Excellent thread from @ciaranmartinoxf β¬
Agree - 5Eyes is used as a lazy way of referring to πΊπΈπ¬π§π³πΏπ¦πΊπ¨π¦
It is a purely bilateral intelligence alliance that excludes politics - hence why it's strong.
There have been pol disagreements in the past but intell sharing survives.
Agree - 5Eyes is used as a lazy way of referring to πΊπΈπ¬π§π³πΏπ¦πΊπ¨π¦
It is a purely bilateral intelligence alliance that excludes politics - hence why it's strong.
There have been pol disagreements in the past but intell sharing survives.
https://twitter.com/ciaranmartinoxf/status/1384763374295261184
Example:
"United States Policy toward the New Zealand Government with respect to the Port Access Issue".
NZ-US defence impacted by decision by π³πΏ to stop nuclear armed warships entering NZ waters β¬
But Five Eyes sharing continues
"United States Policy toward the New Zealand Government with respect to the Port Access Issue".
NZ-US defence impacted by decision by π³πΏ to stop nuclear armed warships entering NZ waters β¬
But Five Eyes sharing continues
Some egs of πΊπΈπ¬π§ spats here β¬
But US-UK SIGINT liaison continues.
In short, liaison continues because 5Eyes is not a political alliance but a highly compartmentalised SIGINT one that is often immune to political, economic tensions.
theguardian.com/world/2010/junβ¦
But US-UK SIGINT liaison continues.
In short, liaison continues because 5Eyes is not a political alliance but a highly compartmentalised SIGINT one that is often immune to political, economic tensions.
theguardian.com/world/2010/junβ¦
And, of course, there's Suez. Massive political implications for π¬π§πΊπΈ but SIGINT continues. Why?
Because they blame the politicians - in this case, Eden - and get back to targeting mutual threats, namely the Soviet target.
Because they blame the politicians - in this case, Eden - and get back to targeting mutual threats, namely the Soviet target.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
γ
