David Kapler

Some nations want stronger security services, some nations wish them to be weaker, some nations use them for research.

They're just yet another voice in that decision-making process.

In some nations, military and civilian services

might actually be prohibited from working with each other.

It's not just that perhaps they don't want to, they may not.

So to have a joint division where every ally contributes and the personnel participate from those allies, they do behave differently at NATO.

And I think the final thing here, the big takeaway, is the role of intelligence, especially at the strategic level there, was so interesting for me as a practitioner to observe in that I'd worked at the White House, I'd worked at the Pentagon, then at NATO, had a variety of roles over the course of my career.

That one was the most demanding in terms of the need to do intelligence diplomacy.

Ask for collection, ask for information to be provided, ask for different personnel, ask to come and visit and be briefed in a way that's gonna make sense within your system so that I understand when the nations come together,

What must we say?

Yeah, sure, Gordon.

But I just would differ on the use of the word serious in this context.

disagreeing with the analytic view is not the same as being unserious.

Yeah.

So you can see the same pieces of intelligence make a different interpretation.

Absolutely.

You could either draw a different conclusion altogether, which would be based on a range of things, or I think more correctly in this case, different capitals have different risk thresholds

and then correspondingly different levels of evidence and confidence for themselves in that picture before they're willing to take a political and military set of actions based on it.

It can, but I don't think in impactful terms it does.

I would go back and I like to point to what's agreed.