.jpg)
To be added or removed from the list, freepmail me...
Posted on 08/17/2006 6:07:20 PM PDT by brain bleeds red
Even if one rejects Golitsyn's overall thesis -- viz., that Gorbachev's changes comprised a long-term strategic deception -- one must still acknowledge that Golitsyn was the only analyst whose crystal ball was functioning during the key period of the late 20th century.
When the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989, the CIA was chastised for failing to foresee the change. "For a generation, the Central Intelligence Agency told successive presidents everything they needed to know about the Soviet Union," said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "except that it was about to fall apart."
Sovietologists both inside and outside CIA were indeed baffled, for their traditional method of analysis had yielded virtually no clues as to what Gorbachev would do. When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in February 1985, after the death of Konstantin Chernenko, analysts like Roy Medvedev preoccupied themselves with trivial details in the Soviet press, and gained no larger view. "The black mourning frame printed around the second page where the deceased leader's picture was run] looked rather narrow," Medvedev observed. "It was still, however, a millimeter broader than the frames used for the second-page announcements of the death of senior Politburo members like Marshal Ustinov, who had died a few months previously." There was nothing in the measurement of picture frames to suggest liberalization in the USSR; therefore, no one suggested it.
CIA's leadership acknowledged that fell short in predicting Gorbachev's reforms, but could provide no real excuse. "Who would have thought that just five years ago we would stand where we are today?" Acting Director Robert Gates told Congress in late 1991. "Talk about humbling experiences." Gates could have said: Our reporting was poor because our Moscow network was rolled up, coincidentally or not, precisely as Gorbachev was coming into power. Gates did not say this, however. Instead, he suggested that "We're here to help you think through the problem rather than give you some kind of crystal ball prediction." This anti-prediction line was echoed by the Agency's deputy director, Robert Kerr, who told Congress: "Our business is to provide enough understanding of the issue ... to say here are some possible outcomes.... And I think that's the role of intelligence, not to predict outcomes in clear, neat ways. Because that's not doable."
Yet someone had predicted glasnost and perestroika, in detail, even before Gorbachev came to power. This person's analysis of events in the communist world had even been provided to the Agency on a regular basis.
In 1982, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had submitted a top-secret manuscript to CIA. In it, he foresaw that leadership of the USSR would by 1986 "or earlier" fall to "a younger man with a more liberal image," who would initiate "changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin."
The coming liberalization, Golitsyn said, "would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the Communist Party's role; its monopoly would be apparently curtailed.... The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government; Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government. Political dubs would be opened to nonmembers of the Communist Party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political Censorship would be relaxed; controversial plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited."
Golitsyn provided an entire chapter of such predictions, containing 194 distinct auguries. Of these, 46 were not soon falsifiable (it was too early to tell, e.g., whether Russian economic ministries would be dissolved); another 9 predictions (e.g., of a prominent Yugoslavian role in East-Bloc liberalization) seemed clearly wrong. Yet of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent. Among events correctly foreseen: "the return to power of Dubcek and his associates" in Czechoslovakia; the reemergence of Solidarity" and the formation of a "coalition government" in Poland; a newly "independent" regime in Romania; "economic reforms" in the USSR; and a Soviet repudiation of the Afghanistan invasion. -Golitsyn even envisioned that, with the "easing of immigration controls" by East Germany, "pressure could well grow for the solution of the German problem [by] some form of confederation between East and West," with the result that "demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."
Golitsyn received CIA's permission to publish his manuscript in book form, and did so in 1984. But at time his predictions were made, Sovietologists had little use for Golitsyn or his "new methodology for the study of the communist world." John C. Campbell, reviewing Golitsyn's book in Foreign Affairs, politely recommended that it "be taken with several grains of salt." Other critics complained that Golitsyn's analysis "strained credulity" and was "totally inaccurate," or became so exercised as to accuse him of being the "demented" proponent of "cosmic theories." The University of North Carolina's James R. Kuhlman declared that Golitsyn's new methodology would "not withstand rigorous examination. Oxford historian R.W. Johnson dismissed Golitsyn's views as "nonsense." British journalist Tom Mangold even went so far as to say, in 1990 -- well after Golitsyn's prescience had become clear -- that "As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive." Mangold reached this conclusion by listing six of Golitsyn's apparently incorrect predictions and ignoring the 139 correct ones.
Golitsyn's analysis was as little appreciated within CIA as it was in the outside world. "Unfortunate is the only term for this book," an Agency reader noted in an official 1985 review. A CIA analyst took Golitsyn to task for making "unsupported allegations without sufficient (or sometimes any) evidence," and for this reason would be "embarrassed to recommend the whole." Golitsyn's case, other words, was deductive: He had no "hard evidence," no transcript of a secret meeting in which Gorbachev said the would do all these things. Perhaps most fundamentally, as the philosopher William James once noted, "we tend to disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use." Who had any use, in the end, for Golitsyn's belief that the coming glasnost and perestroika would merely constitute the "final phase" of a long-term KGB strategy to "dominate the world"?
I'm saying the statements are opinions & not irrefutable.
It's an analogy.
I have no idea if the Soviet Union went Chapter 11 but Chapter 11 is a common practice for businesses that want to continue in business but realize they need to reorganize.
I would agree with you if it was just any American official, but when the bulk of the intel community laughs at Golytsin conspiracy theory that should tell you something.
I just heard the founder of kos on NPR claim that he was comfortable with the CIA because it is run by fellow libs.
Thank you for providing me with a HUGE laugh and for increasing the worth of my tin foil stock portfolio.
You and your playmates over at www.thefinalphase.org are loons. For the uninitiated - that particular forum includes phoney Freepers who post on here, stir up trouble, and then slam Jim Robinson and others on their own site. One of them poses on FR as a "Polish" citizen, when in reality he's from California. Another is a so-called "college" student who cannot come up with any real contributions to any discussions other than glib sloganeering and pictures of Putin in various "Soviet" motifs. I've even posted complete b.s. I made up about the Russians on that wacky site and you guys fell for it hook, line, and sinker - no research, no verification - you wanted to believe rubbish and you did.
You guys don't have a clue about real world analysis, the strengths and weaknesses of the Russian Federation - their Armed Forces, paramilitary, interior troops, or the other problems facing them. You cannot even see the only immediate threat the Russian Federation poses is to itself.
You also deny the Reagan legacy - in short you call the Reagan legacy phoney, null and void - quite in line with the Strobe Talbotts of the world. Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Sean Penn and others should join your little website. Like minds and whatnot.
It's quite possible Golytsin was the most successful disinformation campaign the Soviet Union ever engaged in during the Cold War. His arrival and efforts are said to have paralyzed the CIA.
He's as despicable as Ion Pacepa, Jan Sejna (deceased) and Oleg Kalugin - charlatons who feed on paranoia to earn a comfortable living. There are plenty of living Czechs and Romanians, and Russians who can bear witness to their direct involvement in communist crimes and repression - but you guys hold these thugs up as heros. These thugs only fled after they were about to lose all of their power and wealth they stole as part of the communist elite. They prosper today because they tell you EXACTLY what you want to hear. Even if what they say defies logic and reason and reality.
Don't you find it a little too convinient that these phonies appear during whatever "crisis" the world is facing and paint themselves as having deep inside information about what's actually going on DESPITE BEING DECLARED TRAITORS IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES??? Do you actually believe they are able to maintain contact with "former" colleagues who then let them in on the "latest and greatest" secrets?
It's also no coincidence Golytsin wormed his way to Angleton - after all Angleton's confidant, British traitor Kim Philby, was probably providing the Soviets with info on Angleton's paranoia, etc. Golytsin was able to use it by stating, "those who defect after me will be charlatons, feeding you false information, and trying to discredit me." Angleton fell for it because he was mentally disturbed, or a willing participant - Philby's defection weighing heavy on his mind. Golytsin used this quite well during the Cold War - quite to the delight, probably, of his KGB masters. With the end of the Cold War Golystin had to continue his false prophecy because he needed to earn a living. How does he do it? Find morons who are willing to believe ludicrous "predictions" that defy logic and reality. Congrats.
The Cold War probably would have ended earlier if true defectors weren't discounted because of your "prophet" KGB agent Golytsin.
Now you guys play right into the hands of retired Soviet "Cold Warriors" who want to push Russia and the United States back into confrontation to soothe their hurt pride and wounded ego. Some of these guys work as "consultants" in Russia and point to the moronic "Soviet Union hasn't died, Russia is still our biggest threat" crowd and paint you as way more influential than you actually are in order to steer Russia into countering the US. Luckily, unlike in Russia, our leadership hasn't fallen into this trap.
To be added or removed from the list, freepmail me...
Not really. Putin is a communist with an image team and a makeover.
Please inform us, who is that person? We also would like to read how you back your claim? I’m personally dying from curiosity :)
According to Riebling, 139 out of 148 of Golitsyn's predictions came true by 1993. You have yet to specifically address Riebling's claim. Instead, you have chosen to engage in character assassination. This is a tactic of the Left and highly suspect.
The hatred of Golitsyn is part of the Intelligence community's intentional ignorance of the Russian/Chinese threat. It is seen as un-PC and bad for the markets to call those two countries enemies. Also, because the intel agencies have been gutted, they have their hands full dealing with the WOT, so there is not enough intel agents to go around when it comes time to deal with the Russians/Chinese. Even North Korea does not get the same coverage that Al Queida gets.
First thing's first...
Reagan's legacy nearly uncovered the Russian plan, as Russia almost did genuinely collapse. The Soviets only held power through the control of the Russian, Belarussian, and Kazak militaries, and their police (FSB, SVR, Belarus KGB, ect). Some also held seats on the Duma with different party facades, and also owned various businesses. It was not until Putin took power that the Soviets returned to power in Russia and all hope to properly correct the Russian problem was lost.
Second thing's second...
If Russia has totally abandoned Communism, why is Lenin still on display and a Russian Communist Party? Why did Putin have a giant Soviet throwback day last year during the anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War? Why have Soviet criminals been allowed to go free? And finally, why is a KGB agent in charge of Russia?
Hardly surprising now that we know the CIA is full of communists and Baghdad Bob's.
Lol. Now it is the Chinese keeping America afloat. Why would any good financial mind avoid the safest government debt around?
Predictions based on what would happen is not the same as saying there was a plan in place to cause those happenings.
Anyone believing the USSR decided to dismember itself, reduce its role in the world and to remove the CP monopoly on political power as part of a deep, plot to become stronger apparently would believe anything.
Russia has national interests which are not necessarily ideological so some of its subsequent behavior should be viewed from the perspective of Nationalism rather than Communism.
You don't need Golitsyn to see the threat that Putin poses to the West.
Selling weapons to Islamofascist countries is NOT in Russia's "National" intrests.
CIA=Central Incompentence Agency
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.