,
Denmark or way sir extent, Sweden and Finland is their
own little, private, private creation. There's a lot, there's a

(16:59):
lot of there's a lot of signaling, a lot of
a motive about something that's this very very serious. But
one thing there's always been a contradiction with with Denmark
when I was in Afghanistan. Denmark when I was in
Afghanistan was only spending one point three percent of their
GDP or so on defense the companies that they usually
just sent the company. I think maybe they had a

(17:20):
battalion there at one points down there. They fought kind
of like Australia did, relatively caveat free. You could use
them a lot. You didn't have this this you know
five like you did with the Belgians or the Spaniards.
Five pages of national caveats, which means all they could
do is, you know, paint attire. That's about it. But yeah,

(17:41):
they they when you when you look at their approach,
and it kind of sunk in after a while when
you mentioned it a bit ago. How they will they
will hoist the Greenland flag about look at what we're doing.
They don't spend much, but they'll they'll try to act
as much as they can. But it almost seemed in
a way that Mark was trying to feed two maybe

(18:02):
they need a therapist or something two national psychological needs.
One it's entirely performative, right like post colonial issues they
are trying to work through, but at the same time
trying to use the geography of Denmark to compensate for
what they feel like they should be more important in
the needle a lot.

Speaker 2 (18:18):
One hundred percent. So that was such a tricky one
for me to personally navigate because obviously Australians although I
am a Kiwi, so I guess I've got more complex
trauma unpack then than you do. But to navigate the
idea of a post colonial society, and you know, the
Danish I spoke about the their higi and how they're

(18:40):
all about, you know, Scandalavian equality, and half of the
discussion in Denmark. Sorry when it comes to Greenland is well,
of course they're independent, they're autonomous, well, autonomy and independent
and sovereignty or all different things. And then the Danish
will often point to the two thousand and nine and
Self Government Act, in which they say, yep, freedom, complete independence.

(19:05):
To the Greenlandic people is it's in motion. It's not
an if, it's a when, and we will support that process.
But then if you read the fine print, it says
got to have a referendum into Greenland. Now, we don't
know that that's not going to be a problem. The
majority of the Greenlandic fifty two or so thousand people
do want independence for their country. The footnote becomes the

(19:29):
Danish Parliament must approve the results of the referendum. Now
this is where the contradiction comes to life, and we're
not going to know which way forward or what the
outcome is until we're forced with the Danish decision to
approve the referendum results or not. Now, arguably, I would
say there's absolutely no way that they want to allow

(19:50):
this to happen. And I would say Denmark has everything
to lose, as you rightly stayed out, So why would
it approve greenlandic independence? They've got everything to lose here.
We got the prestige of being an Arctic stakeholder without Greenland,
Denmark if not an Arctic rim So we're talking here
about not in the prestige of that club, but also
the offshore Arctic ocean sea bed mineral claims, adric Carbon's

(20:13):
oil and gas, ridical minerals, uranium that is rich. So
if we do a basic you know, realism one oh
one assessment, you're not going to give away your pot
of gold. The next one is they're gonna have to
do much more NATO wise, they can't point to Greenland
and say, look, we look after the entire North Atlantic
early morning beams system and this is our heavy lifting. No, no, no,

(20:37):
you need to spend more now. But the big one
in my research covered something that we don't talk about enough,
and that was that if we have a greenlandic independent, secure,
then this might trigger the Pharaoh Islands to also exit
the kingdom. And of course without the Pharaohs, we're talking
about the end of the Danish realm. You just have Denmark.

(20:59):
So this is a psychologically immense, immense pressure that I
think the Danes are facing. And so I don't think
it has much to do with an anti Trump movement
or an issue with the US wanting to invest in
Greenland in the real estate way, you know, to secure

(21:20):
its back doorstep, because that's always been part of the
North American back door step. I think it is an
attempt by the Danish quite you know, perversely, to hide
the fact that they're going to have to spend a
lot more on their own defense and also on Alliance
defense commitments. But also they're going to have to face
up to the fact that they are an inconsequential player

(21:43):
in the global community and that's hard to swallow, right.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
So Mark, Yeah, I think that. I think first thing
is for the people haven't had the chance yet to
read the book. You do a good job of laying
out the background of how Denmark ended up with Greenland
and what they've done, uh to preserve their interest in it,
which as far as I can tell, it's mostly pain
a lot of the bills for the people who live

(22:09):
the fifty seven thousand people actually live in Greenland. Uh
but uh they And there's all this discussion of autonomy
and that there's a proposed constitution for the independence of
Greenland and all that. But you're right, which.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Has from the Yeah, yeah, so they email Copio.

Speaker 3 (22:29):
Yeah, And I think I think you really did a
good job of bringing the art of the deal, the
Trump book and his his negotiations into what he's been
doing over the last Mean, when you look at it,
it's five years, I guess, since he was four years
his first term and a year into his nearly a
year into his second term. What he's been doing, how

(22:51):
he approaches a problem like we need this asset, we
get this, yet, how do you get this? You know?
And I think that's a a key thing and I
think you have some suggestions that the UH of ways
to approach it as he as he goes along, and
you know, and you talk about the things like we
have with with Palau and the Commonwealth of the Northern

(23:14):
Marianas where they're they're they're not territories, well they aren't.
They're sort of territories, but there's there. They follow the
US umbrella and whether that would work UH in some
way with with green and do you want to talk.

Speaker 2 (23:29):
About the Yeah, I think that's the green line thing.
I mean you don't in my argument, Yes, the out
of the deal was amazing to break down the I
guess the psychology behind it, but also to I just
portray the principles of how Trump and co our approach
and the negotiation. But I also used other things like
a bit on the nose. Sorry to some viewers, but

(23:51):
I did use some themes of domestic violence, to course
of control and Stockholm syndrome, which are two psychological I
guess aspects in personal relationships. But I use them to
kind of frame the Danish Greenland relationship. And I hope
people do dig into that because I think it's really important.

(24:11):
So the Danes say yes, you've got independence, you've got
some degree of independence across your domestic platform. Any foreign
policy decisions obviously have to come through us. Any financial
decisions that you're going to make, we need to be
a part of that. And also once it reaches a

(24:33):
certain amount of your GDP, we then start reducing our allowance.
I'd say that we give you each year, which is
incredibly controlling and coercive. So for all the discussions about
the Danish, you know, being all Scandinadian happy and great
partners and allies, I think that they are incredibly I

(24:56):
don't want to say the right words or the Danes
and yes that's word I mean, but that's any politics, right,
And so it was really fun to watch recently the
Greenlandic people who that's a big point I think we
need to understand, is that over fifty percent of the
Greenlandic people who are employed at employment age are employed

(25:20):
by the government, the Greenlandic or the Danish government. So
there's all these different threads I think that matter here.
And also you've got a working age of the Greenlanded
people into cline, So who's actually going to man all
of these minds that you want to open up or
tourism fields that are going to enable self sufficiency in
economic terms in order to reach full independence so you

(25:42):
can run your country. It's so problematic. So what was
interesting to me in the last few weeks has been
the Greenlandic push to say, okay, EU, let's partner in
Jackson Capital into our sector. EU kind of asks EU
is a stressful kind of beast. I think it should
just end. But you know they go straight to the

(26:03):
Danish to ask for permission. So there's all these different layers.
It's not working effectively. So for me, I think when
it comes to the US, US needs to get in there,
and you don't need to own Greenland to use it
or to gain strategically from it. But if you don't
get there, you're going to get the Chinese in. We've

(26:24):
had a couple of attempts for the Chinese to buy
the airports in Greenland. They were frustrated by the Danish
who came through the twelfth that at the eleventh hour,
But I would argue, and I know in a previous episode,
you guys unpacked the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Defense China
tracker that we do and we've got an update on

(26:46):
that one coming scenes, so please keep your ears and
I was open for that, but the Chinese aren't going
to be backing up at truckload of cash in airports
and in infrastructure. Now they've moved far beyond that. They
will be investing in education, in your healthcare systems. So
I do hope that Greenland is not lost. This is

(27:06):
your window for the US to really get in there.

Speaker 1 (27:08):
And there's a lot of really hard, realistic things that
people need to look at, and there's a lot of
overplay with other issues that happening in parallel, especially with
regard to China. You know, all jokes about the Mercado projection. Besides,
what we have here is we have an island there's
three times the size of France, but has a population.

(27:31):
For the American audience, it's smaller than the student body
at Arizona State University. Are number one part of the university,
so you know, at fifty seven thousand, it's smaller than ASU.
Amazing but true. But you can see a lot of
those challenges. And I also like how you went through
the different in the book, the different polling stuff, because

(27:52):
everybody likes to talk about polls, but there's a lot
of problems with the Poles. You underline a couple of times,
there's a common thread here, very huge and thread amongst
the people of Greenland. Well, independence would be a great
comma if nothing changes, the changes being their income, their healthcare,
everything else, and the math just doesn't work with that

(28:12):
small of a population that big much less managing your resources.
And I think Mark mentioned it earlier, but as a
amalgam of New Zealander and in Australia, you can appreciate
this and America. One thing these three of the Five
Eyes have in common is we have these Some of
them are lack of a better phrase, free association territories

(28:38):
in the Southwest Pacific that China has been making you
plow the Solomon Islands. They've been using every trick in
the book to get in there, get get the nose
of the camel inside the tent of these places. We
are kind of seeing those rhythms taking place in Greenland
as well. From you know, we were talking about Denmark.

(29:00):
If it wasn't for Greenland, wouldn't be an Arctic state.
People's Republic of China doesn't even have that, but they
are a serious player in both the Arctic and in.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
The antarcchicer sense. So a lot of I guess my
heart sits with this issue of great power competition in
the polar regions, the ends of the Earth, right, and
I do think if we, for better or worse, say
that the futures in Asia or Indo Pacific or over
how over the how you want to politically term it,

(29:31):
the ends of the Earth and the activity that goes
on there really does shape what happens in the valley
of the world and Indo Pacific, and when it comes
to China in the north to the Arctic. What's been
really interesting for me Again I will talk about having
the distance and having a different perspective and some objectivity
has been twofold. The first thing was the random alarm

(29:55):
that China has somehow weaponized the Russian isolation since Ukraine
War to somehow enter through into the Arctic, and that's
just not the case. So two thousand and six, two
thousand and seven they established a Arctic Research Center base,
much more of a base on Stalbard. So that's the

(30:17):
Yellow River station, and I urge anyone who uses Google
Maps to have a little look at Starbard. So that's really,
really close to Greenland, but it is I guess, the
root of Chinese interests. Now more recently they've started hosting
what they call the Bricks Polar Research Summit, so they're
pushing in through their again legitimizing their presence via research

(30:41):
and science and all the good humanity, humanitarian you know,
Kumbaya avenues. Now Australians fell for it when it comes
to South Pole. That's the second thing. So in the
late eighties the Australians were responsible for training the Chinese
researchers to use Antia to camp in Antarctica, and then

(31:04):
we here in Australia seem to be stuck in the nineties,
which is fascinating because it is not business as usual
with the Chinese. They started stacking our postgraduate and our
PhD research programs or science so ice flow, breeding of penguins,

(31:24):
lots of really really fun things, not the sexy kind
of strategic hot war things that I like to talk about,
but the really boring, although you know, arguably bloody significant
science and tech spaces they started stacking with Chinese nationals.
Failing taxpayers would fund them. They get free PhDs because

(31:46):
it's research and we like to hold hands and collaborate
that the IP and all the findings and the data
is going has been going straight back to Beijing. China
in Antarctica are quite easy to argue has a legitimate
place because it is arguably a bit of a Commons.
The treaty makes it makes it a Commons. But if
the treaty does fall apart, which is my next kind

(32:08):
of body of work, we have no way to defend
any of our claims. Australia obviously has forty two percent
of a claim, which is kind of funny because we
have zero ice hardened vessels at the moment and one
icebreaker that I'll got in trouble for saying this, but
was built in Romania. So you had a guest in

(32:31):
All Guests who was talking about China from the Arctic
as well, which is really really great, And I urge
everyone to go back and listen to that episode because
I think the ice packed and you guys cracking on
with cutting the steel for the icebreakers. It should be
happening yesterday, get icebreakers in the water. But he was
talking about China in Antarctica and saying, you know, there's

(32:54):
they've got three research stations there incorrect, there was four,
but a month after you had him on your podcast,
they opened to their fifth one, and then two weeks
later they announced that they were scoping for their sixth
sixth station. So they've pretty much doubled in the space
of two months their footprint on Antarctica. So it is

(33:19):
a lot of commonality at the ends of the Earth
in terms of how China is positioning itself. Yes, strategically,
Antarctica has seventy percent of the world's fresh water locked
up in the ice cap minerals, they've got oil, gas,
but the key and krill, which is the bedrock of
our entire food chain. These little tiny crustrationans, But the

(33:43):
big thing for me I think that brings both ends
of the Earth together is absolutely space. So obviously for
those of you who are across space, and why it's
so important, you've got in the polar regions such limited
thermal interference. If you don't have houses, you don't have cars,
you don't have people, right, no populations, you get a

(34:03):
clearer shot to space. So I think they are light
years ahead of us in terms of weaponizing our international
norms and our community standards of agreement in terms of
these areas of the world, and it's all done under
the guise of research and collaboration. But the problem is

(34:24):
we're not benefiting from it. And I don't know why
we're stuck in the nineties here with this idea that
it's that science is something that all cultures can hold
hands over and collaborate on, because I don't think that's
the case.

Speaker 3 (34:39):
Willful ignorance now, well, it's also the basis this their
research and the base like as you say, there's research
stations in Swellbird and Iceland and other places. This is
why they are now claiming themselves to be not an
Arctic nation but a near arcicgnation. If you point out

(34:59):
the which is hilarious because it's a term the invented.
It's like it's like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
You know, the words mean what I say they mean.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
But they've also kind of dropped. If you've been reading
any of the Communist Chinese People's Party documents that have
come out in terms of five year planning, they now
don't talk about being in the Arctic state. They call
themselves a global polar player safeguarding safeguarding polar interests, which

(35:30):
is hilarious because you know, they lock up polar bears
in all of their zoos, which I mean, I've been
canceled in the US for my Arctic stance, But there
are so many ways in which the US could lead
in pushing back in a way that utilizes the norms
and the rules that we've established against China. So they

(35:50):
should arguably be kicked off the Arctic Council as an
observer because they're breaching the terms of that observer agreement
in which they are meant to It's there's a section
in there how you meant to respect and look after
the natural life and vegetation and the animals in the Arctic. Well,
arguably putting polar bears in zoos isn't too great. But

(36:11):
we're too afraid to push back against China and the Arctic.
And I say I was canceled about the Arctic in
the US industry because in is Bidenir the Ukraine War
in twenty twenty two kicked off, and I wrote a
few pieces about, you know, calm and do not freeze
Russia out of the Arctic Council. They want that they

(36:32):
want and they want to be able to be kicked
out of the club for which they are the largest
legitimate stakeholder, and then point back to the West and
to whoever else and say, well, this is on you. You
forced us out, and we're sorry, but we now have
to work with India and China which has absolutely gone gangbusters.
And once the Chinese and the Indians, I will say

(36:55):
in the tent, you will not get them out. Indians
have gone and doubled down on their Arctic and polar
research funding and capabilities. They're looking at icebreakers. I didn't,
I wasn't immediately tracking the UAE and their Arctic push,
but now with DP World, which is obviously supply chain

(37:17):
globally in shipping quite well known, they are very much
investing in the Northern Sea Route and the Arctic opening.
And I think just last week I was tracking fascinating
developments coming out of South Korea where they have absolutely
started legislating and putting together policies to utilize the Arctic

(37:38):
Sea Route. So it's absolutely become an international free for
all in the Arctic. And watching I guess, again, with
some distance and some perspective and some objectivity, what's of
interest is how the US is still acting like it's
the nineties in the Arctic, and it's a closed club
of Arctic room states that determine the gun evenance in

(38:00):
the future of that region. And I'm looking at it
from Asia and I'm saying every other Asian state, Singapore,
for instance, Japan are now identifying as Arctic powers. So
you might be busy medled down in helping Europe with
its security, but your back door stick the Arctic, Alaska
is on fire.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
Yeah, I think you can. It's a very similar, very
human problem that we see with the challenge with the
Nation States and the southwest West Pacific. The problem is
is that people who are in theory supposed to be
studying and be involved in that on the US side
of the house, it's in our state department. They haven't

(38:42):
changed since the nineteen nineties and their worldview hasn't changed
since then. It I was kind of grinning a minute ago, Liz,
because on these issues that you know, Mark and I
have we talk about on a regular basis here that
whether you're looking at the challenges that both the US,
Australia and New Zealand have in the island nations of
the Pacific, one of one of the best people out

(39:05):
there is a Canadian Cleo Pascal, and of course you
know you got to live down in Canberra banging the
drum about Greenland. It's like the women of five Eyes
are the only ones that are keeping an eye on
the important things around here. So this is a good.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Thing, you know, that's lovely. So I mean, my dad
and I were chatting about you know, history and politics
the other night at dinner whatever with us. I said,
I think it also is a maybe there's a gendered
thing here about the female yearning to protect her cubs

(39:40):
and her and her kids. And I completely changed me
when I became a mother. How I saw the world
was it was hotter, and it was much more scary,
and I was just so frustrated, like I've been canceled
in the US, And that's fine for my Arctic position,
which is basically triple down, getting their own it, you know,

(40:01):
get the illusions back online. I would be pushing the
bearing straight under the nose of the Russians. Get the
dooma to ratify the bearing straight agreement. Get your rules
of the road or the sea as it were down.
I would be getting Trump jd vance. This one is
for a cool millennial like Van get the Trump Tunnel going.

(40:22):
I mean, you've got US could be linked to Eurasia
and onto Africa. It's only fifty miles and it's not
too deep link Alaska through to the Russian Far East.
So there's so many connectivity things that you can play, play,
you can wargame, and it's cutting China off at the knees.
So if you've got the US, that they able to

(40:43):
have its own kind of polar silk road. And this
is what I'm talking about, the Trump Tunnel. I've called
it the Trump Tunnel and I have copyrighted that for
all your listeners. This is how you cut China off
at the knees and then it's forced to really unmask
for what it is when it comes to it has designs.
I think yesterday or the day before, they did the
Asia to Europe transit in six days. Oh, this is huge.

(41:07):
This makes Australia and this is what I argue all
the time, or they douesn't hates me here this says socialist,
But we become Australia becomes a very expensive market to
supply for maritime security because we're going to see the
shifting the heart of the economic world is moving to Asia,
but they're not using the Malacca Strait. They're not going

(41:29):
from the Red Sea through an Into Ocean into the
South China Sea into Asia. They're going to start going
up through the burying straight over the top of the world.
It's cheaper fuel wise, it's quicker, and our society that
demands tomorrow Amazon packages, it just makes sense, right, So
Southeast Asia is going to change considerably. Economies like Singapore

(41:53):
that are ninety percent reliant on the shipping industry and
transportation are going to be upend because they're irrelevant. So
things are changing at a rapid pace. And yeah, it's
just frustrating that it's also heavily politicized. And I'd love
if we can have a little chat about Orcust because
I'm so keen to get your views on Orcist and

(42:15):
how you see Australia as an ally in the region,
because if things are on fire in the Arctic, I'd
absolutely say that the China Australia relationship is something that
I feel Washington sleeping on too.

Speaker 3 (42:27):
Yeah, we are to talk about Archus. I know there
were a couple of articles in Foreign Affairs recently about
let's get this back on track. I feel like it
got way laid over the last four years. I don't
know why that was.

Speaker 1 (42:42):
But.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
I've got my theories.

Speaker 3 (42:49):
We can we count on Australia to fulfill this obligations
under well.

Speaker 2 (42:53):
I think we And full full disclosure, I am no
longer a Department of Defense Australian official. I was the
head of Research with the Royal Australian Navy in twenty
twenty two midway through twenty twenty four, so heavy orcust times.
I'd love if in the show notes you could share
my SAA wrote when I got out of public service.

(43:17):
It's called pit stop power and that's the argument that
I kind of came to while sitting up in Defense
offices and then yeah, did publish it for where I
see it going. Oh ahwesome. So basically common sense for
us is that we are a pit stop power, so
as you would in a race car kind of and

(43:39):
a race car track. We are there to maintain and
sustain SSN crew and SSNs port them in. We'll look
after your crew. We're pretty fun teach us and our
kids how to repair to maintain them their beautiful beauty

(44:00):
pieces of kit. But you know, now Australia is saying, right,
we need an SSN navy. We need them to be
sovereign built, we need them quick, and we need them fast,
we need them tomorrow. But we also want them complex
and they need to be rolls roast. So it's hilarious, right,
you can't have all of those things. I think we
can help them with your repair schedule and your maintenance backlog.

(44:23):
I think that we could have more of Our partners
also utilize us as a pit stop station, so the
French get them back in the tent in Indo Pacific,
the Brits obviously, so there's plenty of capacity for us
to really unlock that latent power that we've got just

(44:44):
using our geography. It's basic sense, right, and that also
allows us Australia, yes, strategically free ride a bit more
than we usually do, but at least be honest about it,
and it's what we can do. We've got twenty twenty
six twenty seven million people, so we don't have the
the capability to train submariners, we don't have the funds

(45:05):
to do it, and also our government is telling you
we won't be doing it. We've only got two percent
of GDP, we spend on defense, and we've come around
to promising we'll get to two point three percent of
GDP by twenty thirty three twenty thirty four. Maybe there's
no money available to do it. So that's why from
an Australian point of view, we kind of sit pretty

(45:27):
and you know, crack a beer and put a shrimp
on the barbie over this, because we all know the
SSN won't come. I will also get you to pop
in your show notes a really good piece in the
ABC Australia by our sort of global affairs editor, Lark Tingle.
She put it out back end of last week and

(45:48):
it's sort of caught on fire and Canberra circles right
because she said the things that you shouldn't say, which
was no senior public official in defense or in industry
actually believes we're going to see the SSN August. Yeah,
let alone built in Australia. But and I'll send you
itsel to pop up in the show notes. But everyone

(46:09):
is saying it behind closed doors and in every meeting
I've been in, and every think tank ground table, but
no one will actually you know, put it on record,
which is just so disingenuous and infuriating. So I think
it makes sense if we just do a pit stop
power approach, we can integrate ourselves potentially into the Virginia,

(46:33):
into the build line. I don't know we could put
something together. I'm sure something here in Adelaide, but we'd
enjoy the strategic urnch effect and also utilizing our geography,
and that's what we've got to offer. But it's a
very culturally Australian thing. I think to feel like we
are bigger than we are in terms of our capacity,

(46:54):
and it's going to be our Achilles Hill, because I
think we are dragging. We're dragging out into the bargain
when it comes to the alliance. And I think every
day I turn on the news here and we get
the common story is Trump took a phone call with
Alban easy. Yes, we four phone calls. We still haven't met.

(47:14):
And I mean, you know all the power too, youa Trump.
I would also be saying, you know, pull up your socks.

Speaker 1 (47:21):
You know. I guess it scales up a bit, but
you know a lot of people don't understand, you know Australia. Yes,
when you superimpose the continent on the US, which by
the way, most of it is kind of like New
Mexico in the US. It's desert, even more desert than
our desert. But it only has the population of a

(47:41):
couple million, more than the free state of Florida. So
imagine the population of Florida having to cover that huge
continental mass of the United States. It's a big challenge,
almost like you know, three times the size of France
with fifty seven thousand people that you have in Greenland.
But you ask about Aucue and you're talking about making

(48:03):
making enemies with your ideas. I've made quite a few
people in the submarine community have looked bad at me
because I have always thought with aucust and it frustrates that,
you know what, out of me talking to the submarine
community here in the US, because I'm not saying they're
on the spectrum, but they're on the spectrum. Time for
Wappner with these guys, they're looking at, well, we have

(48:24):
to have this many submarines. I was, like I have
always said, it would be a greater net strategic gain
for the United States. Selfishly, Forget the Australians for a second.
If you want to be selfish, let's be selfish. If
we took one of our Virginia's instead of it being
USS x h M A s Y, put an Australian
flag on it, and let's get them in the program

(48:47):
and we'll just keep building Virginia's class for us as
we go. Will to be one less with the USS. Yes,
but it's in our greater strategic interest.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
And at the end of the it's just it's just
the discontinue of the the so in the dissonance of
the whole debate. I mean, we're meant to be on
the same team here, We're meant to be their closest
of mates. Trust that that we can help you here.
We need to find a way that works to both
of our strengths. What the optional pathway is for Pillar

(49:19):
one right now is is so fantastical that it's kind
of beautiful to watch it kind of spin out four
years later, I do think, and this also has had
me canceled of course, love it. I do think that
we kind of threw a bone to the British in
the Orcus development, the development of the idea, and I

(49:41):
think that that was this really kind of weird. Again,
let's go back to human behavior, but ex throwback to
our colonial heritage. Where we go, dear father, we haven't
forgotten you, you know, come into the come into the tent.
On this one, I don't. I think it was a
pity invite, and I I do think that we should
have cracked on just with the US and done something.

(50:03):
And I think it might end up looking a bit
more like the pitstop power realistic pathway. I'm hoping that
this Colby review is have a bit more teeth, the
public version, at least than skiff World. Well, let us see,
because we need a wake up call. There's a really

(50:23):
good question. Sorry, I'm just looking through the chat about
the Perth becoming the salespurd of the Indian Ocean itself.
Absolutely like we've got the infrastructure there. In World War two,
the Pacific War, Australia had the second largest US naval
base outside of Hawaii, Pearl Harbor. So this is all again.

(50:46):
I'm talking about institutional knowledge and history. We've been here before,
use our geography. We are not. It doesn't work to
argue that Australia needs an SSN, a sovereign SSN fleet
because you know, we just China from invading. It's like Jesus,
they are already here, civil issues here that can be

(51:07):
a scab that's picked up. There's much more ability for
the China to jump in and do more damage without
having to base a sub off our coast. What was
really interesting last two months was the difference in how
the American community has responded to the Chinese icebreaker research
mission off the coast of Alaska, you know, being a

(51:31):
bit more chest beating and hey, this is Nod and
we're calling you out and in a coast guard quite active.
Australia doesn't have a coast guard. We had no ship
available to shadow when the Chinese did the same thing
and circumnavigated Australia the month prior, and remember right so,
and we didn't talk about that here in the media.
And it's just fascinating because that goes to the fact

(51:53):
that you know, our largest multilateral exercise titles in the Saber,
which for which I was actually the army representative this year.
Thanks for the opportunity, Australian Army shout out. We didn't
have the Prime Minister or the Defense Minister there at
this multilateral exercise that happens the dates are out in advance.

(52:13):
China new when the dates were they hosted a three
day you know, meet and greet with the Australian Prime
Minister and his security team, and Albanezi picked to go
to China. So the optics of what the Australian political
class and our leadership are actually doing are very different

(52:36):
to what we're committing to, and that worries me. I'm
sure you've seen all of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit
media coverage and also the Victory Day in China parade.
We had no less than one former Australian Foreign minister,
one State Premiere of Victoria, good old state of Victoria,

(53:00):
famous for its COVID approaches, and a former New Zealand
Prime Minister in attendance. So yeah, there's a lot of
elements to this, but I think the pitstop power approach
for August Tiller one is how we need to be
facing the idea of utilizing the Australian geography for the

(53:20):
US Navy in the region. And yeah, the idea that
China's going to invade Australia and we need an SSM
fleet is scary funny. I mean, I would applaud the
attempt to invade from the north. We don't have rail ways.
We don't have roads. Good luck to you.

Speaker 3 (53:38):
Yeah, it's I'm going to go back to sea lines
of communication because one of the problems. I want a
base in Perth and for the Australians to have nuclear submarines.
But I'm looking at it down below you and New Zealand.
Antarctic is there, and China's got as we just talked
about five or six to be six research stations and

(54:02):
they're all do dull us and they're all antenned.

Speaker 2 (54:06):
Plans of them. We can't inspect. We've got rights to
inspect them. We can't inspect them because they block the runway.
And then you go to the state. But they're smart.
They point to the treaty and technically there's nothing wrong.
They say, a flyover counts is an inspection. Well, we
can't see what you're doing inside shop. You stopped sharing data,
all of your research findings, everything that your satellites are uploading,

(54:28):
our finding using needs to be shared with the community
and you're not doing that. But we're not calling into account.
And Australia resupplies the Chinese Antarctic mission. They pay to
utilize our gateway city, they refuel here. They hear all
the time the Americans are in bed with the New
Zealanders and that's fine. I feel like that was kind
of a under the table. We're sorry that you had

(54:51):
to leave Anzas because of your non nuclear stands, but
you know, we want to keep you in the orbit,
so we'll base our Antarctic program out of mu Zean.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
You know.

Speaker 2 (55:01):
Anyway, maybe there's another podcast in the Australian American relationship.

Speaker 3 (55:07):
Really, I think it's it's a broadcast about about national security,
not just ours, but you know, maritime security. And I'm
looking at Australian thinking, you guys have below you, You've
got unsaved areas that Chinese are encroaching up on the north.
It's not that they have to own. They don't need
to invade Australia. They just have to control the seas

(55:28):
around you.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
And that was the big thing with the fallout with
the French with Aucust. One of the big things that
we were tracking when I was in Department Defense at
the time was to do with our Southern Ocean. Right
We're completely surrounded ocean and we have zero capacity for
search and rescue, and we've got obligations in the Southern Ocean.
But we still and to this day utilize the French.

(55:52):
They look after our search and rescue in the Southern Ocean.
So it was a lot of delicate, you know, moving
on the board to say, yeah, we're sinking a relationship
here for this fantastic you know, over the back of
the Napkin deal. But also still you'll look after our
southern border, won't you. Yeah, it's just wild.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
Well, you know, I just want to let you know
that when it comes to having more Americans Guinea Station,
hopefully in Australia, help everybody. I'm doing my part. I
like to tell people all the time. I personally know
three officers who did exchange tours in Australia as single
men who came home with delightful Australia. The general rumor

(56:35):
was that American men have a reputation to be more trainable.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
I don't know, but yeah, no, I'm gonna I'm going
to Actually he came back from canadaa he picked up
a few things. Yeah, I I would love to see
if anyone your community has any sway US Coast Guard
Trump Trump won put down that we should have a

(57:00):
Coastguard station vessel stationed in the Southern Hemisphere. Come on
Australia Port of Hobart, it's our Antarctic gateway. It's just
waiting there. Crack on with that.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
It would be easy to a committment to China.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
First, you have.

Speaker 1 (57:18):
The Chinese Coast Guard is off South America. Why can't
the US Coast Guard be off South Australia near Antarctic.

Speaker 2 (57:24):
Make near Antarctic states great again. Yeah, So if any feedback,
I don't know if anyone listens to this it has
any sway. I hope and pray, But my thing would
be the illusions for the Americans. I think that's such
an oversight right now. I'd be bringing online infrastructure there

(57:44):
back online and figuring out rules of the road, rules
of the sea. With the Russians and the Darning Strait.
I think that South China see the ability to shape
the outcome of that's gone maybe a decade ago, but
they are clearly clearly trying to share the Pacific Arctic.
And it's not about showing the flag and it's not

(58:06):
about pressure. This is about long term posturing for what
is going to rewrite the global rules of international trade?

Speaker 1 (58:14):
Absolutely well, Liz, it has been a great hour, and.

Speaker 2 (58:20):
Thank you salam Mark for reaching out to a girl
from down under. Yeah, please promote my book where you can.
My next book looks at how we lost Antarctica.

Speaker 1 (58:30):
So yeah, when do you think you're going to have
that coming out?

Speaker 2 (58:32):
Well, I've got to find someone to purchase it. I've
got I've got to shop it around, because again I'm
going to get myself canceled in another community. But I
argue that the Treaties was meant to be a holding pattern,
but we kind of plumped it up as a Cold
War era relic. It's a shell of its former self
and we got lazy, and it is now a Chinese

(58:56):
base that reaches into every part of the world, every
other global ocean, uninterrupted. I also have a section there
that's absolutely going to piss off the South Americans. But
the Drake Passage, obviously is the alternative to the Panama
Canal has been completely locked up by the Chinese at
both sides of the passage. Yeah, I don't know. I

(59:21):
don't have an answer. If anyone, if anyone knows a
publisher that wants to that wants to look at how
We've lost a continent, please reach out.

Speaker 1 (59:33):
Making friends and influencing people. But really appreciate the time
with you today, Liz, and anyway, look forward to talking
to you again sometime in the future anytime.

Speaker 3 (59:42):
Guys, Well, thanks for being with us today. It's been
a lot of fun.

Speaker 2 (59:45):
It's fine. Thanks guys. I really do appreciate the support.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
And thank you everybody for joining us for another edition
of mid Rats. Until next time, we have a great
Navy day. Cheers.

Speaker 4 (01:00:08):
One to marry me and leave a friend of Becardily
for you being to blame for lovely love me said,
faulting your name.

Speaker 2 (01:00:26):
It's a long way to Dipper.

Speaker 4 (01:00:30):
It's a long way. It's a long way to disper
ary to the Queen. Go Becdily. Well, listen, Twell, it's

(01:00:51):
a long long way to Gway.

Speaker 2 (01:00:54):
But my

Speaker 3 (01:01:00):
Four