From the Crows' Nest

Ken Miller [00:00:00]:
Foreign welcome to from the Crow's Nest. I am your host, Ken Miller from the association of Old Crows. It's great to be back here with you for our members only edition of our from the Crow's Nest podcast. As always, I want to thank everyone that's in the audience that's participating online for questions and so forth. Do apologize to get started just because we've been having technical issues with my computer here starting off. So we are coming to you from my mobile phone and that's so I apologize if the sound quality or visual quality isn't quite what everyone was expecting. But we're going to get through this just as normal as we were planning. So I am pleased to have here with me this morning Tom Withington.

Ken Miller [00:00:54]:
He is an award winning journalist, editor, subject matter expert from Armada. He has his own podcast, Radio Flash with Armada. So if you're looking for a new podcast, please check that out for those who follow the show. You know Tom very well. Tom, it's great to have you back on from the Crow's Nest. Thanks for joining me, Ken.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:01:16]:
Always a pleasure to talk to you, my friend. Likewise. Always good to catch up. Thanks for the Radio Flash plug. I'm going to get this in quite quickly from the start because you were a guest on Radio Flash some months ago and we need to have you back. So you and I, if you're still up for it, will liaise bilaterally and see about getting you back in as a guest.

Ken Miller [00:01:38]:
Well, I mean with all, with all due respect, Tom, you know, working with you is one of the hardest parts of the job. So.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:01:44]:
I know, I know, I mean possible.

Ken Miller [00:01:47]:
Absolutely no, happy, happy to go on anytime. Oh it's, it's fun just to talk about what's kind of going on across the seas. Of course you're coming, you're calling us from Europe so whenever we can get in the studio together. It's great to kind of get that balance between Europe and the US and what's going on because everything is an extra but in extra inextricably linked and so it's great to, happy to do that anytime and appreciate the, the invite. So you are calling. So we, when, when we were plant setting this up obviously you were, you're, you're all over throughout Europe but I know that you're tr. You have, you've been on some work travel and, and I want to kind of talk a little bit about what's, you know, the latest on the Russian Ukraine war that's, you know, that's been in the news quite a bit recently, obviously, as context for those who may not have heard, there was a recent incursion of Russian drones into the Polish airspace. Of course, NATO responded with, you know, basically ramping up and trying to intercept.

Ken Miller [00:02:53]:
But, you know, there's the schools of thought of whether or not it was sufficient are still being debated. So, but clearly where we're at, after, what, four years into the war, three years into the war, Ukraine seems to be, everything seems to be moving along as it always was, status quo, two sides fighting, no end, no end in sight. So from your perspective, Tom, what is kind of the temperature from Europe on the Russia, Ukraine war, and especially as it pertains to the drone incursion into Poland?

Dr. Tom Withington [00:03:29]:
Well, Ken, you're absolutely right. I mean, I'm actually talking to you today from Ukraine. I've been here for a few days. I've had the opportunity to take the temperature of the electromagnetic battle, if you like, and certainly get some perspectives on what's been happening. I mean, as you mentioned in your question just there in your introduction, we do appear to be in this kind of stalemate of sorts. Either side is able to make minor gains and might also experience minor losses here and there. But what is interesting, I think the big takeaway for me is that certainly electromagnetically, Ukraine definitely has the advantage. The problem for Ukraine is generating mass in the spectrum.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:04:16]:
And generating mass in the spectrum is dependent on ultimately, it is ultimately hardware. You know, it's having enough kit, it is having the right software to put in that kit to move to a position of initially securing electromagnetic superiority and sustaining that as a means of securing electromagnetic supremacy. Neither side have managed to do that so far. But I think Russia, I think Ukraine rather, is certainly in a position where with the right material, it, it could do. And, but, but as, as you know.

Ken Miller [00:04:55]:
So from, but from the Russian perspective, I mean, does you have their efforts in the spectrum, Obviously they can more readily deliver mass because they have, you know, a different resource supply chain, you know, that they're, they're leaning on and size of country. So have they increased their activities in the spectrum? Are they trying to figure, trying to level that playing field a little bit through these, some of these drone incursions, or is this just more of the same strict structure, strategic approach by Putin to just keep pressure on and just kind of keep the status quo going?

Dr. Tom Withington [00:05:35]:
Yeah, I mean, very good question. I think one of the things you have seen is that the Russians, largely, the operational level, the Russians seem to have largely defaulted to having a defensive electromagnetic posture. So have a wall of jamming over our own positions and try and frustrate the Ukrainian attempts to use drones, for instance, to gather ISRs for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance information, and also to execute kinetic strikes with armed UAVs. What, what it doesn't seem is happening so much is, is the use of EW use of electronic warfare to actually support offensive maneuver by the Russians, which, as we've, we've spoken about this before, EW comes into its own. When you use it offensively, it's a brilliant defensive tool. But when you use it as a maneuver space and you don't just use it as combat support for magical things start to happen. And I think, to be fair to the Russians, that there was that mindset at the outset, certainly in the initial 18 months after the second invasion, February 2022, but I think they defaulted back into this. We're just going to use it defensively.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:06:43]:
It's interesting you've raised the point about the drones because I think what you saw with the incursion was an attempt to gauge two things. So firstly, what is the NATO tactical response to a drone incursion in NATO territory? And we saw what that was, a kinetic response, and several of the drones were shot down. But I think strategically as well, for Putin, it was a case of him saying, well, what's the strategic political response going to be? I think it might have surprised him that the drones were shot down politically. I think he may have initially thought, you know, we're going to fly these in. There'll be a bit of a hubbub, there'll be a bit of hullabaloo about it, there'll be some protests, there'll be some diplomatic representation, but, you know, NATO is not going to shoot them down. And here we were, they were shot down. And, and the fact he hasn't, in the short term followed it up with anything seems to suggest to me he's sort of maybe thinking, okay, I need to, I need to step back from that a while. You know, there is going to be a political and military reaction.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:07:44]:
So it's quite interesting, I think.

Ken Miller [00:07:47]:
Well, I, I was, I was listening to another podcast. I can't remember the name of it right now, but it's one of the major defense media podcasts. And so they, and they, and they had some guests on from the center for Strategic and International Studies, csis and, and the converse. But the conversation was talking about, you know, some of this incursion and just the habit of Russia using training exercises and, and other other Types of seemingly innocuous advances, whether it's drones, over just, oh, sorry, you know, we launched 19 drones and they got away from us, and we didn't mean to do that type of thing to something that's a little bit more. I think there's a. There is a Russian exercise going on or something currently or soon, using these exercises, using these events as a way of really projecting or like you said, testing the other, what the other side can do, what the response is, but also what you can get away with. And, you know, for years, I've always talked about, like, the need for us, us with the Europe, to understand, projecting your advantage in the spectrum. How do you project that? We know how to fight in the spectrum.

Ken Miller [00:09:05]:
We know when the war starts, how to use that as an enabling capability. But how do you showcase what you can do? And I think that some of these incursions, these training exercises give us the opportunity to show that advantage that we have, but also gives Russia the opportunity to showcase what they can do. So are we learning anything new from what Russia is able to do in the spectrum by some of these. Because nothing Putin does. We call him a madman sometimes, you know, in the media or whatever. He's extremely smart, extremely methodical. He doesn't make mistakes per se, where it's like, oh, I'm sorry, 19 drones got lost. Everything's top down.

Ken Miller [00:09:45]:
You know, there was a purpose behind it. So are we learning anything new from the way that Russia is conducting themselves? That gives us an idea of, oh, hey, yes, Poland is under significant threat from. Of an invasion. You know, Russia repeatedly had exercises on the Ukrainian border leading up to their incursion, testing what they could get away with, when they could get away with it. Are we seeing that again?

Dr. Tom Withington [00:10:14]:
Well, the. The ZAPAD exercise that you refer to is just now is ongoing. I mean.

Ken Miller [00:10:19]:
Sorry, what was it called again? Zap. Zap.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:10:21]:
Zapad. So West Zapad. Yeah, translated. And. And that involves, I think, Belarusian units as well. And the nightmare scenario, and this is very similar to what we saw in the Cold War, was that you'd have one of these big exercises. They're highly choreographed. You know, they involve a lot of assets visually.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:10:38]:
They're very dramatic to see. And that one of these would go from cold to hot, and that would be your prelude to World War Three. And actually, there was the other way around. There was a big exercise, a big. What used to be known as reforger exercises, which were done by NATO during the Cold War, which is reinforcement of forces in Germany, where the US Would look at doing a quick ramp up, large scale deployment into Germany with the intention in wartime it will be able to surge forces should the Russians come through the Fulda Gap or the Soviets, as they were then through the Fulda gap and across the Hoth corridor. So I think that mindset is still in Russia and in the Russian military thinking. And of course, NATO just has to continue to be on the guard with that. So the cleverness from the Russian point of view is you force, you force a continued defensive posture in anywhere which is facing the exercise.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:11:32]:
And the defensive posture requires money, it requires resources. You've got to keep force at readiness. And by having forces in one place means you can't have them somewhere else. So I think that's still very much the case. One of the interesting bits of chatter that I've heard is that what the Russians are very bad at doing with the exercise is because of command and control issues, is leaving their units to sort of perform the exercise within reason as they see fit by the tactical and operational circumstances. So I can imagine, for instance, in the US Military, obviously the US Military, like the French, like the Brits, like all NATO militaries, really prize the initiative. That's the thing. Devolve initiative down to the field commander as far as you can and let them fight the battle that they're seeing because they know best how to do it.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:12:24]:
Whereas Russian doctrine is still very, very hidebound. Don't move unless your commander tells you you don't do anything unless you're instructed to. And so one of these things with these exercises is that the things like the use of communications, battle management, command and control tends to be quite bad and tends to be highly formulaic in a way that it wouldn't be in wartime. You know, there'd be surprises, there'd be upsets. And if you're choreographing something very highly and heavily, it's harder to train your troops to deal with those upsets and surprises.

Ken Miller [00:12:57]:
So, so wait, from, from a European perspective, so I, I, I know that with the Trump administration here in the United States, you know, there's a lot of unknowns about what the US Position is going to be. Obviously being a part of NATO. And Trump has not advance, you know, try, has not undergone any efforts to remove us from, from NATO. But we are, as a NATO partner, we are tied to that Article 5, you know, obviously protecting other NATO countries. But it seems that still in the me, in, in this gray zone area where there's not, you know, obviously we have the Russian Ukraine war conflict going on. But outside of that, whether it's Poland or other countries that be threatened, the Baltics, there, there's a little bit more caution not to escalate. Some of the requirements that are put on to continued US Support are related to energy in Europe. Oil, Russian oil, you know, will us will do X, Y and Z if European NATO countries remove the imports of Russian energy and so forth.

Ken Miller [00:14:10]:
I think that's especially relevant to, to Turkey. And then outside of NATO, you also have India and that, their, their energy ties to Russia and, and, and that whole dynamic. So how do we, from your perspective, be and being on the ground. I'm glad you mentioned that you were in Ukraine. I was trying to dance around it because I didn't know if we wanted to mention that that's where you were at. But being on the ground in Ukraine, I mean, what do you hear in terms of the confidence that, that NATO is stronger today than it was back in 2022 when, or 20 when the fighting, when this phase of the Russian Ukraine war started? Are people confident in the, in the collective efforts of NATO in Ukraine and in the Baltics, or is there still concern about how major countries such as the U.S. maybe Germany, France, are going to respond in an Article 5 scenario with other European countries?

Dr. Tom Withington [00:15:12]:
Yeah, I mean, I think the, the response I've noticed with people is mixed. I think there's still a great deal of confidence in NATO as an institution. I think the desire to join NATO at some point in Ukraine's future very, very much still there. It's very, it's very present. I think there's, you know, people I've spoken to, there is broad agreement with the Trump administration's pressure regarding the purchase of Russian hydrocarbons, so oil and gas, which is, is fueling Mr. Putin's war. And I can, I can certainly understand the frustration of the US Administration thinking, well, you know, folks, if you, if you really want to choke Mr. Putin, you got to stop buying the hydrocarbons.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:15:56]:
And that absolutely makes sense. And it's very refreshing to see that that pressure is being applied. But I think, I mean, the question of the will to fight is a really good one and it's very, very pertinent. And I think there's a number of factors at play. What, what I, this is just my personal view. I mean, what I tend to think is there's, there's a phrase, isn't there? People say that there's certain situations in life that you never quite know how you're going to behave until you're in them, you know, it's impossible to, to, to imagine. And I think if, heavens forbid, there is an invasion of, of the Baltic, which I think is a really, it's a strong possibility in the next 18 months to two years, regrettably, in the way that I think Chinese action against Taiwan is a strong possibility. I think for all of the prevarication and the caution that you've heard in, in Europe, I think if hence that would happen, but you might well see a quite a considerable strategic change.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:16:56]:
Firstly, because Europe wouldn't really have much of an alternative, but to really get stuck in. At the end of the day, you know that because it, it's if, if they bite off Russia's bite of a slice of Estonia, I mean that the downstream implications of that are huge. I mean, look at, if you just take the US alone, if you look at, I did a calculation last year, it's something like $3 billion a year of trade goes between Estonia and the U.S. that's just Estonia and the U.S. $3 billion do dollars. And it's pretty much equal, you know that there and back that trade is instantly disrupted. So everyone's going to be affected by this. So I think that creates a political imperative.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:17:33]:
And if Putin attacks, well, at the end of the day, NATO is a defensive alliance and you can say, well, we're just doing what's written on the tin. That's our job is to protect Estonia. And what would be interesting is I think it's easy to be an armchair general on this, but I think what you would see in Europe is that the war aims would be very, very clear. So it would be, look, we don't want any Russian territory, but we're going to kick you back over the border. Once you're over the border, you know, we're not interested in you anymore. And another thing I think to think about this, particularly regarding US European relationship, is that invariably if there was a larger conflict involving Russia beyond Ukraine, China would be involved. I can't see any way that they wouldn't be. And vice versa, if there's a conflict with China and the U.S.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:18:20]:
and U.S. allies in the region, Russia is going to be involved in that and Europe will be.

Ken Miller [00:18:25]:
So, so that's kind of my nightmare scenario, and you kind of hinted at that with, you know, the, the possibility of an incursion into the Baltic states In the next 18 months or so, is that regardless of how allied Russia and China are, they're go both going to play off of each other for Their strategic goals, in other words. And we've talked on this show about, you know, this, this notion of a 2027 deadline, so to speak. It's not really a deadline, but this, they're putting a marker out there that, hey, by 2027, China is really going to be putting on the pressure to reunify Taiwan if they proceed with that at the same time or in cooperation with Russia, with Russian incursions into the Baltics or anything. Now all of a sudden you're straining the US Response and then you're leaving most of the European response probably to the European nations of leaders over there, France, Germany, UK they're the ones that are going to be called on to lead the European front while US is distracted over in Asia and vice versa. So do you sense from the ability of the, the, the, the global impact that NATO has? Obviously NATO does not have any sort of say, so to speak, in the Indo Paycom region, although we do have, NATO does have partners, collaborative partners in Australia and you have soft five eyes and other Western countries that aren't part of NATO formally. Does NATO have the strength to withstand.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:20:07]:
A.

Ken Miller [00:20:09]:
A two edged attack like that? You know, from a standpoint of its member countries getting kind of pulled into different directions around the world with different conflicts? You also have the Middle east you can't ignore. I'm sure there's going to be proxy efforts down there. How, in your estimation, what do we need to do as US and NATO to fortify the alliance and the, and the operational capabilities of the alliance so that over the next 18 months we can withstand and we can respond appropriately because if we don't, there's going to be a lot of loss of life and we should not just simply sit back and like, oh, well, it's just Russia's effort or China's, you know, goal, whatever it, people are going to lose their lives and, and we have to be, we are serious about this. So what is your take on where we need to go to fortify that operational response?

Dr. Tom Withington [00:21:02]:
Well, I listened to your podcast that you did with Duncan Bacroi the Other Way, which I enjoyed greatly. And I mean Duncan's perspectives were intriguing and terrifying in equal measure. And I, and I say that as somebody who's a huge fan of his work and a lot of respect for him, is a great analyst. But it, but it is very sobering and I think, and I think I think it's right to be because I always give people the really bad news because invariably the reality won't be quite as Bad as that. I don't want to sound like I'm making light or being flippant at this, but I think that there's a number of things to sort of think about here. I mean, firstly in the Russia, European context, geostrategically, I mean, Russia is limited in the amount of places physically it can attack NATO, it can attack across the border in Finland, they can try and do something through Kaliningrad or Belarus, or it can attack neighboring countries, countries where it has direct land border with, but it is quite limited. And then it's got to think about the strategic depth of Europe. I mean, on my journey into Ukraine the other night, we drove from, we drove from Warsaw down through the border and, and across the border and then, then almost into Ukraine.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:22:20]:
And the nightmare thing there was that you've got like main roads, you've got rolling countryside. It is what General Patton would have called good tank country. And it really is, you know, but equally you, you have got a finite amount of points that you can attack from there. And you've got to think, well, NATO is going to be putting absolutely everything into those areas. We saw what happened in Desert Storm when we had a vastly superior army in the form of the Iraqis going up against us, the US led military. I think in the nightmare scenario of a conflict, a bilateral conflict, China, Russia, the important thing then is almost to sort of not merge, that's the wrong word, but have a very tight synergy between the us, US allies, NATO and for Europe to be saying, look, heavens forbid US is involved in war with China.

Ken Miller [00:23:15]:
Right.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:23:15]:
What targets, what Russian targets do you need us to go after to make your life easier in China? So is there a munitions factory that we can hit with the Storm Shadow that is going to massively reduce the number of, of drones or components or whatever it is that, you know, the Chinese can get their hands on. That kind of thing. I think you would see. And the other thing is that in many ways the wars would be quite different because I've always thought any war involving China primarily is going to be force at sea and is primarily going to involve long range air power, long range sea power, much like you saw during the Pacific War. Whereas anything in Europe's primarily going to be involving land. And I think, you know, NATO navies would be very good at bottling up Russian sea power quite early on. There's only a number of areas they can get through to get into the Atlantic and into the Med. So I think that what you would find is that would free up NATO Naval assets to an extent which can then go and get stuck in, in the Asia Pacific and say to the US Navy, look, we're going to bring two nuclear submarines, we're going to bring two frigates with us and I don't know, an amphibious support ship.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:24:29]:
These assets we can put in. So I think that the vital theme will be to have a tight synergy. And the other thing is to be fair, Americans and Europeans, we fight well together. We understand each other, we spend a lot of time exercising. Despite all the political bluster. I speak to US Service personnel all the time in Europe. I was speaking to some last week and they are rock solid. They are absolutely rock solid.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:24:58]:
We love fighting with you guys. We fight alongside. You guys understand each other, we speak the same language. Russia doesn't have that benefit. And that's a huge amount of strategic power.

Ken Miller [00:25:10]:
Yeah. So, you know, you, it's, it's interesting. I, you know, going back to the, the threat of the incursion, just a little bit of a. So from my, in my experience, so o. About 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to go to the Baltic States. And what was interesting about this and what I want to point out is a lot of times when we talk about these strategic events and opportunity, you know, possibilities, we tend to look at it as a game of risk. You know, where it, you know, you, you're moving the pieces along geographical boundaries and along borders and you, you know, and you're, you might defeat an army or something like that and move forward. But in the reality, when I was, I remember being in Latvia and speaking to some folks, we just had a bar.

Ken Miller [00:25:58]:
I went in with one of my colleagues who obviously none of us spoke Latvian. We, you know, I don't, I only speak English, but my colleague actually spoke Russian. And we walked into a bar and he's like, I, I don't know how to speak laan. They didn't speak English. So he spoke Russian. And instantly when he said that, the people that were within earshot, silenced, turned to him. And I thought we were going to die with the anger toward. And we had to explain, no, we're, we're Americans, we just don't know Latvian.

Ken Miller [00:26:32]:
And then instantly people started speak, trying to speak English to us and speaking Russian to us. And he was able, but they would not allow a Russian speaking person in with the possibility that they would be Russian. And we asked about that and they said basically, when, when, under the Soviet Union, when, when the Soviet Union controlled Latvia, the lack of freedom these people lived under, they couldn't talk their language. They couldn't, they couldn't take part in their culture. They could, they were, they were expected to become Russian in every way. And when I was there, they were now independent for about 10 years and they were trying to rediscover what it was to be Latvian, the language, the culture. And it was a, it was a beautiful thing to see, but you could see that tension. This isn't just about Russia controlling the country.

Ken Miller [00:27:27]:
This is about wiping out entire ethnic, ethnicities or cultures of people or, or, or washing them of their uniqueness in favor of that. And, and so the, the suffering that happens under that type is extremely serious. So, so when we talk about all these strategic efforts, it's really important for listeners and people out there to understand that this isn't just about a game of risk. This is about people's lives and freedom to be, to live peacefully in their, in their home. And so I just, I mentioned that because I, I think that when we get into politics a lot these days, you know, we, we, we tend to, I think, misrepresent what is really going on. And so I just want, I just say that as a way of putting, pointing out that this is really serious when we talk about this because we're dealing with the people's lives and not just high level strategic considerations. Last question I have before I know we, we're out on a tight thing. So just, you know, with regard to us.

Ken Miller [00:28:32]:
So do you, do you kind of sense that we're just going to continue to keep the status quo moving a little bit, you know, obviously fund the war as we need to. And we're going to have those debates, debates on appropriations funding and weapons funding. Is there anything else specific that we should be doing from a technology standpoint that you've seen over there, that, hey, this is really a, this technology, this technology is advancing really well. We ought to invest in it. You know, we talked about the explosive use of drones. What else are you seeing from a technology standpoint that is kind of keeping you up at night or exciting you?

Dr. Tom Withington [00:29:09]:
Well, I think I come at, looking at the sort of operational situation in Ukraine. I come at it from the standpoint that the key thing for me, what I observed with Ukrainians is to get the war mobile. One of the conflicts that fascinates me is the Iran Iraq war. And I try and read up quite a bit on it because there's an interesting point in the Iran Iraq war where the Iraqis sort of correctly read the battle finally and realized we need to get Mobile. So effectively, you know, blitzkrieg, for want of better word, or what became airline battle back in the 1980s, the US doctrine, which has been devastatingly effective in Iraq. And once the Iraqis knew, right, we got to get mobile and we've got to keep moving, the war fundamentally changed. And I think the Ukrainians get that. And I think a lot of these things, drones, for instance, we talk about the spectrum.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:30:09]:
We talk about ugvs, uninhabited ground vehicles, all of this. It is about getting the war mobile. It is about movement and any technologies that are facilitating that. And as you know, I consider the electromagnetic spectrum a maneuver environment. I'm always careful not to use the term domain, but it is a maneuver space. So again, it is maintaining movement, the position of advantage vis a vis your enemy. And that's my catch. All sort of position.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:30:39]:
That's what I look at all the technologies from. And I'm very pleased to report that in Ukraine, everything's about that. It's about mobility. And I think if you can get mobility and you can get mass, I think, you know, I'll go on a limb here and say I think Ukraine's got a good chance of winning this war. What winning looks like, I don't know. But I certainly think that's a real possibility.

Ken Miller [00:31:03]:
Right.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:31:03]:
Well.

Ken Miller [00:31:04]:
Well, Tom, I promised you, you know, you're on a tighter schedule than I am, and we. So I wanted to respect your time. I really do appreciate you joining me here this morning. And so for our listeners again. So you are. Your podcast is Radio Flash. It's through Armada. Armada, Armada International.

Ken Miller [00:31:25]:
But you are the editor. You are an editor, defense journalist there. So really check out that podcast. Great, great stuff. Looking forward to being on at the appropriate time on your podcast and really do appreciate you taking time to join me here on from the Crossess.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:31:40]:
Well, Ken, it is always an absolute pleasure, my friend. The only thing missing from this is you here in person because you, you'd love this show. And then me and you could go and get a beer after us and we could put the world to rights. Well, we, we.

Ken Miller [00:31:52]:
We could solve a lot of problems if we did that. And I'll, I'll work, I'll work on that in my, in my 2026 budget to get out. But, you know, I, I have to say, you know, like, you were in the AGNC and you're in Toulouse and you're in all these fantastic places that make me a little bit disappointed that all I've got to offer is to you to come over here to the east coast, you know.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:32:18]:
So that's a pretty, that's a pretty good offer, my friend.

Ken Miller [00:32:21]:
Not quite as much.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:32:23]:
I, I will bring the wine. I'll bring the wine. Don't you worry.

Ken Miller [00:32:26]:
Perfect. Perfect. That sounds great. All right. Well, you, you take care, Tom, and we will, we will talk again real soon. Appreciate you you taking time.

Dr. Tom Withington [00:32:34]:
Looking forward to it. Thanks again, Ken. Cheers.

Ken Miller [00:32:36]:
Thanks. Well, that will conclude this episode of from the Crow's Nest. As always, please take a moment to share, subscribe or follow the show. We always enjoy hearing from our listeners, so please take a moment to email. You can email me any questions you have about this episode or Future episodes@hostromthecrowsnest.org also go to our new Instagram page From the Crow's Nest. We're going to try to have daily updates on that platform as well as other social media. So that's it for today. Thanks for listening.