[00:00:00] Announcer: Secrets and Spies presents Espresso Martini with Chris Carr and Matt Fulton. [00:00:25] Chris Carr: Hello, everybody, and welcome to Espresso Martini. Matt, how are you doing? [00:00:29] Matt Fulton: Doing good, Chris. I got my, uh, got my State Department hoodie on. [00:00:33] Chris: Oh, nice. Nice. [00:00:34] Matt: Straight from the -- well, not, not recently -- but came from the, uh, gift shop in the basement of the Truman Building. Um, just kind of felt like the vibes today. Did you hear the news? We didn't, I forgot to mention this to you in the, a couple seconds ago when we were getting set up. Did you hear the news? [00:00:48] Chris: Which news? [00:00:49] Matt: It's like, it's like news, news, news. Like, just -- like, I was turning my camera on and I had my phone in the other hand and I'm just sort of glancing at it and I see that, um, Mike Waltz, Trump's national security advisor and, uh, his deputy, Alex Wong, are leaving the White House. And of course -- [00:01:11] Chris: Oh! [00:01:11] Matt: You know, this is news to us. It will not be, uh, news to you, uh, dear and gentle listeners on Saturday. Um, but-- [00:01:20] Chris: Yeah, wow! I wasn't expecting that to happen. [00:01:24] Matt: I don't know. Sort of, we'd, we'd planned this to be a, a Trump-free episode this, this, this week. [00:01:30] Chris: Yeah. [00:01:30] Matt: And, uh, so maybe we will leave that to fester in the corner until, until next week, but-- [00:01:35] Chris: Yeah. Yeah. I don't think there's an awful lot to say other than, I suppose, um, it was probably bound to happen at some point. [00:01:42] Matt: Yeah. [00:01:43] Chris: Um, with regards to Signalgate and his, uh, endless Signal groups that he had set up and things. [00:01:47] Matt: And the Loomer stuff and, yeah. [00:01:49] Chris: Yeah, somebody had to take the fall over it. Um, and I wonder if, um, where Hegseth's situation is now. If Waltz is gone, then what happens next? Is he the sacrificial lamb? [00:02:02] Matt: Good point, good point. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, this is one of those, um, interesting -- like, I'm talking, well, I'm talking to you about this right now and like, I'm knowing like when people hear this, they're gonna know so much more than we do right now. [00:02:13] Chris: Yeah. [00:02:13] Matt: Um, but-- [00:02:14] Chris: Yes, our future-selves will be like, "Ah! [00:02:16] Matt: Yes. "Ah! Silly. No, this is why they left." Um, yeah, so, we'll, we'll, we'll get to that next week. But yeah, literally just as I'm turning on my camera, I'm like, "Oh crap, he's gone." [00:02:26] Chris: Yeah. Well, I hadn't seen that, so thank you for drawing that to my attention. No, that's crazy. Um, but yeah. Now, when you said to me, "Have you heard the news?" I was like, I was trying to think about which news, because I heard about the, um, minerals deals just being signed. Um-- [00:02:38] Matt: Oh, yeah. [00:02:38] Chris: And, um, yeah, and, uh, I still have, uh, mixed feelings about really how effective that's gonna be. [00:02:44] Matt: Maybe we'll get to that next week also. [00:02:46] Chris: Yeah, yeah. I'll probably have a look at that next week. So, uh, yeah, quite a lot to talk about next week now. [00:02:50] Matt: Just sort of, shove it under the bed, way in the back of the closet. Try to forget it for a couple years. [00:02:56] Chris: Yeah, yeah. Well, it's unfortunate because we were trying to have a, a Trump-free episode. I was planning not to even say the words. [00:03:03] Matt: After this, after this, it's all, we got, we got nothing on him. [00:03:06] Chris: No. Hopefully not, no. [00:03:08] Matt: Not really. [00:03:08] Chris: So. Not really, no. No. Okay, yeah, well, I will get us into, um, we have some interesting stories today -- aside from obviously the Signalgate thing that's just crept up on us. But, uh, today, we'll be talking about rising tensions between India and Pakistan following a deadly terrorist attack in Kashmir. Then, we've got newly surfaced evidence that reignites questions over Saudi Arabia's, possible links to the 9/11 attacks. We've got a Russian satellite linked to nuclear weapons development that is reportedly spinning out of control. So, as we speak, it's spinning away. Um, and then the son of the CIA's deputy director is killed in Ukraine, fighting on the side of Russian forces -- which is quite an interesting one, that one. So, um, our first story is about the rising tensions between India and Pakistan, which obviously is developing. Um, and there's even a possibility of some sort of a retaliatory action on India's part. [00:04:04] Matt: Yeah. [00:04:04] Chris: But Matt, I'll let you tell us a bit about what you've got there. [00:04:06] Matt: Yeah, this is another one of those things that by the time you guys hear it, you'll probably know more than we do right now, but it does seem like it's, um-- [00:04:13] Chris: It's important. I thought it was worth talking about. Yeah, [00:04:16] Matt: Could, could happen even while we're recording this, we'll see. But, so here's some, here's some details on, one on on what's been going on. So, tensions are once again rising between India and Pakistan, following the deadliest terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir in years. On April 22nd, gunman opened fire at a popular tourist resort in Pahalgam, killing 26 people in an assault that shocked the country and reignited one of the world's most dangerous rivalries. Within 48 hours, India and Pakistan had canceled visa access, expelled diplomats, and closed their respective airspace to one another's aircraft. New Delhi accused Islamabad of harboring the attackers, and although Pakistan has denied involvement, it hasn't eased concerns that a new military clash may be imminent. Uh, India has reportedly been weighing limited air strikes, similar to its 2019 cross-border incursion into Pakistan after a similar terrorist attack, which saw Indian fighter jets cross the Line of Control and target what it described as a militant training camp. This time, the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant is operating in the Arabian Sea, having arrived there before the Pahalgam attack, but now loitering off the coast as a contingency. A senior Indian military official told the Times of India that "a variety of military options short of full-blown war" remain on the table and that any retaliation would come, quote, "at a time and place of our choosing." Pakistan, for its part, has placed its forces on full alert, launched live-fire naval exercises and issued warnings that any Indian airstrike will be met with a "decisive" response across the full spectrum of military power. But alongside the saber-rattling, Pakistani officials have also made gestures toward deescalation, including a call for a third-party investigation into the Kashmir attack and public remarks highlighting the fragility of Pakistan's recovering economy. "The only thing we need right now is a peaceful neighbor," said Pakistan's ambassador to the US, even as his government braced for possible Indian military action in the coming days. The broader concern is that both nations are nuclear-armed, with a long and bitter history of conflict over Kashmir. The region has been a flashpoint since partition in 1947, and while both countries have avoided full-scale war since their last major confrontation in 1999, they've skated dangerously close -- most recently, during that 2019 clash, when dueling airstrikes and a brief aerial dog fight brought them to the brink. Analysts say a similar pattern is unfolding now: a limited strike followed by a symbolic response. But the risk, as always, is that something escalates unintentionally, or that political pressures on either side push events beyond the point of control. For now, there's no sign of broad military mobilization from India, but cross-border fire has already resumed along the Line of Control. And with Prime Minister Narendra Modi vowing to pursue the perpetrators "to the ends of the earth," the pressure to act is growing. What happens next, and whether this turns into a brief exchange or something more dangerous, may depend less on intentions and more on how well both sides can manage the risks they're now rapidly running. Chris, what'd you think? [00:07:24] Chris: Yeah, um, obviously worrying. Uh, you know, tensions and possibility of a serious conflict between Pakistan and India is concerning, especially at this time with the war in Ukraine, um, conflicts and tension between Israel and Palestine, and ongoing global tension caused by uncertainty around the new US administration's global priorities, as well as this sort of new axis between Russia, China, and North Korea. So, having a, a war with India and Pakistan, even though full blown war's probably unlikely, it's still worrying, and global tension's very high and if we're not careful, things could really boil over. The latest tensions over this terrible terrorist attack, which left 26 dead, um, was, uh, linked to the Resistance Front, which is known as TRF, and they're believed to be an offshoot of the Pakistani-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is LET, and they're one of the most prominent jihadist groups with well-documented links to the Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence services. So, um, yeah, I find it a bit, a little bit problematic when Pakistan say "thoughts and prayers" to India when they might, well have a hand in all of this, but we'll go into that a bit more in a minute. Um, so tensions between India and Pakistan primarily stem from this longstanding, uh, territorial dispute over the Kashmir region. When British India was partitioned in 1947, Kashmir was a Muslim-majority region, was given the option to join either India or Pakistan. Its ruler chose India, which Pakistan opposed, and that's led to the first of several wars between India and Pakistan. Since then, both nations have claimed Kashmir in full but only controlled parts of it, leading to frequent skirmishes and periods of heightened military and political tension. Um, and then obviously other sources of conflicts include cross-border terrorism, water disputes, and deep-rooted mistrust. This is all made more dangerous by both nations being a, a nuclear power. Looking at the major powers who back Pakistan and India -- so, looking at Pakistan, Pakistan has strong geopolitical support from China and a developing relationship with Russia. Its relations with the US are currently sort of in decline. The current, current US administration has paused military and civilian aid. India has mixed support from Russia and the US. Russia is a historic ally of India, but US relations are getting stronger. The UK has strong diplomatic relations with both and is currently a major development donor, providing funding across education, health, climate, and humanitarian areas. The EU is also trade partner of both India and Pakistan. And their Middle Eastern support, Saudi Arabia is a traditional ally of Pakistan with the UAE and Turkey, and then Iran is seen as a cautious neighbor of Pakistan. India, meanwhile, has strong strategic ties with the UAE and growing relations with Saudi Arabia, but it has limited support from Turkey and a tense relationship with Iran. So, I just wanted to kind of give an idea of some of the kind of geopolitical kind of, uh, forces should some terrible conflict kind of happen. Um, and it's likely that obviously the US will probably provide India with diplomatic and intelligence support whilst China might likely back Pakistan and give them diplomatic, logistical, and intelligence support should there be a major war. Um, whilst the UK probably will more likely call for diplomatic, um, you know, a diplomatic kind of end to things. So, we'll see, we'll see how this sort of plays out, really. I'm, I'm hoping it won't lead to full-blown conflict. I think that's unlikely because of the nuclear question. [00:11:01] Matt: Yeah. [00:11:02] Chris: This is not the first time this has happened. I mean, the last time tensions grew to this level was in 2019, um, which was after a suicide bombing, which killed 40 Indian paramilitary personnel in Pulwama, Kashmir. And the attack was claimed by another group called Jaish-e-Mohammed, which is also a militant group based in Pakistan, so there's a bit of a pattern here. Um, yeah, Pakistan unfortunately has played a recurring role in igniting tensions with India, often through its support of militant groups like LET and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which have carried out high-profile attacks on Indian soil, including the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which was JET, and then the 2019 Pulwama bombings, which we just mentioned. Um, and then these actions have sometimes been linked to the Pakistani intelligence services. Um, and they tend to often provoke a strong and often immediate response from India, including cross-border surgical strikes and airstrikes and targeting militant camps, which is what happened in 2019 and might even happen today or later this week. So, Matt, I'll hand back to you because I've been yammering on a bit there, but there's some hopefully, some interesting stuff there. [00:12:14] Matt: Yeah, um, so just to, just to sort of start at the, at the top here. Um, so, Pakistani nuclear doctrine, um, I believe calls for the use of nuclear weapons -- they're like, you know, red lines -- um, calls for the use of nuclear weapons if a portion of its territory is occupied or if its air force is destroyed. Um, and none of that, we are still several rungs, quite a few rungs down the escalation ladder from anything like that. Um, from what we know and what we see right now as we're recording this, it does not really seem to be on the, on the horizon to be honest. Um, I mean, uh, it it, it seems certain that there will be some Indian response. I mean, I think it was, I believe it was yesterday a Pakistani official came out and said their, um, their intelligence estimates say that, you know, there will be a Indian strike, um, limited, on facilities, camps, you know, madrasas. Um, also as we were just sitting down to record, I saw a thing on my phone that Pakistan closed, um, a good number of its, of its religious schools for the next few days out of fear that they could be, um, struck by, uh, by, by, um, by, uh, India. Um, so it does seem, you know, by, it could be by the time this episode is, is we're done recording this or at any time thereafter, but probably, yeah, by the time y'all are hearing this, it'll have already happened to, to some extent. Um, all indications though, I mean, as, as as you said, point to, you know, limited strikes on Pakistani terrorist targets. Um, I mean, it, it, it really rings to me -- I don't know how, how, how you feel about this -- it, it rings to me of those few rounds of, you know, "kinetic diplomacy", I'm saying with air quotes, um, that we saw between Iran and, and, and Israel last year. You know, like days or even weeks in, in Iran's case of, you know, um, "we're gonna do this at a time and place of our choosing" and you know, like, "it's coming," and this is sort of, there's these leaks and these rumors and these sources that say it's gonna be along these lines or whatever. And you have plenty of time to get your Patriot missile batteries in place and, you know, scramble your fighter jets across the Middle East. And, um, you know, like, it's not gonna be a surprise. Uh, whatever, you don't wanna get hit, move out of the way. And that's, if you, if you really wanna hurt somebody, if you really wanna do damage, you're not gonna do that. Um, you know, so that's sort of, that's sort of where I fall on that, um, right now. [00:14:45] Chris: It's almost a bit pointless and performative, isn't it? Because it's, it, yeah. [00:14:49] Matt: Sure. I mean, I would take that from, from the alternative of, of what we're looking at here. [00:14:54] Chris: Yeah. [00:14:55] Matt: Pakistan is making noise about, about deescalation. Also the, the Indians for, for their part have said, um, last night I saw were saying that, you know, we, we have a plan and it's gonna be, it's not gonna be like a knee-jerk response, and, uh, it's gonna be very sort of like calibrated and deliberate and we know exactly what we're gonna do. And that's, to me is like very, you know, "everybody chill." Um, sort of like, you know, okay, "Pakistan, you gotta take this one on the chin, and that can be, that can be it," which is very much how those exchanges between Israel and Iran last year went. I mean, it was, it was dangerous, of course. The, the, the risk for escalation and miscalculation and, you know, one missile lands somewhere where it shouldn't and you're way off to the races, you know? But, um, so Pakistan is making noise about deescalation, um, and seems like I said, ready to take this one, um, on the chin. You know, once India attacks, of course the ball is in Pakistan's court and what happens next is, is largely up to them. And if they're saying, "we don't wanna escalate," you know, "we're kind of concerned about our economy recovering and we don't wanna screw that up," I think the writing's on the wall as to, um, you know, what their move's gonna be. Um, so everything I'm reading here is there's no appetite for bloodshed. However, of course, you know, the threat of escalation or miscalculation between two nuclear-armed countries, um, both of which have long hated each other, you know, can't be, uh, dismissed. I'm not panicked, uh, by this, as of this recording, and I don't think listeners should be either. Um, but like I said, it's serious, it's worrying. It's another sign of how, um, dangerous and, and unpredictable the world is. You know, things happen gradually then all at once. Um, events that were once unimaginable suddenly become all too real, often before we fully understand the, the, uh, events that that made them real. Um, I mean, great powers like to think they have the luxury of responding only to the crises of their choosing and that they're writing the script, but they're not, you know? No one, no one's writing the script. [00:17:00] Chris: No, and, and they're, you know, I think both of them have a lot to lose. Like, as, um, you know, India's economy's very much rising at the moment. It's doing well. [00:17:08] Matt: Yeah. [00:17:08] Chris: And, and they've even got a big, there's some big summit going on I saw called Wave. I'm not quite sure what that is, but there's something big going on at the moment involving, um, kind of celebrities and things kind of currently happening in India. Um, and, um, I think from an Indian point of view, I think they'd be, they'd have a lot to lose if they got kind of bogged down on some dreadful open conflict. Um, so I think, yeah, I think Modi, you know, he's a bit of a, he's a bit of a strong man, so I think he needs to project some image of some sort of light retribution. And I can, I can kind of understand some elements of that because he can't let a, this sort of, um, action go unanswered. But then, you know, but is an airstrike, uh, the best thing? Wouldn't it be better to try and hunt down the people actually responsible and then try and bring them to justice or, you know, um, and actually bring those networks down or, or, I don't know. There, there's, um-- [00:18:00] Matt: Would require an invasion of Pakistan though, perhaps. [00:18:02] Chris: Well, yeah, yeah, unless you can find a way to, I dunno. Yeah, this is an ongoing dispute since 1947, so it's definitely not gonna be an easy answer to get out of that one. [00:18:11] Matt: Yeah, they've been, they've been at this for a while. [00:18:13] Chris: Yeah. [00:18:14] Matt: Hatfield and McCoys of South Asia. [00:18:16] Chris: Exactly. And whoever does solve it, it might be a Nobel Peace Prize for them, but I don't think we're in the running for that. But what was, what was kind of interesting from Pakistan's side was how they were calling for an independent investigation. [00:18:30] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:18:30] Chris: Um, and I, and I find that a bit weird considering I think it's most likely that their intelligence services via LET and then this TRF group somehow, you know, the TRF is sort of a proxy for LET and um, so I dunno, it's interesting that call for an open inquiry on this. Is there a level of confidence they've got enough degree of deniability over it. It's, yeah. [00:18:55] Matt: I don't know remotely enough about this part of the world offhand to sort of go into details. As I was saying to you in our notes, this would be a good place to speak with, um, an actual, an actual expert on the, on the, you know, decades-long conflict now. Um, but it, it, it seems like in recent years following the last few rounds of attacks on India from Pakistan, that Pakistanis have kind of, um, cracked down a bit on the, um, Islamist groups in their, in their midst a bit. I'm sure that is debatable depending on, on, on, on who you ask, but that's kind of the read, um, that I got a bit. Uh, it's, it's an olive branch. I think it's really just them saying, you know, "Okay, you gotta do what you gotta do, but like, we're not, we're not, we're not trying to pick a fight with you." And that to me is like, if, you know, if, if you're gonna get hit and you've already decided, you know, you're not gonna, you're not gonna swing back, you're gonna, you know, kind of take it and, and walk away and, and, and let it be, then of course I think the fight's not gonna, um, devolve from there. But, you know, we'll, we'll see. It is two nuclear-armed countries, and it is, it is a very dangerous, um, risky situation. The one thing though, and this, um, is a, is a big deal, so we won't go into it too much. Um, India suspended the, the Indus Water Treaty, um, in response to this attack also, um, which Pakistan called um, an act of war. But, so that's a water-sharing agreement that was signed in 1960, uh, brokered by the World Bank and it basically dictates, um, the sort of eastern and western tributaries of the, of the Indus River and Pakistan, I believe has rights to the western tributaries. And of course if India cuts them off, you know, it causes all kinds of agricultural and humanitarian issues for Pakistan. So that's something that I think, like if I was on the staff of the NSC or in the State Department right now, I would be, that's something that I think has to be fixed, like, immediately. That cannot, that cannot last. That's a problem. [00:20:52] Chris: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And do you think there's enough people in the State Department these days who kind of understand the significance of that? [00:21:00] Matt: Yes. Um, I don't know how worried they are about, you know, polygraph tests and having, you know, random, like, Big Balls from DOGE checking their resume for loyalties and stuff so they can't really focus on that. I will say though, I mean, we weren't gonna, uh, um, I'm gonna try to mention him as as little as I can. Trump and Modi seemed to have a pretty healthy, decent relationship. Um, one of the few world leaders who Trump does have a kind of, you know, good, productive relationship with. Um, you know, of course Vance's wife is an Indian-American. His, his children are part, um, Indian. I think that could be an asset in terms of, you know, reaching out and try to get dialogue going. [00:21:43] Chris: Well, and Pakistan has the history of harboring Osama bin Laden, which never helped Pakistan in, in the eyes of the US, especially as America gave significant and still did give significant aid until, um, the current administration paused away, but-- [00:21:58] Matt: Yeah. I think that that divorce was kind of a, a, a mutual one after a while. [00:22:04] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:22:06] Matt: Yeah. [00:22:06] Chris: Yeah, no. Com-- Well, yeah, very complicated kind of situation. [00:22:10] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:22:10] Chris: But I think, thank you for bringing it on because I think it was well worth discussing because I think, um, you know, I'm quite keen with this show to always not get too -- because we've been a bit bogged down with, um, the current administration because so many things have been going on. Um, and I'm, I'm always quite keen to kind of keep an eye out on what else is happening right now because-- [00:22:29] Matt: I know. It's, yeah. [00:22:30] Chris: Because there was even another terrorist attack a few weeks prior to all this that kind of is connected that, you know, we kind of ended up not talking about at all. And um, and I've, it is been so long I've actually forgot the details of it now, but, um, yeah, so there's all sorts of things kind of going on between India and Pakistan at the moment and, um, so I think it's good to kind of put it out there. So, thank you. [00:22:51] Matt: Yup. [00:22:51] Chris: Well, let's take a break and we'll be right back with more. Welcome back, everybody. So, our next story is about new evidence that's come to light, which once again raises serious questions about Saudi Arabia's possible involvement in the 9/11 attacks. So, CBS news via 60 Minutes have shown some new evidence that suggests a man named Omar al-Bayoumi, um, a Saudi national once dismissed as an unlikely extremist, may have been an al-Qaeda facilitator who supported two 9/11 hijackers. Without his help, experts say they may have been caught. Um, a video filmed by Bayoumi in 1999 recently unsealed in court shows surveillance-style footage of key Washington landmarks, including the Capitol. It raised suspicions that it was a pre-operational kind of intel for the 9/11 plot. The FBI and CIA were reportedly unaware of this video for years, despite it being recovered by British police in a raid in 2001. Um, and obviously this shows the major intelligence gap that former investigators call deeply frustrating. Other seized material includes a sketch of an airplane and a mathematical formula that experts believe, um, could calculate a plane's descent to a target, further fueling doubts about Bayoumi's claims of innocence. Uh, Bayoumi's close ties to hijackers, including housing them, giving them banking help, and introductions to other people, raises major questions about Saudi Arabia's role as the 9/11 family's lawsuit against the kingdom moves forward in US federal court. So, Matt, what are your thoughts on this one? [00:24:47] Matt: It is true that we've never had a proper, honest accounting and reckoning for the involvement of, perhaps, certain royals and other prominent Saudi figures, um, in 9/11. Uh, and unfortunately, I doubt we ever will, if I'm just being honest. [00:25:04] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:25:05] Matt: Our relationship with Saudi Arabia was then, and is now, too complicated, um, and important to allow perhaps simple and obvious moments of clarity like this -- which seems kind of crazy, but that's, that's how it is. Um, I, I mean, Saudi culture and politics, um, the, the kingdom's global brand, has transformed dramatically, um, even in the last 10 years, uh, and I think that's made our relationship more complicated even, um, and, and, and not in ways that have strengthened our, our hand with them. Um, you know, so for instance, uh, Biden came into office under a lot of pressure from within his party, uh, to put the screws to Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince and de facto, uh, ruler of, of Saudi Arabia, um, on, on a host of issues, beyond just 9/11. So that's, um, international corruption, especially in, you know, sports, um, human rights abuses against South Asian laborers, uh, the murder of Washington Post journalist, uh, Jamal Khashoggi, most of all. Um, but, you know, then gas prices got ridiculously high coming out of Covid. Um, normie Americans were not pleased about it, uh, and, and OPEC wouldn't boost production -- um, Mohammed bin Salman is sort of the guy who says, if he says boost production, OPEC boosts production. Um, China came sniffing around the Middle East for bases and investments and, and, and arms deals, and Saudis are kind of a very attractive, um, potential customer or, or, you know, buyer right there. Um, so we also wanted to cement a Saudi rapprochement with Israel, which would've opened a wealth of opportunities on Palestine and Iran and the whole Muslim world. Um, so, realpolitik prevailed again. Um, all the while, you know, God only knows what MbS and his new buddy and business associate, Jared Kushner, were talking about in their Signal or, or WhatsApp chats -- and that's another thing we'll probably never know. Um, so in a way, I mean, I think Biden's failure to check the Sauds early on previewed many of the struggles he had once confronted with the realities of, uh, of governing. But I mean, you know, as far as, as far as this is concerned, um, the investigators, victims' families, I think they're absolutely right to be outraged. Um, they haven't gotten the justice or the truth that they're deserved. Um, they've been thwarted by their own government and legal system at every opportunity. It's, it's so unfair and sadly, I just don't see that changing. Maybe, maybe one day, but I don't, I just, I don't see it on the, on the horizon. Um, what about you Chris? [00:27:39] Chris: Yeah, no, it's, you painted perfectly the complications of the kind of realpolitiks of it. It's, um, it is the real scandal behind 9/11 and ultimately the actual conspiracy that's going on whilst, um, you know, nutters talk about all the, uh, nonsense of 9/11, this is the actual probably true story that's, um, yeah, rather worrying. And we may not even know the truth until, you know, um, another 20, 30 years or beyond, um-- [00:28:09] Matt: Could be like the, you know, like, like the JFK files that got de-classified. You know, we're sitting here how many decades removed? And we find, get little bits of information that had been redacted in government archives for, you know, decades. [00:28:19] Chris: Well, it's interesting you mention JFK, because after he was shot, one of the concerns of the um, US government at the time was that obviously, um, an event like that, you know, is a bit like they, they, um, equated it to the shooting of Archduke Ferdinand and the start of World War. And obviously 9/11 was a significant terrorist attack, a lot of lost lives, a lot of anger. Understandable anger. [00:28:42] Matt: Oh, yeah. [00:28:43] Chris: Um, and the Bush administration very carefully put, moved the anger away from Saudi Arabia and pushed it onto Iraq in the end. Um, obviously it channeled it through Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden, um, but, uh, ultimately I think they kind of exploited that anger and that led to the Iraq invasion. I don't think, yeah, I, I dunno how you feel about that, but it's-- [00:29:08] Matt: Well, the way you, you bring that up, it sort of reminds me also, the way in which some people talk about the question of whether Ukraine should have kept its, its nuclear weapons after the fall of the Soviet Union. You know, rather than giving them back to Russia and the different situation we would be in right now. And you know, we've, we've had this conversation, I think it was in the, on, on the last season of the show, where I said, you know, people forget how serious and scary that non-proliferation issue was back at that time. You know, of, of loose nukes or, or radiological material falling into, falling into enemy hands. And I just don't, you know, we're not really talking about Ukraine right now, really, but there were real concerns that, you know, Ukraine was not suited to, to safeguard this material, and I think looking back at it now, you know, 35 years, you know, removed, it's, it seems very kind of neat and tidying with the benefit of, you know, history and, and hindsight. It's, you know, "Oh, well, of course we should have done this," but, you know, if you think back to that time, you know, it was, it was not that certain. It was not that cut and dry. And I mean, I remember -- I was a kid, I was in middle school -- but I remember, I remember 9/11, that day. Um, I remember the immediate aftermath of it and, you know, thinking like the, the, the, the vibe, the discussion that I recall -- and of course, I was, you know, 11, so my, you know, processing of it is different than it would be now -- but just remember, like the vibe was, we're gonna go country to country, taking these people out until terrorism is gone. Which is also like, terrorism is a, is a, is a tactic, you know? It's like saying we're gonna, we're gonna get rid of people getting run over by cars, you know? Like, no, you can, you can, you can prevent it in places, you can enact policies and, you know, designs and stuff to, like, lessen it from happening, but like, you know, people are always, as long as you have cars on the road, you're always gonna like, you know? Terrorism is, is a tactic. You cannot exterminate, like, a tactic. But that was very much the, the mindset at the time. And, and to that point, you know, the Saudis were for the Bush administration, were a crucial partner in, in getting inside al-Qaeda from an intelligence standpoint. And also, you know, the al-Qaeda branch that was operating in -- um, AQAP, al-Qaeda in the, uh, Arabian Peninsula -- it was operating within Saudi Arabia, um, at the time. This was 2000... 2003, I think? There was a series of terrorist attacks across, within Saudi Arabia and it was by al-Qaeda. I mean, that's the, the, the, the security situation from al-Qaeda in, in Saudi Arabia at the time was, was a concern. You know, I don't know that they were, it was gonna be like an ISIS situation where like they would've just, you know, toppled the government and just taken over Saudi Arabia, but it was a real, it was a real concern. So to that point, looking back at the time period where it's like, okay, you know, you're, you're um, with Bush and his war council up at Camp David, you know, right after 9/11 and you're planning out the opening moves of the War on Terror. Do you wanna go after the people who you know are currently harboring bin Laden right now? Or do you wanna spend all this political capital going after a, you know, large middle power, regional power, that's, at that point, sat on a whole lot more, a whole, a much bigger percentage of the world's energy reserves than it does today? And like, do you wanna push the envelope with them, or do you want to go after the people who are like actually, directly responsible, you know, operationally behind it? So, you know, and, and I think, you know, yeah, looking back, the victim's families and investigators and stuff who feel like, you know, we've never gotten to the bottom of this, and there are people, like the man who you mentioned who got away free. I think that's entirely valid and stuff but, again, I would just suggest that, put yourself back in that moment in, in, in history, it was not that clear and I can see how there was that fork in the road and why we went the way we went, or didn't go the way that we didn't go. You know what I mean? Does that make sense? [00:33:05] Chris: Mm-hmm. It does, it does, it does. And I think, you know, it's a, it is a cautionary tale because obviously, um, if the US government did know more about Saudi Arabia's involvement than they're letting on, obviously, number one, that's a huge, um, you know, there's a huge breach of trust between the government and the public. But at the same time, if the public, if the government had been honest with the public and there'd been a call for an open war with Saudi Arabia, an invasion in Saudi Arabia, whatever -- that would've been America attacking the heart of the Sunni Muslim world. [00:33:38] Matt: Yeah. [00:33:39] Chris: Which would not have symbolically gone down well at all. Would, if anything, would've played directly into what bin Laden wanted, because he-- [00:33:45] Matt: The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. [00:33:47] Chris: Yeah, because bin Laden effectively wanted to create a holy war between the non-Muslim world and the Muslim world. And he wanted to topple the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. So, this is the interesting thing where I have an issue with, um, believing that Saudi Arabia, institutionally, backed bin Laden? [00:34:08] Matt: Yeah, I don't believe that. [00:34:09] Chris: Yeah, no, because the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had as much to lose from al-Qaeda as anybody else. [00:34:15] Matt: Yeah. [00:34:15] Chris: Should I give, I'll give some context because there might be some people who don't really understand Saudi Arabia's role in Islamic extremism because, so I did a, I do my best to kind of explain some things. So, for decades, Saudi Arabia has played a key role in spreading a strict and an ultraconservative form of Islam known as Wahhabism. And then following the 1973 oil boom, the kingdom used its vast wealth to fund mosques, religious schools, and Islamic organizations across the Muslim world and beyond. Um, so, like, certain mosques in the UK are funded by Saudi Arabia. Usually the mosques funded by Saudi Arabia are usually nice and pretty. [00:34:53] Matt: When I, um, my flat in London, there was a mosque, like right across the street that was a, pretty sure it was a Saudi mosque. [00:35:00] Chris: Ooh, where were you in London? [00:35:01] Matt: It was, uh, Kilburn Park. [00:35:02] Chris: Kilburn Park. Okay, okay. [00:35:04] Matt: I think it's -- I could hear the call to prayer every day. I, I, I used to love listening to it. Um, yeah. [00:35:10] Chris: Yeah, but, um. So, yeah, through these efforts, Wahhabi ideology promotes sort of religious purity. It rejects innovation and often views other sects like Shia Islam and Sufism with hostility, and it became a global force. While not inherently violent, Wahhabism laid the ideological foundations for many extremist movements by encouraging intolerance, rigidity, and a rejection of pluralism. The export of the ideology became especially influential during the Cold War when Saudi Arabia, backed by the United States, financed the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union. Uh, go and watch Charlie Wilson's War, you'll see a bit about that. [00:35:48] Matt: Yeah. [00:35:49] Chris: Um, and, you know, fighters trained in Saudi-funded madrasas in Pakistan and would go on to form groups like al-Qaeda and the, and the Taliban. So, over time, Wahabi influence networks helped incubate a worldview that justifies jihadist violence and it, you know, included the later rise of ISIS. So, while Saudi Arabia did not directly create these groups, it helped build the ideological and financial ecosystem they grew from. And in recent years, the kingdom has taken steps, like you were talking about earlier, to distance itself from hardline clerics. And, uh, but the legacy of Wahabi influence on global extremism remains deeply rooted. Now, the 9/11 Commission Report, you know, they, they officially, uh, back in 2004, cleared Saudi Arabia, saying they found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials funded al-Qaeda, but the report also added, the conclusion did not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government support diverted funds to al-Qaeda. Let's not forget, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Um, and so my, my, pulling all that in now, so my, my kind of thoughts on it are, I wonder if there were members of the Saudi intelligence community and members of the government who ideologically sided a little bit with al-Qaeda, or even greatly with al-Qaeda. [00:37:12] Matt: Oh, most certainly. [00:37:12] Chris: And went a bit freelance, you know, and they abused their position. [00:37:16] Matt: Yeah. [00:37:16] Chris: Um, you know, kind of got, used the resources of the Saudi government to do things without kind of official sanctioning. That's my suspicion. [00:37:25] Matt: Same as Pakistani ISI. [00:37:27] Chris: Exactly, exactly. So yeah, there's a particular guy called Brigadier Ijaz Shah -- forgive my pronunciation there -- um, and he's one example. So, the US and Indian Intelligence suspect Shah of shielding extremist networks and then using them for ISI operations. Um, and that includes liaison with al-Qaeda figures, and obviously Shah was also allegedly the handler of a man named Omar Saeed Sheikh, who was the British-Pakistani terrorist who kidnapped and killed The Wall Street Journal's, um, Daniel Pearl, so-- [00:37:58] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:37:58] Chris: This is, this is one of the interesting things with regards to Pakistan, as well, has a very iffy relationship. The ISI, which is the Inter-Services Intelligence services -- not to be confused with ISIS, which has an extra S at the end, um, totally different organization -- you know, they do use these terrorists for all sorts of different sort of ends. Um, and, but again, the question, I think with Pakistan there is a, a bit more evidence to suggest that certain administrations have allowed the ISI to do what they did. [00:38:32] Matt: Yes. [00:38:32] Chris: But with regards to Saudi Arabia and 9/11, because the kingdom itself was threatened by bin Laden, I don't really understand how the government would sanction, "Oh yeah, back that bin Laden guy. I think that's a great idea." [00:38:44] Matt: Well, also consider the, the kind of balance of power in Pakistan between the military and the ISI, versus like the civilian, you know, shall we say government? [00:38:56] Chris: Yeah, yeah. [00:38:57] Matt: Way mismatched, you know? ISI and the military sort of does what they want and they sort of tolerate the civilian government, you know? it's a very different story in Saudi Arabia and, and, always has been. You know, the, the, the royals, they got that under control. But you know, that's not to say, of course, that yeah, there were certainly, I don't think it's in dispute at all, that there were and potentially still are, I don't know, people within Saudi intelligence, um, the military -- probably not the National Guard, I think that that's very well-vetted -- that are, yeah, sympathetic to al-Qaeda's ideology. [00:39:26] Chris: Well, definitely. And there probably even, there were people within the ranks of various Saudi organizations who would love to see the royal family deposed so they could become the president themself, you know? [00:39:38] Matt: Yeah. [00:39:38] Chris: Um, let's not forget political ambition. [00:39:40] Matt: Maybe the Amir in that case with a Wahabist coup, yeah. [00:39:43] Chris: Yeah, yeah, so that, all those sort of factors can play into it as well, so a very complicated picture forms, um, just there. So, you know, so sadly, I think, who knows what the actual truth is, but my suspicion, personally, is, I think it's sort of rogue elements within the Saudi government abusing their position, the power to facilitate things. [00:40:05] Matt: I just wanna make one point here to be totally clear so I don't get like, nasty messages or anything. I am not suggesting that, okay, if, um, the US intelligence community knew or does know more about the involvement of certain factions within the Saudi security services and their involvement with al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11, if the US intelligence community does know that, I'm not suggesting that they were right to not force that issue with the Saudis. I totally understand why people would be outraged by that. I am merely saying, calling attention to the complexities-- [00:40:38] Chris: Yes. [00:40:39] Matt: And the sort of chaos and nausea and anxiety of that time, and trying to sort of illustrate why that may not have happened at the time, and now, you know -- what are we now, 20, 24 years removed? Geopolitically, we just don't have that, we don't have that, that hand to play with them anymore. We just don't. [00:40:59] Chris: No, and that's the sad thing about -- always had this theory, um, the, the more people who get murdered, the more complicated the case becomes. [00:41:09] Matt: Yeah. [00:41:09] Chris: Um, and the more political it is. And so then, you know, finding the suspect and arresting them becomes even less likely. And then there's even, like with the, uh, Lockerbie bombing. [00:41:20] Matt: Mm-hmm. [00:41:21] Chris: You know, I've met people who are a hundred-percent convinced that they got the right man, whilst there are other people I've met who are a hundred-percent convinced that there's more to it that meets the eye. I actually have no idea what the real story is, and that's the problem with these kind of cases because there are always so many moving parts within it. When it's, uh, you know, like we, you know, I think it's, it's, um, I don't think anybody really disputes the Libyan government was responsible for Lockerbie-- [00:41:46] Matt: Yeah. [00:41:46] Chris: Um, but it's just like the individuals who were tasked with carrying it out, there's some debate over, um, and I'm not in a position to answer either way of who it should be. Um, because the people I've spoken to give equally compelling cases. Um, but, uh, so that's probably for another episode, the Lockerbie bombing. But that, that's the thing, I think when there's a geopolitical angle to a, a terrible, uh, loss of, you know, a large loss of life, it becomes a much more complicated and murky. And sometimes, you know, if the truth does come out, people are not satisfied with it because it's not necessarily as big as they or dramatic as they thought it might be. So, it's, it's a funny one. [00:42:26] Matt: Yeah, and that's a, that's normal human behavior. That's a normal reaction, you know? [00:42:29] Chris: Yeah. [00:42:29] Matt: People have that for all kinds of things, big and small. [00:42:32] Chris: Yeah, indeed, indeed. Well, is there anything else you'd like to add or are you happy? [00:42:36] Matt: No. Really, um, yeah, interesting, interesting story. It's always, it's always interesting when it, you know, every couple years it seems like it, it, it, it pops up a little bit for a moment, yeah. [00:42:45] Chris: Yeah, indeed. And you know, I'm sure there'll be more stories to come. And I, and I definitely, yeah, I definitely want to do some more interviews around sort of the 9/11 case. I've always wanted to get Ali Soufan on, and the only reason I haven't is just I have to re-read his book. And it's just like, with the amount of books that we do read for the current interviews that we've got, is that I need to sit down and take out some proper time to re-read his book. Because he's written two fantastic books, in fact. [00:43:08] Matt: Yeah. [00:43:08] Chris: You know, my favorite book on the War on Terror was The Black Banners, which was written by Ali Soufan. I think that's fantastic. And it does talk a little bit about, um, the British side of the 9/11 investigation. Um, so I think it even goes into the raid that might have led to that, uh, videotape. [00:43:23] Matt: I could also do a, do a couple episodes on, um, Saudi politics and their security services. I have a bunch of books back here against the wall. It would be good, it would be good double, double research duty for the, for the novel. [00:43:36] Chris: Cool. Well, um, let's take another break and then we'll be right back with more. Welcome back, everybody. So, our next story is, uh, a very interesting one about a, uh, satellite that has weird allegations about it might have a nuclear weapon on it, which I don't believe is the case. [00:44:08] Matt: I don't think that's the case. [00:44:08] Chris: Matt, you can tell us all about that. [00:44:10] Matt: So, we've talked about concerns about this satellite before, but not as explicitly about the satellite itself. So, a Russian satellite that's been a focus of US intelligence concerns appears to have malfunctioned in orbit, casting fresh light on Moscow's ambitions, and setbacks, in space-based warfare. Cosmos 2553 -- the Russians love their numbers. [00:44:31] Chris: They do. Are they seq-- Are they actually sequential? [00:44:34] Matt: As far as like the other satellites and stuff? [00:44:36] Chris: Yeah. [00:44:36] Matt: Probably, I don't know the numbering system. Anyway, I digress. [00:44:39] Chris: Sorry. [00:44:40] Matt: Cosmos 2553, launched just weeks before Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, has been tracked for over a year by commercial firms like LeoLabs and Slingshot Aerospace, both of which detected erratic spinning and signs the satellite may have lost control. While it now appears to have stabilized, US officials believe Cosmos 2553, though itself not a weapon, is tied to Russia's development of a nuclear anti-satellite (or ASAT) system -- potentially designed to disable or destroy entire satellite constellations like SpaceX's Starlink, which Ukrainian troops have used to coordinate, uh, battlefield operations and Moscow has called a legitimate military target. The Russian Ministry of Defence insists the satellite's mission is benign, aimed at testing instruments in a high-radiation orbit, but US defense officials say that claim doesn't match the satellite's behavior or trajectory. The satellite has been operating in a relatively isolated orbit, about 2,000 kilometers above Earth, deep in a zone few communications or Earth-observing satellites traverse due to high cosmic radiation. US Space Command has acknowledged changes in the satellite's altitude and says the inconsistency between Moscow's stated purpose and its observed activity increases the risk of misperception and escalation. While the full extent of Russia's anti-satellite capabilities remain unclear, Cosmos 2553 serves as a vivid reminder that low Earth orbit is no longer a neutral zone, it's a potential front line. And so this satellite is -- so this was last summer that Mike Turner, who's a, who was then the chair of the House, um, Intelligence Committee, made a big stink in the press about Russia putting nukes in space and everything, and he was really concerned. Um, that was, that was this satellite. [00:46:29] Chris: I remember now. Yeah, because I, I think I said this before, it reminds me of the plus of the Clint Eastwood film, Space Cowboys. [00:46:35] Matt: Oh, yeah. [00:46:36] Chris: You know, because that film's all about these old guys who have sent out to, uh, disarm a nuclear-armed Russian satellite, which obviously is reflective of kind of Cold War anxieties, et cetera. I don't think the Russians ever actually put a nuclear weapon in space as far as we know. [00:46:50] Matt: No. [00:46:51] Chris: I think it's very unlikely. [00:46:52] Matt: I don't think that's ever been done, as far as we know. [00:46:54] Chris: No, no. There's been nuclear reactors because there was a Cosmos 954 with a nuclear-powered, uh, satellite that then, um, well it kind of crashed. Um, and it, it led to radioactive debris spreading all over parts of Canada, prompting a extensive cleanup effort. So that wasn't good. Um, and, you know, with all this sort of speculation in the press about whether Cosmos 2553 might be nuclear-armed, um, you know, is, has sort of blown things outta proportion and maybe even a bit of a misunderstanding about this sort of, um, ASAT system, um, you know, which is sort of part of Russia's campaign to be able to basically knock out military satellites, isn't it? As far as I understand, they wanna be able to sort of detect military satellites and have the capability to destroy them. [00:47:42] Matt: Right. Well that's, that's any anti-satellite system. This one is much more like, um, you're a spoiled kid who's losing at Monopoly, so you flip the whole table over and stomp off to your room. It's sort of, that's the -- [00:47:56] Chris: Yeah, because the debris. If you blew up some, you know, if you blew up a -- Well, if you, if you detonated a device in space, it'll cause all this debris because it will, there's so much crap in space floating around the Earth right now. If you watched -- [00:48:07] Matt: Kessler syndrome. [00:48:09] Chris: That's it. [00:48:09] Matt: Called Kessler syndrome, yeah. [00:48:10] Chris: And it could mean we wouldn't be able to actually put any rockets in space for decades. [00:48:14] Matt: Yeah, I can go, uh, more into that in a, in a second if you, if, if you want to. [00:48:18] Chris: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, the, the only other thing I was gonna say was that, um, you know, uh, there is this sort of wider concern that this has brought up about, you know, whether a nuclear weapon could be detonated in space, um, and whether the, this is the beginning of a nuclear nuclear arms race in space. Because people are concerned that there might be nuclear weapons put in future satellites, and I think people are right to be concerned about that. And there probably needs to be some sort of international discussion about these things because if you do detonate a nuclear device in space, not only does it lock us kind of into the planet, um, it would create a kind of, um, you know, create an EMP blast. It would knock out power and all sorts of things, um, disable satellites and communication systems. Even Elon Musk's SpaceX will probably collapse under that. Um, and apparently SpaceX is a legitimate military target, according to Russia, so -- [00:49:12] Matt: Yeah, yeah. I don't know why everyone's just being so mean to Elon. I dunno why every -- it is just so, it's so unfair. Everyone's so mean to him. He's done nothing but just bring, you know, joy and happiness to the world. Why would you blow up his satellites? That's so mean. That's so mean. He only has, he only has $200 billion left. [00:49:28] Chris: I know, I know. I mean, he could have a very bad week. You know, you could get kicked out of Tesla and then somebody blows up SpaceX. It could be a very bad week for Elon Musk. [00:49:36] Matt: You ever be like, you ever be like a couple days away from like the direct deposit hitting your checking account and you're like, "Man, I'm really strapped for cash," you know? Like, that's how Elon must feel with only 200 billion to his name. [00:49:47] Chris: Wow, gosh. Yeah, 200 billion. Wow. Wouldn't that be a nice sum? Anyway, so anyway -- [00:49:53] Matt: I would still do this. I would still do this podcast. [00:49:55] Chris: Oh yeah, totally. Totally. [00:49:56] Matt: I'd have a much better studio, but I'd still do this. [00:49:58] Chris: Oh, yeah. We would actually have people who edit this for us and do the marketing and everything, you know? But anyway, that's a whole other thing. So Matt, what are your thoughts on this sort of nuclear satellite? [00:50:08] Matt: So, yeah, so Cosmos 2553 isn't a space-based nuke, to be clear, but it might be laying the groundwork for one. So, the satellite was launched, as we said, just after Russia invaded Ukraine -- um, or, or just before, I should say -- um, and it's operating way out on the edge of low Earth orbit, um, in a dead zone of elevated cosmic radiation that almost no one else uses for this because of, because it's radioactive. Um, that isolation makes it harder to track, um, and a lot more convenient for, for experiments you don't want anyone watching. Um, I mean there's a fleets of satellites that the Russians have that we have, that China probably has also, um, that sort of like snoop. They're like spy satellites in space that like watch other satellites. It's very cool. Um, so, from what we can piece together, I think this looks like a test bed. Um, not a weapon, but, um, but a system designed to study how a satellite behaves in high-radiation environments. Um, think of it as maybe like the orbital equivalent of those like 1950s test towns at the Nevada Test Site -- like, just mannequins and appliances, and then a blast wave, but this one's 2,000 kilometers up. [00:51:19] Chris: Yeah, they want a level of survivability for their satellites, I guess, don't they? And they wanna see what they can -- [00:51:23] Matt: Yeah, they want to test it in a, in a scenario where there's, you know, lots of high cosmic radiation, as we would get, perhaps if a nuclear weapon went off in space. Um, so the nightmare scenario with a nuclear ASAT system, as we were sort of, um, describing earlier, isn't one satellite getting knocked out, it's knocking out entire constellations. Um, you're not just hitting Starlink, you're blinding or even shredding every communication sat -- every communication, surveillance and early-warning satellite in that orbital range. Um, and that doesn't just burn up and go away. You're, this is the Kessler syndrome. Um, you know, so one thing breaks and shatters, and then you have all this shrapnel, you know, flying around the Earth at thousands of miles an hour, and that collides with other satellites, which causes them to shatter, and then it's more debris. And it just keeps going and going and going. Um, you're, you're left with this cloud of debris screaming around the planet, at like I said, thousands of miles an hour, making space itself unreachable to all of humanity for years, perhaps, perhaps decades. Um, I mean, that doesn't just-- It's not like, you know, the Death Star blowing up where that just burns up in the atmosphere and the ewoks kind of dance and cheer and "Hooray!" It doesn't, it doesn't work like that. Um, so Russia, of course, says this was just a science mission. Um, but it, it's hard to square that with the, with the orbit choice. Um, US officials and civilian analysts alike have pointed out that the altitude isn't ideal for electronics testing, um, unless the goal is to monitor long-term degradation in a dormant nuclear payload. So, you have a nuclear weapon based up in space and it's sitting there for years and you don't wanna have to send up, um, Clint Eastwood and, I forget the other guy in that movie, um, to fix it, you, you, you test it here now. Um, so that would make sense if you're designing, like I said, a a, a nuclear ASAT system that has to sit up quietly in orbit for years, and then you want it to work properly, the moment that it's, it, it, it's needed. Um, the timing also raises some, some interesting flags. I, um, I, I, I mentioned, you know, the, the invasion of, of Ukraine. Russia, of course, sees Starlink as a legitimate military target. They haven't acted against that, as far as we know. [00:53:27] Chris: I think it's unlikely they would. That would be pretty, yeah. [00:53:30] Matt: Now, yeah, for sure. Yeah, they're not gonna do that now. [00:53:32] Chris: Mm-hmm. [00:53:32] Matt: Um, so they're, they're making progress in their own capabilities, but they know they can't match the US's capabilities conventionally, so they go asymmetrical. And this is, I mean, we're about, we're talking nukes here, so it's hard to square that with, you know, asymetry. But, um, they build a, a bomb that wipes the board like the, you know, Bond villain and Putin is. Um, if we wanted to really speculate, um, the satellite's recent tumbling -- spinning out of control before stabilizing again -- um, could have been caused by a fuel problem, uh, a thruster issue, maybe even a supply chain compromise with some bad ships or other components. Um, that's not impossible. Intelligence agencies have done it before, slipping faulty components into adversary systems. Hezbollah's exploding pagers are an infamous recent example. Iranian nuclear technology has been sabotaged in this way, too -- Mossad breaking into, you know, specific warehouses all over the world. The broader point here is that we're still operating, um, in the dark. Space weapons development is deeply classified, and that makes deterrence hard. Um, you can't deter in, in the black. I've said that on here a few times. Um, we could credibly promise mutually assured destruction during the Cold War because everyone knew, generally, what the other side had. You know, thousands of nuclear-tipped ICBMs ready to go if you, if you tried anything. Um, with space, there's no, right now, there's no baseline understanding, at least without a Top-Secret clearance and being read into, to a SAP, just suspicion and guesswork. Um, and, to a degree, that's dangerous over time, um, especially as we shift toward, like, as you're saying, massive proliferated constellations like Starlink, um, not just for the internet, but potentially as the backbone of military ISR. So, if each of those thousands of Starlink satellites becomes a sensor node -- and right now Starlink has over 7,000 satellites in, in, in low Earth orbit right now -- um, you've got 20, you've, you've soon got 24/7 ubiquitous global surveillance. Um, it's that unblinking stare, right? At any point on Earth, indefinitely, if you want to. So, Russia knows it can't hide from that system if it tries to shift personnel and equipments to the Baltics, let's say, or sail a ballistic, um, missile sub into the North Atlantic. Uh, they know they can't defeat it conventionally, so to stop it, uh, they might just cripple the entire species. And that's the, that's the pressure driving this, this arms race. [00:55:58] Chris: Yeah. Well, it's interesting the whole asymmetric thing because um, yeah, I was just thinking as you were talking about it, it's like, you know, the US spends billions on putting all this stuff into space, but if you can't defend it and actually use it, it's almost a bit of a waste of money. Um, so that's where the whole Space Force thing comes in. [00:56:16] Matt: Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's like I've, I've said in here before, at first, like when, when Space Force was announced, I was like, "That's, that's silly. We don't have TIE fighters, why do we have a Space Force?" You know? [00:56:24] Chris: Yeah. [00:56:25] Matt: Um, but no, I was completely wrong. It makes complete sense to me, I think it -- having a separate service branch, you know, um, increases the budget that you get. You know, uh, focus, you don't have to share space-based projects with, um, the, the Air Force people that are doing F-47s, you know, because it, it, it's a separate, it's a separate service branch. But yeah, there's all, there's all kinds of stuff up there right now and more stuff going up all the time that, you know, um -- bodyguard satellites, you know. And we're talking about those, you know, satellites to kind of snoop around and see what, see what other, what other satellites we're up to. There's so much going on up there and we barely, barely know even the beginning of it. [00:57:06] Chris: And that secretive shuttle, is it X-36B? I always get this wrong. [00:57:09] Matt: The X-37B. [00:57:11] Chris: Oh, I got it wrong by one digit. [00:57:12] Matt: Close. [00:57:13] Chris: Do we know whether it can like grab and take a satellite out of orbit? That's one of my suspicions of its capability, but-- [00:57:20] Matt: It, it has a bay that opens with a, with an arm that can reach out and presumably grab things. And what it can do with that arm is, um, I would, I would tell you, I could tell you, but I would have to kill you. [00:57:34] Chris: Could it be like You Only Live Twice and that spaceship that comes along and grabs the satellites? [00:57:39] Matt: Yeah, it would be -- so, the responsible thing, rather than-- You could set off a nuke in low Earth orbit and, and destroy everything up there, or you could have the X-37B kind of slide up and take its, take its little arm, its little hook and pull a satellite out of orbit or nudge it off course a little bit and it sort of drifts, falls back down into the atmosphere and burns up and you're just taking out that satellite and not putting the species back into like the '40s. [00:58:05] Chris: Yeah, yeah, indeed. Well, that will, this is, uh, you know, this is obviously again, another kind of ongoing story, so we'll see how that develops. [00:58:13] Matt: Yeah. [00:58:13] Chris: Um, or whether it comes crashing to Earth, I dunno. So, you know, might be coming into your garden this time next week. [00:58:20] Matt: Maybe. [00:58:21] Chris: But, uh, yeah, what would it be like having a, a Russian spy satellite land in your garden? What would happen? [00:58:27] Matt: Who would you sue for that? [00:58:28] Chris: I don't know. It's an interesting one, that one. That's a good question. Maybe a, a listener could answer that. [00:58:34] Matt: Yeah. Any, any, any lawyers listening, let me know. [00:58:36] Chris: Yeah, yeah. Well, well, let's move on to our final story, which is a, which is a bit of an odd one. It's not a, a particularly cheery story. [00:58:45] Matt: No. [00:58:45] Chris: But it's all about the deputy director of the CIA's son who was killed in Ukraine, fighting for the Russians -- not the Ukrainians, the Russians. So, Michael Alexander Gloss, a 21-year-old American son of CIA deputy director Juliane Gallina, was killed in April 2024. So, it's a little while ago now, and the new's just broken. But, um, he was fighting under contract for the Russian military in eastern Ukraine, according to independent Russian media. So, Gloss reportedly signed a contract with the Russian Ministry of Defence in September, 2023 and was processed at the Moscow military recruitment center used for registering foreign fighters. It's interesting that they have a whole center for foreign fighters, but anyway, um, and his name later appeared in a leaked Russian medical database. And he was deployed in December to the 137th Airborne Regiment based in Ryazan, um, and which is an assault unit that was active in combat operations near Soledar in the Donetsk region. And he was killed on April the 4th during those operations in 2024. His remains were returned to the United States eight months later, and his family obituary's, uh, said he died in Eastern Europe, but did not mention the war or the countries involved. Gloss grew up in Virginia in a military family, was active in the Boy Scouts and participated in university groups focused on environmental and social issues. In recent years, he reportedly grew critical of US foreign policy, particularly in relation to the Middle East, and became interested in travel and activism abroad. In 2023, prior to his time, uh, in Russia, he volunteered in Turkey following the earthquake there. Uh, friends and acquaintances say he began expressing interest in Russia during his time overseas and eventually traveled to Moscow where he joined the military before his visa expired. It remains unclear whether Russian authorities were aware of his family background, but I suspect they might be. Um, the CIA has declined to comment on the case and, uh, there's been no confirmation from US officials regarding the details of his enlistment or death. So, Matt, what are your thoughts on this one? [01:00:59] Matt: Yeah, this is a really bizarre story, and I don't wanna get snarky about this kid's political beliefs or what he thought he was doing because this is still a, a human tragedy that cost this, um, this intelligence officer and her husband, their, their son. But I mean, wow, what a, what a complicated, um, situation. I think it's a, it's a, it's a story of online radicalization. [01:01:22] Chris: Yeah. [01:01:22] Matt: And horseshoe theory in practice, honestly. Um, I mean he, I believe he said in certain posts and everything that he was fighting fascism. Um, but, uh, I mean, and, and also likely mental health, um, as well. I mean, I don't know what 21-year-old American guy of sound mind, um, goes to volunteer for the Russian Army in, in, in Ukraine. Um, or at least, you know, I, I think they wouldn't do that. [01:01:49] Chris: Mm. There is reporting he was taking medication that he stopped taking prior to his travels to Europe. So, whether there's something there, I'm not sure, but yeah. [01:01:58] Matt: And, you know, um, that, that's not to suggest of course, that, you know, Michael didn't have agency here or was just fully a victim of, of, of internet propaganda in, in some way. I mean, he, he made the choice to do this. I mean, yeah, it seems there was a mental health factor there also. Um, he dropped out of college in 2023 and, and lived in Turkey, um, supporting earthquake release there -- or supporting earthquake relief there, as you said, um, before traveling to Ukraine. So I, I wonder how much contact his family even had with him in those last couple years. [01:02:26] Chris: Yeah, I, from what I saw of the reporting, so IStories were the people who published this first, and I was a bit skeptical because it was a Russian sort of run publication. [01:02:35] Matt: Yeah. [01:02:35] Chris: So, it instantly set off an alarm because originally I thought IStories was connected to The Independent because The Independent's called like iNews or something online. Um, and, and I had to double check myself about this story. But in the, um, so IStories is an independent Russian media, it's not a Russian propaganda outfit from what I can tell, and I think it's run from Latvia by people who are critical of Putin. Um, and so there's quite a lot of detail in the IStories, um, item. And so he did have sporadic contact with his family, but they never knew exactly where he was. He went to a gathering in Georgia and attended something known as the Rainbow Family, which is a kind of countercultural movement inspired by Woodstock. Yeah. [01:03:14] Matt: Um, yeah, far-left environmentalist, like commune or something, yeah. [01:03:17] Chris: Yeah, I think what you're saying about the online radicalization is sort of spot on because when I was reading this and looking at some pictures of him, so there's a picture of him flipping the bird at the US Capitol Building. There's a picture of him where he looks like he's a character out of Lord of the Rings, which apparently is connected to his clothes being stolen, and he managed to cobble together something that made him look like Gandalf. But so, which is bizarre, but he, he kind of, it all was a bit familiar to me because, I mean, he's a young, he was a young man and I was like, in my own personal experience when I was like 22, 23 was when I fell into 9/11 skepticism. That's how young I was, and older than Michael was. Um, you know, Michael obviously went on this sort of journey himself. It sort of started with, um, as his father described, he was the quintessential anti-establishment, anti-authority young man. So, that's kind of probably where that journey began. [01:04:09] Matt: Right. [01:04:10] Chris: Um, and he was a very sensitive young man as well, from what I gather. And I think that combination of ultra-sensitivity, questioning, you know, America's role in the world, et cetera -- which is understandable, and it's not to say that questioning America's a bad thing. Um, but is, I think it's only a bad thing if it leads you to going and fighting for Russia. Um, but it's, it's, yeah, I think so basically it was just a kind of cocktail of things going on. Um, and then, you know, his friends mentioned that when he got to Turkey, he was getting more and more into kind of conspiracy content of watching more and more conspiracy content online. Um, and his, he had a bit of a, I get the impression he had a bit of a sort of spiritual side to him, and I wonder whether some of the conspiracy content he was watching, um, was kind of connected to sort of -- so basically it's this sort of shared spiritual belief in Russia, which I'm gonna go into in an episode next week. [01:05:09] Matt: Yeah, you got a lot coming up on this. [01:05:10] Chris: Oh my goodness, yeah. It's all about, um, so I'm gonna butcher this completely here, but if you watch the interview properly next week, you'll get it. But there's a shared kind of spiritual ideology between Ukraine and Russia that has its roots in paganism. And um, and all those sort of things, those pagan symbols and things get kind of co-opted by counterculture and then it, it, so basically it becomes kind of fertile ground when you're exploring this alternative spirituality to end up siding with Russia. And I've seen this happen before, because a friend of mine from my conspiracy days was very much the hippie, the, very much like Michael was described. [01:05:47] Matt: Yeah. [01:05:48] Chris: And has ended up becoming, like, pro-MAGA, pro-Russia. And I'm like, where did this, how did this happen? And it's all through his journey of like, he, he, for my friend, he was into David Ike. Um, and it went from sort of David Ike, Alex Jones, to then Russian propaganda online, et cetera. And it kind of led to this sort of weird cocktail of belief. So, I wonder if Michael went on a similar journey. [01:06:12] Matt: The MAGA movement, for a lot of people, whether it's true or not, represents -- and in some cases it does, in some cases it doesn't -- the MAGA movement for a lot of people represents a rejection of the traditional establishments, right? The kind of, you know, normal world order, you know, the old guard, the way we do things, norms, procedures, all that kind of stuff, you know? So does that -- I, I can see -- I mean, I don't know, you have, you have much more personal experience with that sort of conspiracy culture and that mindset than I ever, than I ever did. Um, but I, I, I don't know, I sort of see that -- I, I think also, like I was thinking last night that, you know, if this had happened 10 years ago, if this happened in 2014 or, or 20, yeah, 2014 or something that, I don't know, could he have ended up in Syria fighting for ISIS instead? You know, I mean, I remember there were a lot of foreign fighters who got interviewed in, in Raqqa and stuff during, like, the height of the Caliphate, and there was a lot of horseshoe theory at, at, at, at work there. Those guys, their beliefs were all over the place. [01:07:15] Chris: Oh, yeah. I think it starts with a rejection of your own culture. [01:07:18] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:07:19] Chris: And it kind of goes on from there. I think it, it, you know, with people who go out to Syria and fight for ISIS, et cetera, I think usually those foreign fighters have rejected the kind of Western way of living and think it's corrupt and blah, blah, blah. And then somebody has filled the gap with the alternative, but those individuals don't question then the contradictions of the alternative. [01:07:41] Matt: Right. [01:07:41] Chris: Um, and so, you know, because if Michael really questioned then his support for Russia. I mean, Russia's been involved with some horrific things, um, and still is. Um, and, and so it's an interesting kind of intellectual kind of leap to end up going from, uh, anti-establishment and anti-America to then being like pro-Russia and pro the invasion of Ukraine. But it, it, it, you know, we, when you kind of get involved in these conspiracy things, I think it just, um, it's sort of a slow burn that kind of leads you to thinking that Russia is somehow the savior of the world in some respect. Because like, you know, we talked about before how Putin likes present himself as the savior of the "White Christian World." [01:08:24] Matt: Yes. [01:08:24] Chris: I think also with regards to this sort of pagan thing, there's some other stuff that's sort of in Russian culture that are, um, being sort of used and exploited to tap into American countercultural movements. So, this is why I always sometimes wonder like, um, with regards to conspiracy culture, how much of it, sort of, some of the stories stem from Russia a little bit through Russian PSYOPs, information, things like that. [01:08:48] Matt: Yeah, totally. [01:08:49] Chris: Yeah, so it's a, it is a very complicated thing and I think, you know, I definitely, it's made me think I need to dig into it some more. Because it, you know, there's a really good podcast called Conspirituality that talks about how the spirituality movement and conspiracy movement are kind of merged and it leads people down these weird paths where they do end up becoming either MAGA or do end up being very pro-Russia and pro-Putin, et cetera. And I've witnessed it through people I know. I've never witnessed, thankfully, anybody kind of go as far as Michael did. [01:09:17] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:09:17] Chris: Um, and um, you know, and it's just sad that he ended up on that journey, because now, you know, there's a family without a son. As his father said, um, he hoped no one got hurt by Michael. Um, and I don't, from what I've read, I think Michael might have ended up in some sort of medical unit of the military in Russia, but I dunno. But it, it's, it just shows how, you know, people's sort of personal crisis can end up hurting other people if you're not careful. And we, we have to keep an eye out on the ones we love really, don't we? [01:09:47] Matt: Right, yeah. [01:09:48] Chris: So, yeah. [01:09:48] Matt: Yeah. I mean, just speaking also to that kind of, you know, psychology there, I, I think if you're, if your mom's a deputy director at CIA and your dad's a 15-year Navy veteran who now runs a cybersecurity firm, and this is where you end up, there has to be a high degree of rebellion at play there, right? [01:10:06] Chris: Oh, yeah, yeah. [01:10:06] Matt: I mean, it, it, it, it's, it's like how can I be the most, unlike my parents? How can I most stand up against what I think they represent? And what happened seems like a very kind of logical extreme, let me go the farthest away from, you know, what they do and who they are as they possibly can. [01:10:26] Chris: Mm. Indeed, indeed. People who end up sort of, um, in ISIS and things, I mean the -- I haven't seen this anywhere, so I'm just totally speculating here, but just thinking about Michael's background, it's not out of possibility -- could he have been groomed in some way through conspiracy culture and lying? Could he have been targeted in some way? It's possible. It's not, it's not, I don't know how, you know, if that's the case, but it's certainly there's a possibility there. [01:10:53] Matt: What, what, what, what bothers me -- and this is sort of, I mean all I all I kind of have on this -- but what, what bothers me is knowing that there are certainly some Russian intelligence and military officers who got a sick satisfaction watching this happen. Um, you know, like waiting for it, you know? Um, as a, I mean as a deputy director, his, his, his, his, his mother, they know exactly who his mother is. Um, and they know the implication when her son applies for a Russian visa and makes his way to a training camp. Um, what's, what's sad to me is if he didn't know that, um, that the Russians would value the propaganda victory and uncomfortable headlines brought by his death, and the grief that that brings to his parents, far more than anything he could have done for them, um, on the, on, on, on the battlefield. That was just sort of an especially dark, um, thought that I had of, of, you know, what, what could have been going on there around him and that, you know, he thought he was doing something that he was being -- the people around him had ulterior motives, you know? [01:11:58] Chris: Yeah. Well, this is it, like with the people I've met in the conspiracy movement, because it's very easy to paint conspiracy theorists as just lunatics, but a lot of them just deep down care and they just care a bit too much. [01:12:09] Matt: Oh, yeah. Yeah. [01:12:09] Chris: Um, and they're generally quite sensitive people. And because the world is so full of contradictions and hypocrisy, um, and then we tend to overly focus on our own hypocrisy, it can lead people down a path of, um, supporting other people, like Russia, et cetera. So, it's, it's, it's definitely something to keep an eye out for. But it, it's the other thing as well, just as you were talking, I'm just thinking to myself, it's almost impossible they didn't know who he was. Um, unless it was a huge intelligence failure. [01:12:39] Matt: There's no way. There is no way that Russia is not acutely aware of all of the senior leadership at Langley, know who their immediate family members are. [01:12:51] Chris: Mm. [01:12:51] Matt: Know that one of their child, one of their children, their son, is sort of marinating in this sort of Russian propaganda conspiracy swamp, and then applies for a Russian visa. And you know, that comes up. "Okay, this American." There's, there's, there's no way, there's no way the Russians did not know exactly who he was. And they're smart enough to know that what the headlines would be and what we would be talking about and how it would look, "Deputy CIA director's son killed fighting for the Russians in Ukraine." [01:13:26] Chris: Mm. Yeah. [01:13:27] Matt: That's what they got out of this, and that's, that's exactly what they wanted. [01:13:30] Chris: Yeah. [01:13:31] Matt: I just find that especially dark and heinous, that I don't think he knew that, but they did. [01:13:35] Chris: No, no, no, and now he's dead. Um, and the family are grieving. Um, and it's, yeah, it's all pretty horrific. [01:13:41] Matt: It feels like an op. [01:13:42] Chris: It does feel like an op. [01:13:43] Matt: "I'm gonna take your kid from you. And you're gonna watch it." [01:13:46] Chris: Kinda reminds me of Smiley's People a little bit. [01:13:48] Matt: Yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's very Karla. I mean, I, I didn't wanna -- I was thinking Karla too, I was thinking like, do I wanna, you know, apply fiction to this? But no, it, it, it, it feels like an op. [01:13:57] Chris: Yeah, because if you read the book, it's all about how Smiley has to exploit Karla's disabled daughter, I think, to get Karla to come out of the shadows so they can get him. [01:14:06] Matt: I'm not saying this was something to, like, recruit-- [01:14:08] Chris: No. [01:14:09] Matt: His mother or something. I'm not going there at all. As far as, like, a counterintelligence thing, I don't think that at all. I mean, yeah, she would've been, she would've been interviewed by the FBI, I think, as soon as they had confirmation he was in Ukraine and stuff. And, you know, but I don't think it goes, for her, I don't think it goes any farther than that. I think it was just, you know, "We have your son. He's ours now." [01:14:26] Chris: Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. [01:14:28] Matt: Yeah. [01:14:28] Chris: But, uh, yeah, so sorry to end the podcast, I suppose, on such a cheery story, but it's, um, I just thought it was one that was worth bringing up as well because it was such a fascinating one and tragic. [01:14:39] Matt: Very sad. [01:14:40] Chris: Um, and it just shows the kind of human cost of, of the intelligence game a little bit really, doesn't it? [01:14:45] Matt: Yep. Yep. [01:14:45] Chris: So, I think we've covered a lot of ground there, so thank you everybody for listening. Sorry for ending on such a, a dark note there. Um, definitely wasn't quite my intention, but, um, it's, it's, it's difficult sometimes with this topic to not talk about the, the darkness, so. [01:15:00] Matt: It's, it's, it's the reality and of, of, of the intelligence business. And I think a lot of times, you know, when we talk about like the geopolitics and the, and the maneuvering, and all that kind of stuff, it stays very much at like a 30,000-foot level. But sometimes this stuff gets really nasty and really personal and really dark. [01:15:17] Chris: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. [01:15:17] Matt: That's the nature of the business. There's a lot of people listening I know, know that much better than I do. Um, and, uh, I, I just, that's, that's, that's just what I see in this, in this story right here. [01:15:28] Chris: Yeah, yeah. Indeed, indeed. Well, um, you know, keep an eye on your loved ones. Keep 'em close. Um, you know, because online radicalization can happen to anybody. The most intelligent, most successful people can fall for it as much as anything else. You don't have to be having a crisis, necessarily, to fall to it. Um, so I mean, look at what happened during Covid and the amount of people who completely lost their minds over that. You know, it's, you know, that was a crisis at the time, but, uh, a lot of people really lost it and some people have not ever really kind of come back from that, so-- [01:16:00] Matt: Now we're dealing with the consequences of that every day. And we will, probably, for the rest of our lives. [01:16:05] Chris: Yeah, indeed, indeed. So, uh, yeah, definitely be cautious, um, out there with your, uh, online behavior and, uh, and what your loved ones are up to. So anyway, on that lovely cheer note, we'll wrap things up, but thank you very much for listening. Connect with us on social media, our, our links all in the show notes, as are the articles that we've discussed today. Um, and if you enjoyed us episode, please do share it. Um, sharing really helps us sort of grow our audience because we are getting, uh, I feel like the podcast is really growing nicely. We've done, um, you know, we've just been, prior to this recording, reflecting on things. Because we kind of ramped things up in January and we definitely have seen some growth on the podcast, which is fantastic. So, you know, thank you very much everybody out there for listening to us and supporting us, and I hope that you feel we're providing value for you. [01:16:52] Matt: Can I make an ask to that, to that point? [01:16:54] Chris: Yeah. [01:16:54] Matt: If, if folks are listening and they, they agree with the sentiments that, that you just, um, expressed, um, greatly appreciate it if you go on and, and leave us a, a lovely review. [01:17:05] Chris: Oh, yeah! [01:17:06] Matt: Um, often, often we get them. Right, often we get them, it's, it's, it's, it's not folks who listen all the time. It's people who sort of don't know and tune in and they hear something that they're not used to it and they don't like, and then they're like, "Argh, bad!" You know? But, um, if that's not you, uh, yeah, give us, give us a shout. Show us some love it. Would it, it it, it really helps a lot. We really appreciate it. [01:17:26] Chris: Yeah, yeah. We haven't had a review in a while -- uh, should we say a review from somebody who actually listens in a while. Um, and this is a weird psychology of the negative review. [01:17:34] Matt: I, I, I, I, I, I, I think a lot of those folks who, who are listening and do like it, rather than, you know, they just come to us and say it. [01:17:41] Chris: Yeah. [01:17:41] Matt: You know, or they send an email or something, or whatever. But you know, that, that also, that helps a lot, too. Appreciate it. [01:17:47] Chris: Well this is it -- and I, I feel like we've had a really nice, um, growing interaction over the last few months. [01:17:51] Matt: Mm-hmm. [01:17:51] Chris: And I've really appreciated it. [01:17:53] Matt: Yeah. I love it. [01:17:54] Chris: You know, we'll definitely be doing another listener questions, um, at the end of this month as well, because now we're in a brand new sparkling month. It's May, so it's like time is marching on. Um, so yeah, so yeah, drop us an email at Secrets and Spies Podcast at gmail dot com if you do have any questions that you'd like us to read out at the end of May. Um, and then, obviously, just tell us how you'd like us to be credited on air. And if there's a, a specific topic you want us to talk about, do, um, share us a link as well so we can read what you've read, um, and uh, figure out where you're kind of coming from. So, um, yeah, I think we'll wrap things up. So, thank you very much, everybody, for listening and have a great weekend and we'll catch you next week. Take care. [01:18:33] Matt: Bye, everyone. [01:18:47] Announcer: Thanks for listening. This is Secrets and Spies.