[Ben] Ukraine has become the testing ground
for what a cyber army could look like in active wartime.
[Ben] This is a new frontier of war.
What are the rules?
It's not allowed, and it's not forbidden.
[NB65 member] We're hacking everything we can.
Everything that we're doing is costing them time, money,
and reputation.
[David] In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled
that the eastern half of Oklahoma
belongs to five Indian reservations.
I was shocked.
It calls into question
everything this country was built on.
[Ryan] If that's the case,
the state of Oklahoma no longer exists.
Where do you draw the line?
[David] What's at stake is not just the land
but the resources on it.
[James] We have an obligation.
We know it's a challenge and we welcome that challenge.
dramatic music
[shouting]
ominous music
[Roman] speaking Ukrainian
At what point did you realize
that, actually, you could be part of defending Ukraine?
[Roman] speaking Ukrainian
Once I hit enter, it starts to send
hundreds and thousands of requests.
And this is where, like,
the magic of the DDOS happens.
[Ben] DDOS, or distributed denial of service,
is a kind of cyberattack that floods a website
with so much traffic, it temporarily goes offline.
You're a member of the IT army.
Is that right?
I suppose so, yeah.
[Ben] As Russian forces gathered on the border,
the Ukrainian government knew
they weren't just dealing with a ground invasion.
For the past ten years, Russia has been using cyber
to sow chaos in the West,
and Ukraine has been target number one.
The physical war marks a new era.
This is the first large-scale hybrid war
the world has ever seen,
but Ukraine was ready.
speaking Ukrainian
[Ben] Hundreds of thousands joined
Ukraine's clandestine IT army,
using cyber to attack Russia,
but Ukraine was also prepared to defend itself
from Russian hackers.
Yurii Shchyhol is the head
of the Ukrainian government's official cyber defense agency.
He's witnessed Ukraine become a testing ground
for this new hybrid war
where conventional weaponry is compounded by cyberattacks.
speaking Ukrainian
[Ben] Are cyberattacks warnings
of potential physical attacks that might happen?
speaking Ukrainian
[Ben] In fact, this strategy was entirely synchronized.
An hour before the invasion began,
Russian hackers attacked satellite communications
operated by an American company called Viasat.
This meant that just as the bombs started dropping,
it was more challenging for the military to organize
and for civilians to plan their escape,
creating a deadly scenario for Ukrainians.
Can you talk me through the Viasat attack?
speaking Ukrainian
[Ben] The Viasat attack impacted
the lives of hundreds of thousands across Europe.
It could have been much worse.
The network was fully stabilized within days,
but some industries felt the effects
for months afterwards.
Still, Ukraine didn't retaliate.
[Yurii] speaking Ukrainian
[Ben] But the Ukrainian government
limits its policy to cyber defense
by tacitly sanctioning the private sector's IT army.
They've gained a vast and sophisticated offensive front
in the cyber war with Russia.
Yegor Aushev is a successful entrepreneur
who's organized tech talent to fight Russia.
And could you hear the bombs dropping outside
when you were in here?
[Ben] And when you were sat here,
was it clear to you
how you could contribute to the war going on?
[Ben] One of Yegor's first projects
was a collaboration with a private bank
to alert the authorities when a person takes money out
using a Russian credit card
in an effort to weed out Russian spies in Ukraine.
[Ben] So it was a real collaboration
between the bank--
[Ben] This is one of the few initiatives
that Yegor can actually speak about.
He and his conscripts are hacking Russia,
and revealing anything about those operations
could compromise everything.
This is sort of a new frontier
of war.
What are the rules that define it?
So you've essentially founded a cyber army.
[Ben] The cyber army isn't just on Ukrainian territory.
There are no borders.
Anyone around the world can join up.
Germany is now home to some 300,000 Ukrainian refugees,
including Dima and Dasha,
who work for a popular face-swapping app in Ukraine
called Reface.
When war broke out,
they leveraged their skills
and, along with colleagues,
created a regiment of tech refugees
known as UA Tech Power.
What is it that you're doing from here?
[Ben] Dima helped recruit
thousands of displaced Ukrainian tech experts
across the globe, from Indonesia to the UK.
The team collected satellite data
and created an AI tool
for tracking the location of Russian troops in real-time.
From one project, it turned, like, to much more.
Are there things happening in tech,
related to this war, that you can't tell me about?
[Ben] For Dima, this is more
than just supporting the war effort.
It's about saving his family's lives.
His mother was stuck in his hometown of Mariupol
until mid-May
as the city was being completely destroyed
by Russian bombs.
Did you ever think about going back to Ukraine,
picking up a weapon, and fighting?
From here in Berlin, do you feel like you're--
you are actually fighting in this war?
[Ben] Dima is fighting remotely
to defend his country,
but the global call to hack Russia
isn't limited to Ukrainians.
NB65 is a hacktivist group with Anonymous roots.
Since the onset of the war,
they've been extracting and publishing terabytes of data
from Russian media conglomerates
and banking systems.
And while the Ukrainian cyber warriors
can reveal their identities,
the murky legality of hacking Russia from the U.S.
means we can't reveal their names or faces.
[NB65 member] In layman's terms,
we're hacking everything we can
in Russia.
Everything that we're doing is costing them
time, money, and reputation.
I suppose which is why some people describe
what you're doing as vigilantism.
I mean, what do you think about that term?
[NB65 member] We don't live in ordinary times,
and as a result,
we'll take unordinary actions against Russia.
[NB65 member] It's what Russia has been doing
and what China has been doing now for several decades.
They recruit the top cyber talent that they can
in their country to come work for their government.
They have hackers not by the thousands,
by the tens of thousands,
working on just cyber offense alone.
[Ben] While it's easy to support
these vigilante cyber warriors
in their fight against evil,
for every NB65,
there are Russian, Iranian, Chinese,
and North Korean hacking groups attacking the West,
but the U.S. has quietly steeled its cyber defenses.
Founded just four years ago, the Cyber Security
and Infrastructure Security Agency,
or CISA, was created
to protect America's private sector
and its critical infrastructure,
and their work is more important than ever.
We need to assume, based on history,
based on the well-known
Russian militia cyber activity playbook,
that these attacks may be coming.
We need to be prepared
for any attack on our critical infrastructure
in retaliation for the very serious costs
that have been imposed on Russia.
Critical infrastructure, at the end of the day,
is how Americans get water, how we get power,
how we get food at the grocery store,
how we get gas at the pump, how we get money from the ATM.
These are the networks and systems
that underpin our daily lives.
There are people in the U.S.
who are willing to fight using cyber
who aren't part of the national security infrastructure
just because they think it's the right thing to do.
I can sympathize with them.
This is about defending a global space.
I do, though, worry a lot about the ripple effects
of these types of offensive capabilities.
[Ben] If Russia succeeds,
even in just entering the system
of a piece of critical infrastructure,
what's the U.S. response to that?
[Jen] The world has come together
to do everything we can to support Ukraine,
whether that's with money, whether that's with weapons,
whether that's with capabilities
from a cyber perspective.
And certainly, if the Russians went after
our critical infrastructure,
I think the president of the United States
has made it very clear that that is unacceptable
and not something we will stand for.
[Ben] And in cyber,
it's no longer just state militaries
with the power to escalate this conflict.
A massive cyberattack could draw more countries
more actively into the current war.
Do you have the power, if you wanted to,
to target Russia's critical infrastructure?
Yes.
[Ben] But it's a red line
you have decided not to cross at this point.
That's one of our code of ethics.
-Yes. -Yeah, correct.
That would have more of a secondary effect
that would be deeply impacting to not only the Russian state
but the Russian people as well,
and that would be considered escalatory.
So if Russia perceives you as a combatant,
is there a risk, then,
that it drags the United States into this war further?
There is a risk there.
However, I'm not quite sure
what type of cyber action that we've taken so far
could even come close to an act of war.
However, it's only a matter of time
before they will attack,
so it's not gonna be us that's gonna escalate.
It's gonna be Russia.
disquieting music
[marshal] The Honorable, the Chief Justice,
and the Associate Justices
of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Oyez! Oyez!
-The court is now sitting. -[gavel bangs]
[Chief Justice Roberts] We'll hear argument first.
McGirt versus Oklahoma.
In a major victory for Indigenous sovereignty,
the Supreme Court ruled Thursday
that about half of Oklahoma remains Native American land.
It was a momentous decision,
granting jurisdictional control
for criminal justice cases
to the Muscogee Creek Nation
and four neighboring tribal nations.
[Chief Justice Roberts] Justice Sotomayor?
[Justice Sotomayor] That nation was wrenched
from its homeland, marched to Oklahoma,
and then given a treaty
which guaranteed its sovereignty.
[David] In 2020,
in a case known as McGirt versus Oklahoma,
the Supreme Court ruled that the eastern half of Oklahoma
belongs to five Indian reservations.
[Chief Justice Roberts] The case is submitted.
[gavel bangs]
[David] The ruling took the authority
to prosecute tribal citizens away from the state
and, in most cases,
gave it back to the tribes themselves.
For the nationwide movement for tribal sovereignty,
this was a stunning victory.
It rolled back nearly two centuries of betrayal,
of policies that robbed the Natives of their lands,
their culture, and their right to self-governance.
[Sara] I think that part of any discussion about McGirt
has to be about justice.
When I read those words,
at the end of the Trail of Tears,
there was a promise.
To live through a time where a promise that was broken
by the United States would then be kept,
that is extraordinary.
[David] For people like Frances Danger,
a writer and citizen of the Muscogee Nation,
McGirt was an opportunity
to at least partially redeem that painful history.
How did you feel the day the McGirt decision came down?
I cried.
I cried. I was shocked.
You know, there are over 500 treaties
that this government made with Native nations,
and every single one of them have been broken.
And to finally have one of those promises
recognized and affirmed?
Amazing. Amazing.
And just the sheer implications of what that could mean.
I was like, we've never had this before.
[David] The promises that the McGirt ruling upheld
were made by the U.S.
in treaties signed with the Five Nations
when they were forced off their homelands
in the Trail of Tears.
Those treaties said the tribes' new reservations,
in what was then known simply as Indian Territory,
would be theirs to live on and govern forever,
but that's not what happened.
How is it that these treaties were broken
in the first place?
27 lines down from "all men are created equal"
in the Declaration of Independence,
we are called "merciless Indian savages."
The reason we are called savages
is because we held our land collectively,
and that was seen as backwards thinking.
In order to be civilized,
you know, you needed to have ownership.
[David] So the U.S. divided up the reservations
into individually-owned plots,
and non-Indians bought the land up
until very little was left.
That strategy was used across the West
to open up Indian lands to white settlers.
And now, after generations of settlement,
what's at stake is not just the land
but the resources on it.
Nowhere is that more evident than Oklahoma,
which is and has always been oil country.
Though it remains unclear, the McGirt ruling could mean
that the tribes will be in charge of taxing
and regulating the oil industry.
That has a lot of people worried.
Just for this--just this well,
the oil gets pumped out of there...
-Right. -[David] And then...
[Dewey] Then it goes into this area.
This is called a tank battery.
That's where the oil and water are separated
and then accumulate in these tanks.
[David] Dewey Bartlett Jr.
comes from a prominent political family
that moved to Oklahoma to prospect for oil
over 100 years ago.
His family's small oil company has about 75 wells
on what McGirt reaffirmed as reservation land.
When the tribes say things like, "This is our land,
and you're trespassing"...
-[Dewey] Uh-huh. -[David] What do you think?
I've got a deed to my house,
and it's in the Muscogee Creek Nation.
I'll sell it to you,
at my price, if you want it that bad.
With this property, same thing.
I have 100 years of legal transactions
that have occurred that have said that,
at the end of the day, this is mine.
Do you think it's fair to say that after McGirt,
the oil and gas industry is afraid
of losing the influence it has over the state government?
Yes, because now we have a very good relationship
with state government,
and if that were to go away, then who do we deal with?
And I think, if we had to deal with the tribe,
whatever the rules are,
we would live and abide by the rules.
Now, they might get us--
they might drive us out of business.
Do you actually worry
that the tribes might drive you out of business
if they wind up being in charge of the industry?
Sure. Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
[David] Bartlett's operation is a tiny fraction
of what's at stake.
More than 40% of Oklahoma's oil and gas production
is on the original reservations.
And it isn't just oil.
If the tribes gain authority over not just criminal matters
but also civil matters, like taxation,
there are millions in tax revenue
that would go to the tribes and not the state.
The government of Oklahoma
is going to extreme lengths to prevent this.
Oklahoma has been robbed of the authority
to prosecute crimes.
[David] Governor Kevin Stitt has gone on a PR blitz,
painting McGirt as a catastrophe
that's led to criminal mayhem.
We have people on death row
that are doing 23andMe DNA tests,
trying to get their convictions overturned.
[David] But out of thousands of affected cases,
McGirt has led to the release of just 33 people.
And although some tribes have gone from handling a few dozen
to a few thousand cases a year,
their leaders say they have things under control.
[Chief Chuck] Governor Kevin Stitt is
the most anti-Indian governor
in the history of the state of Oklahoma.
But the Cherokee Nation has put over $30 million
into building up our criminal justice system.
We've taken on over 4,000 felony cases.
We can work together.
I just wish the governor of the state of Oklahoma
would join us in that effort.
[David] Along with the PR campaign,
Oklahoma has gone on a legal offensive
to undermine McGirt,
filing dozens of petitions to the Supreme Court,
sometimes with the help of the oil industry.
The case that's currently before the Supreme Court
is narrowly focused
on this technical question of criminal jurisdiction,
but there is a lot more on the line,
and you can tell based on the groups
that are getting involved in the litigation.
This is an amicus brief filed by, among others,
the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma.
It's a business group that represents
the largest oil and gas producers in the state.
This is the same sector that has spent heavily
getting Kevin Stitt elected as governor of Oklahoma,
and it's Stitt and his attorney general
that are now devoting tons of resources
to arguing this case before the Supreme Court
against the tribes.
It's now my distinct privilege
to introduce the governor of the great state of Oklahoma,
Kevin Stitt.
Well, thank you so much.
First, we want to thank the Supreme Court
for agreeing to hear this case.
Some of the most violent crimes,
they're just going unprosecuted in Eastern Oklahoma.
As the governor,
my job is to protect law and order and enforce justice
for Native victims and all 4 million Oklahomans.
[David] Do you see a connection between the McGirt decision
and the functioning of oil and gas in Oklahoma?
If it's expanded to be
a reservation for all purposes--
and that's not the position of the state.
That's not the position of the court behind us.
It was just for the Major Crimes Act--but sure.
This could erode oil and gas.
And so those are things that--
it'll either be endless litigation,
or we'll get some clarity around this.
[David] For many tribal citizens,
it's not just about money and taxes.
It's about moving beyond a worldview
that sees the land purely as something to be exploited.
The Muscogee Nation's director of environmental services
is going to take me to see the site of an oil spill
that's been sitting here for two years
without getting properly cleaned up.
This is an oil supply line that we're following
to the site of the spill.
[James] I can smell it.
[sniffs] Yep, you can smell it.
[James] I smell petroleum.
That's strong, isn't it?
[David] That's just oil, right?
-That's all oil. -[James] That's just oil.
Yeah.
There is a supply line
carrying the petroleum product.
Look like it sprung a leak.
Then it comes down through here.
Migrated down this way, and hits the creek there.
It's definitely a major breach and a leak.
Why is it that this has been allowed
to sit here like this for so long?
Oil and gas is big here in Oklahoma.
I mean, they've been driving the boat for--
since the turn of the century.
When we talk about sovereignty on our reservation,
we're talking about being in control
of all our natural resources.
We're talking about being able
to even have issues like this--
being able to come in and say, "You need to clean that up."
It was always a reservation, you know,
and it just took the Supreme Court
to verify that.
It feels like we have an opportunity here.
Also, I think we have an obligation
that we need to take care of what we've got,
in the reservation.
We know it's a challenge and we welcome that challenge.
[David] The five nations are now poised
to have more political power
than they've had in generations,
and tribes around the country are paying close attention
to whether they actually get it.
Ryan Leonard is Governor Stitt's point person
on tribal affairs.
He's been tasked with making sure
the consequences of the McGirt ruling
stay as limited as possible.
What will happen if the McGirt decision
winds up extending to civil matters,
not just criminal matters?
[Ryan] If that's the case,
I think you could make the very valid case
that the state of Oklahoma no longer exists
in the form that it has for 114 years leading up to McGirt.
The bottom line is, is that for well over 100 years,
generations of Oklahoma leaders,
tribal and non-tribal,
all believed that the reservations
were disestablished at statehood.
And frankly, I think that, if you really look into it,
that is the basis, in large part,
for the tribe's great success in Oklahoma.
I think a lot of tribal citizens would say
Oklahoma didn't develop as this sort of harmonious union
between tribal and non-tribal citizens,
as you've said.
Rather, the Indian nations
were forcibly dispossessed of their land and culture
and forced to live under the jurisdiction--
the illegitimate jurisdiction-- of the state of Oklahoma.
The story that you just recounted,
where the tribes were dispossessed,
is a tragic one,
and that occurred all over the country.
It's the story of the United States, unquestionably.
It's the story of the United States.
Oklahoma's no different.
The entirety of the North American continent
was Indian country, so where do you draw the line?
Do we give Downtown Chicago back to the Potawatomis?
Do we return Midtown Manhattan
back to the tribes that were located there
before the European settlers came?
The path forward is one
in which everybody's working to rise all boats.
soft dramatic music
[David] When someone who works for the state
asks a question like, "Well, where do we stop?
Should we return Chicago
to the Native tribes that lived there before?
Should we return New York City
to the tribes that occupied that land before we arrived?"
I think whenever someone puts it in those terms,
they're not understanding
that when we talk about Land Back,
yes, we would like our land back,
but we're not kicking anybody off.
What we would like is control over it
so we can undo
what all these years of colonialism has done to it.
And just because you're used to it
doesn't make it right.
Is it fair to say that part of this is,
if sovereignty is genuinely fully returned and exercised,
yes, there will be some chaos.
Is that a reason not to do it?
[Frances] There's no reason not to do it
other than the fact that it calls into question
everything this country was built on.
I mean, think about it.
American exceptionalism is about manifest destiny.
"We have the divine right to this land.
We have the divine right to take it
in any way that we want."
By recognizing our sovereignty, it calls into question
everything that everyone has ever believed
anytime they looked at that flag
and put their hand over their heart.
And nobody wants to be the villain in the story.
That's why they wrote history the way they did.
dramatic music