U.S. Intelligence in Crisis & Cameras: China’s Digital Spies?

🚨 U.S. Intelligence in Crisis & Cameras: China’s Digital Spies? 🚨

This week on Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap-Up, we analyze a growing crisis in U.S. intelligence—with the CIA facing workforce reductions and the FBI under political pressure from the new Trump administration. Is America’s intelligence community at risk of losing its edge?

Meanwhile, Chinese-made surveillance cameras installed across critical U.S. infrastructure could be acting as digital spies for Beijing. Could these devices be exploited for cyber espionage?

We also cover breaking intelligence developments from around the world:
🔍 Russia’s espionage operations inside Ukraine exposed.
🕵️‍♂️ The UK’s Prevent program failure—did counterterrorism officers miss a deadly threat?
💥 Russia’s FSB fighting back against CIA recruitment efforts—is this the new Cold War?

With over 25 years of intelligence and law enforcement experience, Neil Bisson brings you expert analysis and insights you won’t find anywhere else.

🎙 Like, comment, and share to help the channel grow!
💡 Want to support the show? Join us on Patreon or Buzzsprout! Links in the show notes.

📌 Chapters:
00:00 – Intro: U.S. Intelligence in Crisis & China's Digital Spies
02:40 – The CIA Buyouts: Is America’s Intelligence Community Weaker?
07:50 – FBI Under Pressure: Political Scrutiny & National Security Risks
12:55 – Russian Espionage Unit Exposed in Ukraine
17:30 – UK’s Counterterrorism Failure: The Prevent Program Breakdown
21:10 – China’s Surveillance Threat: Are Security Cameras Digital Spies?
25:40 – Russia’s FSB vs. the CIA: A New Intelligence War?
27:50 – Outro: Support the Podcast & Stay Informed

🔗 Links to source articles are in the show notes.

🛑 Stay Curious, Stay Informed, Stay Safe. See you next week!

Transcript

2025 02 07 Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap Up
"U.S. Intelligence in Crisis & Cameras: China’s Digital Spies?"

INTRO:

Welcome to this week’s Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap-Up, where we bring you expert analysis on the most pressing intelligence and national security stories shaping our world.

With over 25 years of experience in intelligence and law enforcement, Neil Bisson—Director of the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network and a retired Intelligence Officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service—breaks down the key developments you need to know.

This week, U.S. intelligence is facing an unprecedented crisis. 

Reports reveal that under the Trump administration, the CIA pushed senior officers into buyouts, leading to concerns about a weakened agency struggling to keep pace with modern threats. 

Meanwhile, the FBI is under mounting scrutiny, forced to hand over a list of agents involved in the January 6th investigation. 

At the same time, Ukraine has exposed a Russian espionage unit operating within its borders, highlighting the ongoing intelligence war between Moscow and Kyiv.

In the UK, a counterterrorism failure raises troubling questions about the government’s Prevent program. 

A suspected terrorist’s case was closed too soon, with deadly consequences. 

Back in the U.S., Chinese-made surveillance cameras installed across critical infrastructure are raising alarms. 

And in a bold move, Russia’s FSB is now openly urging Americans to betray their own country in response to growing CIA recruitment efforts. 

Stay tuned as Neil Bisson unpacks these urgent developments. Now, let’s get started.

MUSIC

Welcome back to another episode of the Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap Up, I’m your host Neil Bisson, as the current Director of the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network and a retired Intelligence Officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, I scour the headlines for the stories that help you understand the complexities of the world of espionage and intelligence. 

There’s been some major shakeups in the US Intelligence Community this week, and I want to extend my sincerest condolences to my American compatriots who are currently dealing with some of the strangest and most upsetting challenges faced by the CIA and FBI, possibly ever. 

But we’ll get into that as well as everything else Global Intelligence. 
In our first story, we’re discussing the CIA allegedly being pushed to accept buyouts as a way to restructure and downsize, particularly targeting senior officers. 
The concern is that this may weaken institutional knowledge and experience within the agency, potentially impacting operations and intelligence analysis.
From an intelligence perspective, abrupt changes in personnel can create vulnerabilities. 
Intelligence agencies operate best when they have a stable, experienced workforce capable of handling complex, long-term threats. 
A mass exodus of skilled officers could lead to intelligence gaps, difficulties in mentorship, and challenges in maintaining operational effectiveness.
One key concern is whether these buyouts left the CIA struggling with recruitment and training, particularly in an era where counterintelligence threats and geopolitical tensions remain high.
This is not the first time the CIA has undergone major shifts in personnel. 
Historically, intelligence agencies have adapted to political changes, but large-scale workforce reductions can have unintended consequences.
For example, in the post-9/11 era, the CIA underwent rapid expansion to address counterterrorism concerns. 
Now, with emerging threats like cyber espionage and great power competition, losing experienced personnel without a clear long-term strategy could be a huge risk.
Additionally, agencies like the FBI and NSA have faced similar issues in retaining talent, especially as private-sector salaries for cybersecurity and intelligence professionals continue to rise.
The article cites intelligence officials who argue that the buyouts may have been politically motivated or part of a broader strategy to reshape the CIA. 
Others express concerns that such actions could have hampered the agency’s ability to respond to global threats effectively.
From my perspective, the intelligence community thrives on continuity. 
While change is inevitable, drastic shifts in staffing—especially at a time of growing threats from China, Russia, and non-state actors—can impact national security. 
Training new officers takes years, and a loss of seasoned analysts and operatives could weaken the CIA’s ability to provide strategic intelligence to policymakers.
The reported CIA buyouts under the Trump administration raise important questions about how intelligence agencies manage personnel transitions. 
While restructuring can be necessary, the loss of experienced officers may have long-term effects on U.S. intelligence capabilities as well as their priorities. 
Moving forward, agencies must strike a balance between modernization and maintaining institutional knowledge.
So what do you think? 
Should intelligence agencies be restructured more frequently, or does stability outweigh the need for change? 
MUSIC

For our next story, we’re looking at a new report from Kyiv Post that details the exposure of a Russian ‘espionage unit’ operating within Ukraine. 

According to Ukrainian intelligence, this unit has been conducting covert operations aimed at destabilizing Ukraine’s defense efforts. 

We'll break down the key findings, what this means for ongoing intelligence battles between Russia and Ukraine, and the broader implications for global security.

Ukrainian intelligence officials have reportedly identified a Russian espionage unit working inside Ukraine. 

These operatives have been engaged in activities such as reconnaissance, sabotage, and information warfare—efforts that align with Russia’s long-standing hybrid warfare strategy.

The discovery of this unit highlights the continuous intelligence war happening alongside the military conflict. 

Espionage has always played a crucial role in Russia’s military campaigns, and Ukraine’s counterintelligence efforts are proving essential in countering these threats.

From an intelligence perspective, identifying and neutralizing such units is a major victory.

However, it also suggests that Russian intelligence operations remain deeply embedded within Ukraine, raising concerns about how many more sleeper cells or covert operatives may still be active.

Russia has a long history of using intelligence operatives in wartime scenarios. 

The Soviet-era KGB was notorious for running deep-cover operations in adversary states, and modern Russian intelligence agencies—particularly the GRU and FSB—have continued this practice.

In Ukraine, Russian intelligence has been active since before the annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Even after Ukraine ramped up its counterintelligence efforts, Russian operatives have maintained a presence, often infiltrating local government structures, military units, and even business sectors to gather intelligence and spread misinformation.

This latest exposure adds to the growing evidence that Russia continues to rely on covert operations to weaken Ukraine from within.

The article cites Ukrainian intelligence sources who emphasize the importance of disrupting these networks before they can carry out major operations. 

Some analysts believe these espionage activities are part of a broader Russian strategy to destabilize Ukraine politically and militarily.

From my perspective, this development is not surprising. 

Intelligence services, particularly in wartime, always seek to infiltrate enemy ranks. 

The fact that Ukraine has managed to uncover and disrupt this unit speaks to the strength of its counterintelligence efforts. 

However, the bigger question is—how many more of these units exist? 

And how effective are Ukraine’s measures in neutralizing them before they reek further damage?

Ukrainian intelligence has exposed a Russian espionage unit operating within its borders, reinforcing the ongoing intelligence war between the two nations. 

While this is a significant counterintelligence success, it also raises concerns about the extent of Russian infiltration and future threats.

As the war continues, intelligence operations will remain a critical battleground. 

Ukraine’s ability to detect and disrupt these units will play a key role in its defense strategy.

MUSIC

We return to the US Intelligence Community for our next story where we take a closer look at an article from The Guardian that examines the FBI’s handling of the January 6 Capitol riot investigation. 

The Department of Justice is reportedly scrutinizing the FBI’s approach, raising questions about intelligence failures, operational decisions, and potential political interference. 

We’ll unpack the details, discuss what this means for national security, and explore the broader implications for the intelligence community.

The article highlights concerns about how the FBI managed intelligence related to the events leading up to January 6. 

Reports suggest that the agency may have missed critical warning signs, underestimated the threat posed by extremist groups, and faced internal challenges in sharing information effectively.

From an intelligence perspective, this situation reflects the ongoing challenges of domestic threat assessment. 

The FBI, tasked with both law enforcement and domestic intelligence responsibilities, must balance civil liberties with proactive threat detection. 

Failures in this balance can lead to operational blind spots, as seen in the lead-up to January 6.

The scrutiny from the DOJ also raises concerns about accountability within the intelligence and law enforcement community. 

Were there systemic issues, or did political pressures influence decision-making? 

This isn’t the first time the FBI has faced criticism over intelligence lapses. 

After 9/11, the agency underwent significant reforms to improve information sharing and threat analysis. 

However, domestic extremism presents unique challenges compared to foreign terrorism.

The FBI's mission is complicated by online radicalization, decentralized extremist networks, and politicized intelligence. 

Unlike traditional terrorist threats, domestic actors often operate within legal grey areas until they act, making pre-emptive measures difficult.

The article references officials who argue that the FBI’s intelligence failures were partly due to bureaucratic inertia and a lack of urgency in addressing domestic threats. 

Some experts suggest that the agency’s focus remained too heavily skewed toward international terrorism, leaving it less prepared for homegrown extremism.

Drawing from my experience, intelligence agencies can often struggle to adapt quickly to evolving threats.
 
The shift from global terrorism to domestic extremism requires not just new strategies but a cultural change within organizations. 

Recognizing the signs of radicalization, understanding the dynamics of extremist groups, and overcoming political biases are all essential for effective threat mitigation.

The DOJ’s review of the FBI’s January 6 investigation underscores the importance of accountability, adaptability, and vigilance within the intelligence community. 

As threats evolve, so too must the strategies used to detect and counter them.

The key takeaway? 

Intelligence isn’t just about gathering information—it’s about acting on it effectively, without political interference or bureaucratic hesitation.

MUSIC

Sticking with issues affecting the FBI, we're delving into a significant development concerning the FBI and the ongoing repercussions of the January 6th Capitol attack. 

Our discussion centers on a recent article from The Guardian titled "FBI gives in to justice department demand for list of January 6 investigators."

The article reports that the FBI has complied with a Justice Department directive to provide a list of agents involved in the January 6th investigations. 

Acting FBI Director Brian Driscoll expressed concerns about the safety and privacy of these agents should their identities become public. 

In response, multiple agents have filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the release of their personal information, citing fears of potential retaliation.

From an intelligence perspective, this situation is deeply concerning. 

The disclosure of agents' identities not only jeopardizes their personal safety but also undermines the integrity of ongoing and future investigations. 

The fear of retaliation could deter agents from participating in sensitive cases, thereby weakening the US’ national security apparatus.

This development is part of a broader pattern of actions affecting federal agencies in the current administration. 

Notably, there have been significant changes within the FBI, including the dismissal of senior officials and the appointment of new leadership.

Comparatively, such actions echo tactics seen in other nations where political shifts lead to the restructuring of intelligence agencies, often resulting in compromised operational effectiveness and morale.

The article highlights concerns from within the FBI about potential retaliation. 

Acting Director Driscoll's apprehensions underscore the gravity of the situation.

Drawing from my experience, the forced disclosure of agents' identities is unprecedented and poses a significant threat to the foundational principles of intelligence work, which rely on confidentiality and the protection of personnel.

The FBI's compliance with the Justice Department's demand raises critical issues concerning agent safety, the integrity of investigations, and the broader implications for national security. 

If agents fear retaliation, it could lead to a chilling effect, deterring skilled professionals from engaging in essential investigative work.

As we continue to monitor these developments, it's crucial to remain vigilant about the potential long-term impacts on the intelligence community and North American security. 

MUSIC

Our next story brings us to the UK. 
Here we're examining a recent report from BBC News that delves into the Prevent program's handling of the Southport killer case. 

The article reveals that the case was closed prematurely, leading to tragic consequences. 

We'll explore the key findings, analyze the implications for counter-terrorism efforts, and discuss what this means for the future of de-radicalization programs.

The article highlights that the Prevent program, the UK's counter-radicalization initiative, prematurely closed the case of Axel Rudakubana, who later committed a heinous attack in Southport. 

Despite multiple referrals and evident warning signs, Rudakubana was not escalated to the Channel program, which is designed for individuals deemed at high risk of radicalization.

From an intelligence perspective, this case underscores significant lapses in threat assessment and inter-agency communication. 

The failure to act on clear indicators of radicalization reflects systemic issues within the Prevent framework, including potential biases, resource constraints, and procedural shortcomings.

The premature closure of Rudakubana's case not only led to loss of life but also eroded public confidence in counter-terrorism measures. 

It raises critical questions about the effectiveness of current de-radicalization strategies and the criteria used to assess threats.

The Prevent program has been a major part of the UK's counter-terrorism strategy, aiming to identify and support individuals vulnerable to radicalization. 

However, it has faced criticism over the years for various reasons, including allegations of stigmatizing certain communities and concerns about civil liberties.

The Southport case is not an isolated incident. 

Similar failures have been documented, prompting calls for comprehensive reviews and reforms. 

The challenge lies in balancing proactive intervention with respect for individual rights, all while ensuring public safety.

The article references findings from an independent review, which concluded that there was sufficient evidence to treat Rudakubana as a terror threat. 

The review criticized counter-terrorism officers for not escalating the case appropriately. 

In response, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has proposed new measures, including youth diversion orders and potential restrictions on internet usage for uncooperative individuals.

Drawing from my experience, it's evident that de-radicalization programs have a limited scope in their efficiency when countering extremism or terrorist related activity. 

In order to be more effective they need to incorporate continuous risk assessments, cultural competence, and robust oversight by intelligence and law enforcement agencies. 

Additionally, training for officers to recognize diverse forms of radicalization and understanding the nuances of each case is also crucial.

The premature closure of the Southport killer's case by the Prevent program highlights significant flaws in current counter-terrorism strategies for the UK. 

It emphasizes the need for systemic reforms, enhanced training, and better resource allocation to “prevent” such tragedies in the future.

As we move forward, it's imperative to foster collaboration among agencies, invest in community-based interventions, and maintain a vigilant yet balanced approach to de-radicalization efforts.

MUSIC


We stay in the UK for the next story where we’re examining a significant case involving Daniel Khalife, a former British soldier who was recently sentenced to over 14 years in prison for espionage activities on behalf of Iran. 

This case underscores the persistent threats posed by insider espionage and highlights the challenges intelligence agencies face in safeguarding national security.

According to The Guardian, Daniel Khalife, 23, was convicted of breaching the Official Secrets Act and the Terrorism Act by transmitting sensitive military information to Iranian agents. 

His actions included photographing a list containing the names of 15 soldiers, some from elite units like the Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS), and sharing this information with Iranian contacts. 

From an intelligence perspective, Khalife's activities represent a severe breach of trust and security. 

The unauthorized disclosure of classified information, especially details concerning special forces personnel, poses significant risks, including endangering lives and compromising ongoing operations. 

This case highlights the vulnerabilities within military institutions to insider threats and the critical importance of robust vetting and monitoring processes.

Khalife's methods, such as using social media platforms to establish contact with Iranian agents and employing dead drops for cash exchanges, indicate a level of tradecraft that, while perhaps amateurish, was nonetheless effective in circumventing security measures. 

His escape from HMP Wandsworth by clinging to a food truck further demonstrates a willingness to exploit systemic weaknesses.

Insider threats have long been a concern for intelligence and security agencies worldwide. 

The Khalife case is reminiscent of previous incidents where individuals within the military or intelligence community have exploited their positions to gather and transmit sensitive information to foreign adversaries. 

Such breaches not only compromise specific operations but can also have broader implications for national security and international relations.

The use of social media and other digital platforms by adversaries to recruit and exploit insiders has become increasingly prevalent. 

This trend necessitates continuous adaptation of counterintelligence strategies to address the evolving tactics employed by foreign intelligence services.

The court proceedings revealed that Khalife's actions were driven by personal grievances and a desire to showcase his capabilities. 

Despite his defense portraying his espionage attempts as unsophisticated, the court recognized the gravity of his offenses. 

Justice Cheema-Grubb emphasized that Khalife's conduct had exposed military personnel to significant danger and constituted a severe breach of the nation's security.

Drawing from my experience, this case underscores the necessity for comprehensive insider threat programs that encompass not only rigorous vetting procedures but also ongoing behavioral monitoring and support systems to identify and mitigate potential risks before they materialize.

 The Daniel Khalife case serves as another clear example of the persistent and evolving nature of insider threats. 

It highlights the critical importance of robust security protocols, continuous monitoring, and adaptive counterintelligence measures to safeguard national security interests.

As we look ahead, it's imperative for security agencies to remain vigilant, invest in advanced detection capabilities, and foster a culture of integrity and accountability within their ranks to prevent similar breaches in the future.

MUSIC

In this next story we’re looking at a growing security threat—Chinese-made internet-connected cameras installed across critical U.S. infrastructure. 

According to an ABC News report, these cameras, widely used in government buildings, military bases, and public spaces, could be exploited for espionage. 

With concerns mounting over foreign surveillance capabilities, the big question is: how vulnerable is U.S. infrastructure to cyber espionage?

The article highlights how Chinese-manufactured security cameras from companies like Hikvision and Dahua are still widely used across the United States, despite past security warnings. 

These cameras, which connect to the internet, could potentially allow unauthorized access to sensitive locations. 

The fear? 

Beijing might leverage them for intelligence gathering.

This is a textbook case of supply chain risk. 

If a foreign adversary controls the hardware, they could manipulate or exploit it at will—either through built-in backdoors or software vulnerabilities. 

This raises serious questions about cybersecurity and national security.

The bigger issue isn’t just the cameras themselves, but how many critical systems in the U.S. rely on foreign technology. 

If a government or private company unknowingly installs compromised equipment, they could be handing over real-time surveillance capabilities to an adversary.

Concerns about Chinese-made technology being used for espionage are not new. 

The U.S. government has already banned the sale and use of Huawei and ZTE telecom equipment over similar fears. 

In 2018, Congress also restricted federal agencies from purchasing Hikvision and Dahua cameras, yet many still remain in use due to outdated procurement processes and limited enforcement.

This fits into a broader pattern of China’s technological infiltration efforts. 

Whether through commercial products or cyber intrusions, Beijing has consistently sought ways to gain intelligence on U.S. infrastructure, businesses, and even individuals. 

Recent cases, like the discovery of Chinese malware in U.S. power grids, reinforce the urgency of addressing these vulnerabilities.

According to the ABC News report, cybersecurity experts warn that these cameras could be used for real-time monitoring or even remote access to secure facilities. 

Some U.S. officials argue that replacing them entirely is a logistical challenge, as they are deeply embedded in various systems.

From my perspective, this highlights a critical failure in supply chain security. 

If a foreign entity can control surveillance devices inside military installations, airports, or government buildings, it presents an obvious espionage risk. 

The solution isn’t just about replacing cameras—it’s about overhauling procurement policies, tightening cybersecurity defenses, and ensuring critical infrastructure isn’t reliant on foreign-controlled technology.

Chinese-made cameras are raising major security concerns in the U.S., and the risk of foreign surveillance through compromised hardware is very real. 

The bigger question is whether the U.S. government and private sector will move fast enough to mitigate these threats before they’re exploited.

Looking ahead, expect continued scrutiny on Chinese technology in Western infrastructure, along with stricter cybersecurity policies. 

Governments and businesses must rethink how they handle supply chain security before the next espionage scandal breaks.

MUSIC

For our last story, we’re diving into a high-stakes battle in the world of intelligence—Russia’s FSB launching a counter-campaign against CIA efforts to recruit Russian operatives. 

According to a Reuters report, the FSB has accused the CIA of aggressively targeting Russian officials and is now urging Americans to turn on their own government. 

What does this mean for the ongoing intelligence war between the U.S. and Russia? 

Let’s break it down.

The article highlights how the CIA has been openly encouraging Russian officials to share intelligence, leveraging dissatisfaction over the Ukraine war and internal political instability. 

In response, Russia’s FSB is pushing back with a bold countermeasure—calling on American citizens to betray their country and share secrets with Moscow.

This move is classic Cold War-era tradecraft, but with a modern twist. 

In today’s digital age, intelligence recruitment isn’t just happening in dark alleys—it’s playing out on social media and encrypted messaging platforms. 

The fact that Russia is responding so publicly suggests they are feeling the pressure from recent CIA efforts.

From an intelligence perspective, this is a significant escalation. 
Traditionally, spy agencies operate in the shadows. 

Publicly acknowledging recruitment battles signals desperation or an attempt at psychological warfare. 

The FSB’s message isn’t just about deterring defectors—it’s about undermining trust within U.S. institutions and fueling domestic instability.

The U.S. and Russia have long engaged in espionage cat-and-mouse games, but tensions have surged since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The CIA has been actively recruiting disillusioned Russian officials, promising them safety and support in exchange for intelligence. 

In May 2023, the CIA even released a video in Russian, encouraging insiders to reach out through secure channels.

Russia’s retaliation isn’t surprising. 

The FSB, Putin’s primary intelligence arm, has been cracking down on suspected spies and defectors, and this latest campaign is an extension of that effort. 

What’s unusual is how openly they are calling on Americans to turn against their own government—a bold but likely ineffective move given the risks involved.

Reuters reports that the FSB’s new campaign is framed as a direct response to Western intelligence activity. 

U.S. officials, however, see this as standard Russian disinformation—an attempt to stir division and paranoia.

From my perspective, this highlights how modern intelligence warfare isn’t just about gathering secrets—it’s about shaping narratives. 

By making this counter-recruitment effort public, Russia is attempting to turn the tables and paint the U.S. as the aggressor in the world of espionage. 

But will it work? 

Unlikely. 

The CIA has a far stronger reputation for protecting sources than the FSB, which has a history of retaliating harshly against its own defectors.

Russia’s latest counterintelligence campaign is a desperate move to counteract growing CIA recruitment efforts. 

While the FSB wants to portray itself as a dominant force, the reality is that internal dissatisfaction in Russia is driving more insiders toward the West.

Looking ahead, expect intelligence battles between the U.S. and Russia to continue playing out in the open, especially as the Ukraine conflict drags on. 

If anything, this episode is a reminder that espionage is no longer confined to the shadows—it’s now part of the global information war.


Well, that’s Wraps up another week of what’s going on in the world of intelligence, national security and espionage. 

I hope you enjoyed this week’s episode and if you did, please like, share and leave me a comment. 

I appreciate your feedback and input. 

I wanted to share with my listeners that the University of Ottawa has asked me to provide a course on The Psychology behind Human Sources in Intelligence Collection.   

This is part of the National Security Certificate Program in the Profession Development Institute. 

If you’re interested in this course or the program there’ a link in the show notes. 

As always the links to the open source articles discussed in this episode are in the transcript and show notes. 

Until next week, stay curious, stay informed and stay safe. 

OUTRO: 

That wraps up another week of Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap-Up.

From the unfolding crisis in U.S. intelligence, with CIA buyouts weakening the agency and FBI agents facing political scrutiny, to Russian espionage in Ukraine, Chinese surveillance threats, and Russia’s bold counterintelligence push against the CIA, today’s stories highlight the ever-shifting landscape of global intelligence and national security.

Every episode takes extensive research, expert analysis, and deep insight to bring you the intelligence stories that matter. 

If you found today’s breakdown valuable, a like, share, or comment goes a long way in helping this podcast and the YouTube channel grow.

And if you’d like to help keep these intelligence insights coming, consider supporting the show through Patreon or Buzzsprout—whether through ongoing support or a one-time donation. You’ll find the links in the show notes.

Thank you for tuning in. 

As Neil always reminds us: stay curious, stay informed, and stay safe. See you next week for more expert intelligence analysis.


LINKS: 

The Psychology Behind Human Sources in Intelligence Collection
https://pdinstitute.uottawa.ca/PDI/Courses/National-Security/The-Psychology-Behind-Human-Sources/Course.aspx?CourseCode=S0236&429f5b2a066e=3

PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/c/NeilBisson
Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2336717/support

Story 1: CIA Reported Buyouts of Workforce Under Trump Administration
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/05/cia-reported-buyouts-workforce-donald-trump-administration

Story 2: Russian ‘Espionage Unit’ Operating in Ukraine Identified by Kyiv Intelligence
Link: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/46643

Story 3: FBI’s Handling of January 6 Investigation Under DOJ Scrutiny
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/fbi-jan-6-trump-doj

Story 4: FBI gives in to justice department demand for list of January 6 investigators
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/07/fbi-jan-6-list

Story 5: Prevent closed Southport killer case 'prematurely' 
Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rqxpg2ryvo

Story 6: Daniel Khalife, former soldier who spied for Iran, jailed for more than 14 years 
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/03/daniel-khalife-former-soldier-who-spied-for-iran-jailed


Story 7: Internet-connected cameras made in China may be used to spy on US infrastructure: DHS
Link: https://digital.abcaudio.com/news/internet-connected-cameras-made-china-may-be-used-spy-us-infrastructure-dhs

Story 8: Russia's spies, in retaliation against the CIA, urge Americans to get in touch
Link: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-spies-retaliation-against-cia-urge-americans-get-touch-2025-02-06/