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"?
OK, I shall have at it...
“…to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 147 to go.
“…introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe, and probably, in the Soviet Union.”
Burden of proof still on Golitsyn supporters to show that the changes in Eastern Europe and the FSU are actually false. Not demonstrated. 146 to go.
“…and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.”
Spurious, hell. Czechoslovakia fell apart along ethnic lines--thankfully, in a fairly clean fashion--and Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are now in NATO. Disproven. 145 to go.
“A coalition government in Poland would in fact be totalitarianism under a new, deceptive, and more dangerous guise.”
Simple assertion, no evidence of Polish totalitarianism given anywhere on this thread. Burden of proof not met. 144 to go.
“Accepted as the spontaneous emergence of a new form of multiparty, semi democratic regime, it would serve to undermine resistance to communism inside and outside the communist block.”
Simple assertion, no evidence of Polish totalitarianism given anywhere on this thread. Burden of proof not met. 143 to go.
“The need for massive defense expenditure would increasingly be questioned in the West.”
OK, this actually happened--but not for the reasons cited. Still, I'm feeling generous. 143 to go, 1 success.
“New possibilities would arise for splitting Western Europe away from the United States, of neutralizing Germany, and destroying NATO.”
NATO's alive and well--and several major river valleys further to the east, equivalent to the Warsaw Pact losing World War III--but without a shot being fired. Not proven. 142 to go, 1 success.
“With North American influence in Latin America also undermined…”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 141 to go, 1 success.
“…the stage would be set for achieving actual revolutionary changes in the Western world through spurious changes in the communist system.”
Spurious, hell. Poland's a friendlier environment for foreign (read: US) investment than just about anywhere else in Europe except Ireland. The West didn't change, the East did. Not proven. 140 to go, 1 success.
“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned.”
Didn't happen. 139 to go, 1 success.
“The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world.”
Opposition not demonstrated to be false. Not proven. 138 to go, 1 success.
“”Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 137 to go, 1 success.
“In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism”, “racism”, and “military industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kid of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings.”
We're kicking butt in former USSR client states. Nice try. 136 to go, 1 success.
“…well be followed by the apparent withdrawal of one or more communist countries from the Warsaw Pact to serve as the model of a “neutral” socialist state for the whole of Europe to follow.”
Eastern Europe is becoming more capitalist than Western Europe. And those countries are now in NATO. 135 to go, 1 success.
“Yugoslavia may be expected to play a conspicuous role in the new scenario.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 134 to go, 1 success.
“A display of Sino-Soviet rivalry for influence in Europe may be expected on the lines of the “struggle for hegemony” already being witnessed in South-East Asia.”
Didn't happen. 133 to go, 1 success.
“…to assist in the creation of new, false alignments between communist and noncommunist powers, and…”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 132 to go, 1 success.
“…to break up the existing NATO structure and replace it with a system of European collective security entailing the ultimate withdrawal of the American military presence from Western Europe…”
...and, instead, placing it in Eastern Europe. 131 to go, 1 success.
“…and the growth of communist influence there.”
Like I said, Poland is becoming more capitalist than Western Europe ever was. 130 to go, 1 success.
“…with the single overall objective of brining Iran into an anti-Western alliance with them.”
Iran hated our guts then, and still hates our guts now--but they also back Chechen terrorists. 129 to go, 1 success.
“The object of the alliance would be to gain control over a strategically vital area of the Middle East.”
Didn't happen. 128 to go, 1 success.
“It [the next five years] will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past twenty years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.”
And then, in 1987, Ronald Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" 127 to go, 1 success.
“The overall aim will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favor of the bloc as a preliminary to the final ideological objective of establishing a worldwide federation of communist states.”
Well, THAT didn't happen. WE WON. 126 to go, 1 success.
“A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.”
Didn't happen. 125 to go, 1 success.
“A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.”
Didn't happen. 124 to go, 1 success.
“In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.”
Didn't happen. 123 to go, 1 success.
“In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.”
Didn't happen. 122 to go, 1 success.
“The creation of a world federation of communist states.”
Didn't happen. 121 to go, 1 success.
“The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear.”
Didn't happen. 120 to go, 1 success.
“The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant.”
Didn't happen. That relationship is cash and carry; and if the Chinese don't cough up the cash, they ain't going to carry. 119 to go, 1 success.
“Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a world communist federation.”
Didn't happen. 118 to go, 1 success.
“The suggested European option would be promoted by a revival of controlled “democratization” on the Czechoslovak pattern in Eastern Europe, including probably Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.”
Didn't happen. The entire eastern bloc imploded in nothing flat. 117 to go, 1 success.
“The justification of hard line policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to “democratization” following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene.”
Didn't happen as described; and on this one, I'm not feeling generous. 116 to go, 1 success.
“Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek.”
Andropov was a Stalinist. 115 to go, 1 success.
“Conceivably an announcement will be made to the effect that the economic and political foundations of communism in the Soviet Union have been laid and that democratization is therefore possible.”
Didn't happen. 114 to go, 1 success.
“The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinistic actions against “dissidents”….”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 113 to go, 1 success.
“…and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime was condemned in 1968.”
It wasn't; Gorbachev simply inherited a mess that could not be fixed (thank you, Ronald Reagan and Bill Casey), and said "to hell with it, we quit." 112 to go, 1 success.
“In the economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslav, or even, seemingly, with Western socialist models.”
Actually, it turned rabidly capitalist--but with no systematic moral underpinning, so it turned oligarchically criminal. 111 to go, 1 success.
“Some economic ministries might be dissolved;….”
Some? Hell, almost all! 110 to go, 1 success.
“…control would be more decentralized;…”
No control at all is more like it...109 to go, 1 success.
“…individual self-managing firms might be created from existing plants and factories;…”
More like "self-mismanaging." 108 to go, 1 success.
“…material incentives would be increased;…”
The country's damn near broke. 107 to go, 1 success.
“…the independent role of technocrats, workers’ councils, and trade unions would be enhanced;…”
Actually, they don't have ANY role now. 106 to go, 1 success.
“…the party’s control over the economy would be apparently diminished.”
Try "actually." 105 to go, 1 success.
“Such reforms would be based on Soviet experience in the 1920’s and 1960’s, as well as on Yugoslav experience.”
Nope, it was based on teling everyone that Rule 1 was "There are no more rules, lotsa luck!" 104 to go, 1 success.
“The party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before.”
Didn't happen. 103 to go, 1 success.
“Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968.”
It didn't. 102 to go, 1 success.
“The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive.”
I'll give you that. 101 to go, 2 successes.
“Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role;…”
Well, I feel generous. Announcing that the USSR has just gone out business fits this criteria. 100 to go, 3 successes.
“…it’s monopoly would be apparently curtailed.”
Try "actually." 99 to go, 3 successes.
“An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced.”
To the point of there damn near being a shooting war between the military and the legislature in 1993. OK, I'll give you that one. 98 to go, 4 successes.
“The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power…”
It got abolished! 97 to go, 4 successes.
“…and the president and deputies greater apparent independence.”
Not really--they get to deal with the Duma. 96 to go, 4 successes.
“The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated.”
Actually, they were abolished. 95 to go, 4 successes.
“The KGB would be “reformed”.”
Split into several feuding pieces. OK, I'll give you that. 94 to go, 5 successes.
“Dissidents at home would be amnestied…”
Yeah, that happened. 93 to go, 6 successes.
“…those in exile abroad would be allowed to return,…”
Some were, a lot weren't. 92 to go, 6 successes..
“…and some would take up positions of leadership in government.”
A few did because they were elected. 91 to go, 7 successes.
“Sakharov [Sakharov was the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, and earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 for his campaigns for nuclear disarmament. He was exiled in 1980 and returned to a hero’s welcome in 1986. He died in 1989.] might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad.”
He was one of the people actually elected. OK, 90 to go, 8 successes.
“The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions.”
Try "actually." 89 to go, 8 successes.
“Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party.”
OK, this happened right after the USSR went bye-bye. 88 to go, 9 successes.
“Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties.”
And so they did. 87 to go, 10 successes.
“Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited.”
Try "abolished." 86 to go, 11 successes.
“Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers.”
Some did, most didn't. 85 to go, 11 successes.
“Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained.”
The Soviet constitution wasn't amended, it was abolished. 84 to go, 11 successes.
“There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel.”
No more Soviet citizens! 83 to go, 11 successes.
“Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.”
Didn't happen as described. 82 to go, 11 successes.
“…the dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet “liberalization” when it comes.”
No evidence. 81 to go, 11 successes.
“Further high-level defectors, or “official émigrés,” may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.”
Didn't happen. 80 to go, 11 successes.
“Since the Soviets signed the CSCE agreements, they may be expected at some stage, at least, to go through the motions with complying with them.”
The Russian Army left Eastern Europe, and they haven't returned since, but I'm generous. 79 to go, 12 successes.
“ “Liberalization” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates.”
Didn't happen. 78 to go, 12 successes.
“If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.”
Wasn't "contemplated," and it wasn't done by government--it was the citizens of Berlin that tore it down. 77 to go, 12 successes.
“Western acceptance of the new “liberalization” as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of the communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 76 to go, 12 successes.
“The pressure for united fronts between communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified.”
Didn't happen. 75 to go, 12 successes.
“United front governments under strong communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries.”
Didn't happen. 74 to go, 12 successes.
“Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of communist parties would be much revived.”
Didn't happen. 73 to go, 12 successes.
“The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.”
And they're turning back to conservatism now. 72 to go, 12 successes.
“The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the CSCE context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO.”
The Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991. Some of the former WP members are now enthusiastic members of NATO. 71 to go, 12 successes.
“The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the communist bloc,…”
Wrong. 70 to go, 12 successes.
“…but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a “liberalized” Soviet bloc.”
Didn't happen. 69 to go, 12 successes.
“Perhaps in the longer run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.”
Didn't happen. 68 to go, 12 successes.
“The EEC on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops.”
Didn't happen. 67 to go, 12 successes.
“The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.”
Didn't happen. 66 to go, 12 successes.
“ “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.”
Didn't happen. 65 to go, 12 successes.
“The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America, or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seen an alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power.”
Didn't happen. 64 to go, 12 successes.
“ “Liberalization” in Eastern Europe on the scale suggested could have a social and political impact on the United States itself, especially if it coincided with a severe economic depression.”
Didn't happen. 63 to go, 12 successes.
“The communist bloc will not repeat its error in failing to exploit a slump as it did in 1929-32.”
Didn't happen. 62 to go, 12 successes.
“The bloc would certainly have an interest in secretly building up reserves of oil and grain that could be used for political purposes in a time of crisis to support newly established procommunist governments in Europe or else-where.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 61 to go, 12 successes.
“ “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union could well be accompanied by a deepening of the Sino-Soviet split.”
Didn't happen. 60 to go, 12 successes.
“This might include a rupture in trade and diplomatic relations, an increase in spectacular frontier incidents, and perhaps deeper incursions into one another’s territory on the lines of the Chinese “invasion” of Vietnam in 1979…”
Didn't happen. 59 to go, 12 successes.
“It would encourage an even closer alignment with China of the United States and any other surviving conservative nations against a Soviet-socialist European coalition.”
Didn't happen. 58 to go, 12 successes.
“Military cooperation would be included in the alignment and China might go so far as to offer bases in return for help in building up her military potential.”
Didn't happen. 57 to go, 12 successes.
“A breach in diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and China might complicate but would not interrupt the process of policy coordination between them.”
Didn't happen. 56 to go, 12 successes.
“…Romaina and Yugoslavia at least might be expected to maintain their representation in Peking if the Soviets were to withdraw or the be “thrown out.” “
Didn't happen. 55 to go, 12 successes.
“To some extent, Sino-Soviet coordination could be carried on through Romanian and Yugoslav intermediaries.”
Didn't happen. 54 to go, 12 successes.
“Another possibility is that direct, secret communications links exist between the Soviet Union and China that are not accessible to the West.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 53 to go, 12 successes.
“In addition, there is the possible existence of a secret bloc headquarters staffed by senior representatives of the major communist states…”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 52 to go, 12 successes.
“Some of the remaining conservative Third World countries would be strongly drawn toward a socialist orientation.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 51 to go, 12 successes.
“Resistance to communism from the Socialist International would be replaced by a combined communist-socialist drive for Third World influence, backed by economic aid.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 50 to go, 12 successes.
“It would have far-reaching consequences, especially if US aid should be curtailed in response to a severe depression.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 49 to go, 12 successes.
“Cuba, which might follow the Soviet example of “liberalization” (the 1980 Cuban emigration might be part of the preparation for such a move) would play an active role in the liberalization struggle.”
Didn't happen. 48 to go, 12 successes.
“Those leaders of the nonaligned movement who had close relations with communist countries would try to involve the rest of the nonaligned movement in concerted actions with communists and social democrats to promote the joint aims of procuring the disarmament of the United States and the reduction of its role as a world power; of isolating Israel, South Africa, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East, especially the PLO.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 47 to go, 12 successes.
“A variety of forums-the UN, the OAU, and the Brandt commission on the North-South problem-would be used for exerting political and economic pressure, including, if possible, the denial of oil.”
Didn't happen. 46 to go, 12 successes.
“In apparent competition with the Soviet Union, China would step up its Third World activity.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 45 to go, 12 successes.
“The United States could be tempted to encourage the growth in influence of China and her associates, such as Egypt, Somalia, and the Sudan, as a barrier to Soviet expansion.”
Didn't happen. 44 to go, 12 successes.
“American support for China would greatly improve her openings for maneuver and for making false alliances with Thailand and Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other conservative Arab states.”
Didn't happen. 43 to go, 12 successes.
“It would also open doors for Chinese penetration of Latin America.”
Didn't happen. 42 to go, 12 successes.
“…more Soviet and Chinese interference could be expected in the affairs of neighbor states.”
Didn't happen. 41 to go, 12 successes.
“…it [Sino-Soviet rivalry] would not impede their Third World penetration.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 40 to go, 12 successes.
“If the Third World were to be divided into pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese camps, it would be at the expense of the interests of the United States and any other surviving conservative Western nations.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 39 to go, 12 successes.
“The final outcome of support for Chinese influence in the Third World would be the emergence of additional regimes there that would be hostile to the West.”
Vague to the point of being Nostradamic. Not proven. 38 to go, 12 successes.
“A Soviet-socialist European coalition, acting in concert with the nonaligned movement in the United Nations, would create favorable conditions for communist strategy on disarmament.”
Didn't happen. 37 to go, 12 successes. “The American military-industrial complex would come under heavy fire.”
Didn't happen. 36 to go, 12 successes.
“ “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe would provide additional stimulus to disarmament.”
Reiterating a previous statement, so I'm not generous. 35 to go, 12 successes.
“A massive U.S. defense might be found no longer justified.”
Reiterating a previous statement, so I'm not generous. 34 to go, 12 successes.
“The argument for accommodation would be strengthened.”
Didn't happen. 33 to go, 12 successes.
“Even China might throw in its weight in favor of a Soviet-socialist line on arms control and disarmament.”
Didn't happen. 32 to go, 12 successes.
“After successful use of the scissor strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected.”
Didn't happen. 31 to go, 12 successes.
“European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace.”
Didn't happen. 30 to go, 12 successes.
“Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor.”
Didn't happen. 29 to go, 12 successes.
“The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist”.
Didn't happen. 28 to go, 12 successes.
“At that point, the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.”
Didn't happen. 27 to go, 12 successes.
“Convergence would not between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc.”
Didn't happen. 26 to go, 12 successes.
“The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable.”
Didn't happen. 25 to go, 12 successes.
“Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise.”
Didn't happen. 24 to go, 12 successes.
“Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism.”
Didn't happen. 23 to go, 12 successes.
“The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence.”
Didn't happen. 22 to go, 12 successes.
“Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking thier idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.”
Didn't happen. 21 to go, 12 successes.
Final score: of 148 predictions, 21 simply disappeared, leaving 127 to be tested. Of the 127, 115 were either disproven, or had zero predictive value, leaving 12 predictions revolving around how politics changed in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. 12 out of 148; that's 136 unfounded predictions. Good thing for Golitsyn that this isn't the Old Testament, 'cuz that boy would have been stoned to death by now.
Thanks for finally providing the laughable "correct" predictions. A real analytical look based on fact and not fantasy will show Golytsin's "correct" prediction rate to be miserable:
“…to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin.”
Such as? Which maneuvers exactly? This is a vague prediction that can be either refuted or proven with ease due to the "broad paintbush" he used. Show which maneuvers he means? A flat tax? Open Markets? The low voting percentages for the Communist Party in various former Communist states? The arrest of some Communist officials in several Eastern European states? Doesn't sound like a continuance of Marks, Engels, and Lenin at all.
“…introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe, and probably, in the Soviet Union.”
See my previous post. Please explain how Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, East Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, etc., are engaging in false "liberalization"? Explain how these and other countries which were repressed by the Soviet regime are NOT standing in opposition to Russian movements in the area? Please explain how these countries are NOT correctly liberalizing and have joined the Western community of nations. Please explain how the citizens of the aforementioned countries have NOT eschewed communist doctrien - sometimes violently. You cannot because they have killed communism - in particular Soviet communism. Golytsin, once again, is WRONG.
“…and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.”
Spurious independence?!?! Have you or Golytsin been to the aforementioned countries. Each and every one listed above is a member of NATO, welcomes American forces on their land, supports US actions, refute Russian movements, and some, such as Poland, actually show leadership in the liberal EU resisting European socialist attempts at repressing religions. Golytsin prediction WRONG again
“A coalition government in Poland would in fact be totalitarianism under a new, deceptive, and more dangerous guise.”
Explain how this fits into reality? Are you suggesting the current and/or post-Warsaw Pact leaders of Poland were totalitarian? Are you suggesting the twins are deceptive, their continued alliance with the US on issues of national security are phoney? Poland has shown it is fully in the camp of the West - Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“Accepted as the spontaneous emergence of a new form of multiparty, semi democratic regime, it would serve to undermine resistance to communism inside and outside the communist block.”
Hmmm. Interesting - so these multiparty systems which have seen the demise of the communist party's influence in places like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, etc., are somehow actually a means of undermining resistance to communism?!?!?! Laughable. When is the last time you or Golytsin visited these countries to hear what the voters think about Communists? When is the last time a Communist government took power in these countries (Lithuania briefly flirted with it, but quickly returned to a Western style form of democracy). Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“The need for massive defense expenditure would increasingly be questioned in the West.”
HAHAHAHAHAAHA It's ALWAYS questioned. But, for some strange reason it's ALWAYS increased. Care to take a look at our defense expenditures from 1991 to the present. Our leaders flirted with a peace dividend (and any moron could have predicted that), but quickly returned to funding to ensure our country is adequately protected. Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“New possibilities would arise for splitting Western Europe away from the United States, of neutralizing Germany, and destroying NATO.”
What? NATO is still going strong. More countries are asking to be in it. The only danger to NATO was it loosing its relevance because the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. This danger was erased on 9/11. Germany is far from neutralized and despite any problems arising from leftists, it always returns to the right course. Any splitting of Western Europe from the US is done by Western Europeans and not any covert communist actions. Golytsin in this prediction shows either a lack of understanding of world politics OR the hopefulness his readers are not well-versed in said global politics. Pick one - Golystin prediction WRONG.
“With North American influence in Latin America also undermined…”
Current trends show the Chavezites steadily loosing ground and the potential for Cuba to become free when Fidel kicks it. North American influence in Latin America has always been of a waxing and waning nature. Golytsin prediction - WRONG because he tries to parlay this into some sort of commie influence, when it's a regional political issue that has been around for years - prior and post Communist world.
“…the stage would be set for achieving actual revolutionary changes in the Western world through spurious changes in the communist system.”
Name one Western country that has had an actual revolutionary change? Well? Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned.”
Once again SOOOO laughable. Written in the context of Solidarity, Golytsin misread the impact of the Poles throwing off the communist yoke and tries to paint this as a trick to weaken Western resolve to support the Poles. More evidence of who Golytsin REALLY works for - KGB. Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world.”
More Golytsin KGB claptrap to undermine legitimate opposition by raising paranoia in the Western countries that woudl suppor these oppositionists. Once again - who would benefit from such beliefs? THE KGB. Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“”Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds.”
Ibid.
“In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism”, “racism”, and “military industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kid of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings.”
With the end of communism the militarism did not dissapear, "racism" increased, and the "military industrial complexes" are strong and vibrant. The only disarmament was through bi-lateral and multi-lateral US INSPIRED Arms Control Treaties. To believe Golytsin on this is to believe Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. were somehow complicit in these nefarious activities since it was on their watch the US approached the Soviet with these treaties. To put it more blunt: Reagan bankrupted them to the Arms Control table. The KGB would have you believe this wasn't the case - end result of this prediction. More KGB influence Golytsin disinformation not backed up with any fact.
“…well be followed by the apparent withdrawal of one or more communist countries from the Warsaw Pact to serve as the model of a “neutral” socialist state for the whole of Europe to follow.”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Are you guys now defining former Warsaw Pact countries who are now currenlty NATO countries as NEUTRAL!?!?!?!?!?!?! Golytsin WRONG - KGB disinformation continues.
“Yugoslavia may be expected to play a conspicuous role in the new scenario.”
A bridge in a foreign country may fall down as some point. Great predictions. Yugoslavia played a role because of the strife that occurred post-Tito. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to predict that one. A cursory knowledge of Balkan History would lead you to that conclusion. However, the events that unfolded have thus far played into our hands and certainly not into the "underground Commies'" hands.
“A display of Sino-Soviet rivalry for influence in Europe may be expected on the lines of the “struggle for hegemony” already being witnessed in South-East Asia.”
Hmmm. Exactly how? China is economically influential, but politically weak. It cannot surbordinate Taiwan, it cannot subordinate Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc. China has its eyes on the Russian Far East. Sino-Soviet rivalry in the 80s ended in nothing. The Chinese got waxed in Vietnam and the Russians ended up leaving Vietnam because the Vietnamese are still more interested in US economic ties. Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“…to assist in the creation of new, false alignments between communist and noncommunist powers, and…”
Name one! There are none. Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“…to break up the existing NATO structure and replace it with a system of European collective security entailing the ultimate withdrawal of the American military presence from Western Europe…”
The European collective security system is dead on arrival - not an honest prediction by Golytsin because European leaders were trying for this arrangement years prior to Golytsin's "prediction." Golytsin WRONG.
“…and the growth of communist influence there.”
Leftist influence doesn't necessarily mean communist influence. It's cyclical and right now conservatives are gaining ground. There is NO Soviet communist influence of note in Europe. Golytsin WRONG.
“…with the single overall objective of brining Iran into an anti-Western alliance with them.”
One could think this is the case with current movements between Russia and Iran - however, Russia is not communist, and is trading with Iran for $$$$$. In the end, Russia will lose the most out of this arrangement. Iran will never be in a formal "alliance" with any anti-Westerners of note. (China and Russia will hedge their bets on Iran - abandoning them when the time is right).
Golytsin WRONG.
“The object of the alliance would be to gain control over a strategically vital area of the Middle East.”
Fat chance. In this scenario the US would have to be absent from the Middle East or defeated there. Which one of these two scenarios do you ascribe to? Golytsin WRONG.
“It [the next five years] will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past twenty years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.”
BAHAHAHAHA Based on when Golytsin wrote that he is INCREDIBLY wrong - do you really need to be told why? Goltysin WRONG.
“The overall aim will be to bring about a major and irreversible shift in the balance of world power in favor of the bloc as a preliminary to the final ideological objective of establishing a worldwide federation of communist states.”
Name the current Communist states - Cuba, Venezuela (that's an iffy), Belarus (not really, but autocratic), China, Vietnam, Laos (sort of). Not a real huge federation there. Communism has been in steady retreat since 1989. Were is this Golytsin predicted resurgence!?!?! Golytsin WRONG.
“A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.”
WHAT? Name one, just one closer alignment with any so-called socialist European states and the non-existant Soviet Bloc. Name one that occurred post-1989. Well?!?!?! Golytsin WRONG.
“A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.”
Golytsin WRONG. Soviet BLOC IS DEAD - There are no real European-Third World Socialist Alliances against the US and/or China. Or would you like to name one.
“In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.”
US led, US driven. Next.
“In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.”
Show one example - just one! Didn't happen and won't happen. Golytsin WRONG.
“The creation of a world federation of communist states.”
Um, well, I'm waiting - where is this world federation of communist state?
“The element of apparent duality in Soviet and Chinese policies will disappear.”
The duality of Soviet and Chinese policies disappeared when the Soviet Union imploded due to the efforts of Ronald Reagan. Golytsin WRONG.
“The hitherto concealed coordination between them will become visible and predominant.”
Golytsin WRONG. Name one example.
“Thus the scissors strategy will develop logically into the “strategy of one clenched fist” to provide the foundation and driving force of a world communist federation.”
Still waiting - Any examples?? Golytsin WRONG.
“The suggested European option would be promoted by a revival of controlled “democratization” on the Czechoslovak pattern in Eastern Europe, including probably Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union.”
Oh yes, the Czechoslovakian and Soviet Union alliance. Where is that now? If Golytsin was such a prophet why didn't he predict Czechoslovakia splitting into two states both of whom joined an alliance called NATO. Golytsin WRONG.
“The justification of hard line policies and methods in the Soviet Union, exemplified by Sakharov’s arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to “democratization” following, perhaps, Brezhnev’s departure from the political scene.”
Many political scientist were predicting the Soviet Union would have to liberalize to stimulate their stagnant economy due in part because of Afghanistan. This is not a prediction at all. Brezhnev departed when he DIED.
Golytsin prediction WRONG.
“Brezhnev’s successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA Andropov was Brezhnev's successor!!!!!! Luckily a kidney infection killed him or the Soviet Union might have chugged along for a while longer. Chernenko was selected after Andropov died because Chernenko was old and dottering, but Romanov and Gorbachev did not have enough of the power ministries on either side to take power. Romanov, a hardliner, was discredited by KGB agents during his daughters wedding (broke dishes in the Tsarist tradition). KGB guys were allied with Andropov's protege (Gorbachev) and regreted it later. Gorbachev tried to keep the Soviet Union running, but failed. The rest is history, as we say.
Golytsin dreadfully WRONG.
“Conceivably an announcement will be made to the effect that the economic and political foundations of communism in the Soviet Union have been laid and that democratization is therefore possible.”
Here is where you and others show your lack of understanding when Commies like Golytsin write. Democratization mean something completely different to Marxist-Leninists such as Golytsin. This "communist" democratization NEVER occured. Look up what he meant in Marx's writings. Golytsin again WRONG.
“The Brezhnev regime and its neo-Stalinistic actions against “dissidents”….”
Wow - that's a stunning predictin (/sarcasm). Let's see, Khrushev is ousted because he was considered too soft on dissidents and too liberal. A hardliner is put in his place. Gee, what do you think would come next. "Prediction" correct, but hardly a stunning prediction since many reporters, political analysts, etc, were saying the same thing.
“…and in Afghanistan would be condemned as Novotny’s regime was condemned in 1968.”
Afghanistan was never condemned as the Novotny regime was. It was "regretted" but not condemned. Next -
“In the economic field reforms might be expected to bring Soviet practice more into line with Yugoslav, or even, seemingly, with Western socialist models.”
“Some economic ministries might be dissolved;….”
“…control would be more decentralized;…”
“…individual self-managing firms might be created from existing plants and factories;…”
“…material incentives would be increased;…”
“…the independent role of technocrats, workers’ councils, and trade unions would be enhanced;…”
“…the party’s control over the economy would be apparently diminished.”
All of the above was stated by others prior to Golytin's works. Golytsin got the scope, the method, and the acuality of the reforms completely incorrect. See Yavlinsky's "500 Days" to see how the Soviets wanted to reform their economic structure. All made irrelevant by the Fall of the Soviet Union.
“Such reforms would be based on Soviet experience in the 1920’s and 1960’s, as well as on Yugoslav experience.”
Wrong again - see Yavlinsky's "500 Days" Gaidar's "Shock Therapy" and Yakovlev's "Perestroika"
“The party would be less conspicuous, but would continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before.”
Ibid.
“Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968.”
Wrong again. Liberalization and democratization followed Soviet lines, did not work, and led to the end of the Soviet Union.
“The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive.”
Liberalization failed. The spectacular and impressive moment was when Gorbachev and co incorrectly thought they had destroyed Yeltsin and no one would heed Yeltsin's calls to end corruption and resist the hardline communists. A coup happened, the people hit the streets, KGB and Army rank and file defied hardline communist orders and the rest is history. Golytsin WRONG.
“Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role;…”
Formal pronouncements announced the end of the communist regime, the end of communist party political organizations, and free elections.
“…it’s monopoly would be apparently curtailed.”
It's monopoly was DESTROYED.
“An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced.”
Wow - he got one right but for the wrong reasons. Separations of power became evident when the Soviet regime was killed. The Soviets did not separate the powers, the Yeltsin government did.
“The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power…”
It was abolished. You don't get many great apparent powers when you no longer exist. Golytsin WRONG.
“…and the president and deputies greater apparent independence.”
Complete independence since the communist party fell apart and lost its grip on power. Golytsin WRONG.
“The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated.”
For a few months which ended with the end of the Soviet Union. Separated, but held by the same guy (Gorbachev). Golytsin once again WRONG.
“The KGB would be “reformed”.”
The KGB was abolished - rising in its place the FSB, the SVR, FAPSI, and elements of the MVD. Golytsin was saying the KGB would be reformed under "communists" It wasn't reformed until the communist regime was destroyed. Golytsin once again WRONG.
“Dissidents at home would be amnestied…”
Dissidents at home were not amnestied until the Communist regime fell. This was done when Yeltsin strengthened the Russian Presidential Commission on Victims of Political Repression. Some dissidents are still be reviewed for amnesty (a lengthy process because of the numbers who were repressed). This did NOT happen in great numbers under Communism, as Golytsin predicted. Golytsin WRONG.
“…those in exile abroad would be allowed to return,…”
Those allowed to return under Soviet rule did so by renouncing their previous positions. Real exiled dissidents were not allowed to return until after the Communist Party fell from power. Golytsin WRONG.
“…and some would take up positions of leadership in government.”
Only happened after Communists lost grip on power, and in very small numbers. Golytsin wrong.
“Sakharov [Sakharov was the father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, and earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975 for his campaigns for nuclear disarmament. He was exiled in 1980 and returned to a hero’s welcome in 1986. He died in 1989.] might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad.”
Golytsin WRONG. Sakharov was allowed to return to a hero's "welcome" only due to mainly external pressure on Gorbachev. According to Yelena Bonner, Sakharov's wife, Gorbachev and the Communist Party then forced the frail Sakharov to appear in public when he was sick which led to his death. In short - they killed him and he was not allowed to teach abroad, function in a government role or, well, let's see BREATHE. Golytsin WRONG.
“The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions.”
See Yakovlev's Glasnost to understand why Golytsin's predictions on this are wrong. The Unions did not become truly (an important note) independent until the Yeltsin democratically elected regime. Golytsin WRONG.
“Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party.”
Briefly. And instead of strenghtening the commies, led to their demise. Golytsin's premise is all of these "liberalizations" would strengthen the commnist party when in fact it killed it. Once again, more proof Golytsin has been working for his KGB masters a loooong time.
“Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties.”
Didn't happen. Wrong. Major opposition parties were formed by people who switched from being commie to "reformist" mainly to make more $$$$$$$$$$$. Golytsin wrong.
“Censorship would be relaxed; controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited.”
Since this happened several times in the communist regime history, and was considered cyclical, Golytsin was borrowing from others who predicted this several years prior.
“Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers.”
Name ONE. Most prominent Soviet performers chose to remain in the West. Only a few returned to visit. Golytsin WRONG.
“Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained.”
The Soviet Constitution was abolished and a new Russian Constitution was written, approved in a popular referendum, and ratified. Communism dissappeared as a political constitutionally "garaunteed" function. Golytsin WRONG.
“There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel.”
Freedom came about when the Soviet Union collapsed. This freedom of travel did not occur until the communist regime disappeared. Golytsin WRONG.
“Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action.”
They weren't invited in until Chernobyl. That's the key moment in the loosening of restrictions and secrecy. Golytsin is woefully incorrect in all of his assumptions because he was predicting ways the Soviet Union would continue.
“…the dissident movement is now being prepared for the most important aspect of its strategic role, which will be to persuade the West of the authenticity of Soviet “liberalization” when it comes.”
Um, yah, that's why all leading dissidents (living) of that era continue to slam Russia and other countries for not being democratic enough. Golytsin woefully WRONG.
“Further high-level defectors, or “official émigrés,” may well make their appearance in the West before the switch in policy occurs.”
Another way of Golytsin trying to paint himself as the only legitimate defector. Another way for the KGB to discredit every and all defectors. KGB operation led by Goltysin.
“Since the Soviets signed the CSCE agreements, they may be expected at some stage, at least, to go through the motions with complying with them.”
Well, DUH. Do you really consider this a prediction?!?! They signed a treaty and they may actually follow it for a while?
“ “Liberalization” in Eastern Europe would probably involve the return to power in Czechoslovakia of Dubcek and his associates.”
Havel is not a Dubcek associate. The Czechs and Slovaks split, the people banned Communists mid-level to upper-level from holding any offices. Golytsin WRONG.
“If it should be extended to East Germany, demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated.”
Hardly a prediction. This issue was raised time and time again. The Wall fell because the East Germans were fleeing the regime in record numbers. It fell as a stop-gap measure to stem the flow. However, once it fell, Germany was soon reunited. Golytsin WRONG.
“Western acceptance of the new “liberalization” as genuine would create favorable conditions for the fulfillment of the communist strategy for the United States, Western Europe, and even, perhaps, Japan.”
WRONG. Or would you like to show some real examples on how Golytsin is even remotely correct on this?
“The pressure for united fronts between communist and socialist parties and trade unions at national and international level would be intensified.”
The opposite happened. Golytsin WRONG.
“United front governments under strong communist influence might well come to power in France, Italy, and possibly other countries.”
Um, Chirac, although an idiot, is a right-wing politician. Italy has socialist, then rightist, then conservatives, then liberals, etc., all the time. Name one, key word here "strong" communist influence in any European country. Reminder - the commies tried in Portugal and failed.
“Elsewhere the fortunes and influence of communist parties would be much revived.”
Name them! Golytsin WRONG.
“The bulk of Europe might well turn to left-wing socialism, leaving only a few pockets of conservative resistance.”
Europe has been trying to turn to left-wing socialism since the end of WWII. It hasn't stuck and won't stick. With the increases in Islamofascist terrorist attacks and attempted attacks Europe is beginning to swing conservative again. Golytsin WRONG.
“The Czechoslovaks, in contrast with their performance in 1968, might well take the initiative, along with the Romanians and Yugoslavs, in proposing (in the CSCE context) the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in return for the dissolution of NATO.”
HOW IS THIS EVEN REMOTELY CORRECT?!?! Did you even read these predictions?!?!?! READ CAREFULLY: The Czechs, Slovaks, and Romanians JOINED NATO. They didn't ask for NATO to be dissolved!!! Golytsin sooo wrong.
“The disappearance of the Warsaw Pact would have little effect on the coordination of the communist bloc,…”
Huh!??! It destroyed the communist bloc. Next.
“…but the dissolution of NATO could well mean the departure of American forces from the European continent and a closer European alignment with a “liberalized” Soviet bloc.”
Once again - DID YOU READ THESE?!?! How are NATO bases in Eastern Europe the departure of American forces from the European continent?!?!?! WRONG.
“Perhaps in the longer run, a similar process might affect the relationship between the United States and Japan leading to abrogation of the security pact between them.”
Instead the US and Japan are closer than ever. Golytsin WRONG.
“The EEC on present lines, even if enlarged, would not be a barrier to the neutralization of Europe and the withdrawal of American troops.”
The EU, tried a security force, but still wanted NATO and US forces. This is a dead issue and never was it planned for the EU to ask for the withdrawal of US forces. Golytsin WRONG.
“The European Parliament might become an all-European socialist parliament with representation from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.”
Soviet Union doesn't exist. Eastern European members way more conservative than others. WRONG.
“ “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” would turn out to be a neutral, socialist Europe.”
NATO still exists. Europe, to varying degrees, still involved in the WOT and Iraq. Hardly neutral. WRONG.
“The United States, betrayed by her former European allies, would tend to withdraw into fortress America, or, with the few remaining conservative countries, including perhaps Japan, would seen an alliance with China as the only counterweight to Soviet power.”
Instead the US is engaged globally on a scale larger than imagined. Japan and China still at odds. Prediction WRONG.
“ “Liberalization” in Eastern Europe on the scale suggested could have a social and political impact on the United States itself, especially if it coincided with a severe economic depression.”
Didn't happen, and their liberalization has been economically advantageous to the US as we enter new markets and our companies get contracts to rebuild crumbling infrastructure throughout Eastern Europe. Golytsin WRONG.
“The communist bloc will not repeat its error in failing to exploit a slump as it did in 1929-32.”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA It sure did repeat its mistakes - right into oblivion.
“The bloc would certainly have an interest in secretly building up reserves of oil and grain that could be used for political purposes in a time of crisis to support newly established procommunist governments in Europe or else-where.”
But instead, the Russians are bogged down in oil fights that are pushing it further away from Eastern Europe. Golytsin WRONG AGAIN.
“ “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union could well be accompanied by a deepening of the Sino-Soviet split.”
Contradicts his prior predictions.
“This might include a rupture in trade and diplomatic relations, an increase in spectacular frontier incidents, and perhaps deeper incursions into one another’s territory on the lines of the Chinese “invasion” of Vietnam in 1979…”
Didn't happen. What now could happen is the Chinese will become more influential in the Russian Far East and that could lead to problems, but not due to communism as Golytsin tries to claim.
“It would encourage an even closer alignment with China of the United States and any other surviving conservative nations against a Soviet-socialist European coalition.”
Golytsin once again wrong - or would you like to identify this so-called Soviet-Socialist European Coalition.
“Military cooperation would be included in the alignment and China might go so far as to offer bases in return for help in building up her military potential.”
Didnt' happen. Next.
“A breach in diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and China might complicate but would not interrupt the process of policy coordination between them.”
Didn't happen, next.
“…Romaina and Yugoslavia at least might be expected to maintain their representation in Peking if the Soviets were to withdraw or the be “thrown out.” “
Didn't happen, next.
“To some extent, Sino-Soviet coordination could be carried on through Romanian and Yugoslav intermediaries.”
Didn't happen, next.
“Another possibility is that direct, secret communications links exist between the Soviet Union and China that are not accessible to the West.”
Hard to prove without any evidence. But since the Soviet Union collapsed, I'm going to say, well, let's see WRONG.
“In addition, there is the possible existence of a secret bloc headquarters staffed by senior representatives of the major communist states…”
Yes, and Col Sanders, with his wee bitty eyes, was a member of this with the Rothchilds.
“Some of the remaining conservative Third World countries would be strongly drawn toward a socialist orientation.”
Didn't happen.
“Resistance to communism from the Socialist International would be replaced by a combined communist-socialist drive for Third World influence, backed by economic aid.”
Didn't happen (see: AFRICA)
“It would have far-reaching consequences, especially if US aid should be curtailed in response to a severe depression.”
Didn't happen (See: AFRICA, ASIA, etc.)
“Cuba, which might follow the Soviet example of “liberalization” (the 1980 Cuban emigration might be part of the preparation for such a move) would play an active role in the liberalization struggle.”
Didn't happen.
“Those leaders of the nonaligned movement who had close relations with communist countries would try to involve the rest of the nonaligned movement in concerted actions with communists and social democrats to promote the joint aims of procuring the disarmament of the United States and the reduction of its role as a world power; of isolating Israel, South Africa, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, and Chile; and of helping liberation movements in Latin America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East, especially the PLO.”
Didn't happen. Instead most of these countries begged for and continue to beg for US aid.
“A variety of forums-the UN, the OAU, and the Brandt commission on the North-South problem-would be used for exerting political and economic pressure, including, if possible, the denial of oil.”
Didn't happen.
“In apparent competition with the Soviet Union, China would step up its Third World activity.”
Didn't happen.
“The United States could be tempted to encourage the growth in influence of China and her associates, such as Egypt, Somalia, and the Sudan, as a barrier to Soviet expansion.”
Didn't happen.
“American support for China would greatly improve her openings for maneuver and for making false alliances with Thailand and Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other conservative Arab states.”
Didn't happen.
“It would also open doors for Chinese penetration of Latin America.”
Didn't happen.
“…more Soviet and Chinese interference could be expected in the affairs of neighbor states.”
Didn't happen. Soviets refused to intervene in the Warsaw Pact countries who were leaving. China has invaded another country since it was waxed in Vietnam.
“…it [Sino-Soviet rivalry] would not impede their Third World penetration.”
Didn't happen.
“If the Third World were to be divided into pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese camps, it would be at the expense of the interests of the United States and any other surviving conservative Western nations.”
Didn't happen.
“The final outcome of support for Chinese influence in the Third World would be the emergence of additional regimes there that would be hostile to the West.”
Didn't happen.
“A Soviet-socialist European coalition, acting in concert with the nonaligned movement in the United Nations, would create favorable conditions for communist strategy on disarmament.”
Didn't happen.
“The American military-industrial complex would come under heavy fire.”
By our own people, and to no avail. Still a vibrant strong industry.
“ “Liberalization” in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe would provide additional stimulus to disarmament.”
US led efforts provided the situmlus to disarm. See: Reagan/Bush Sr.
“A massive U.S. defense might be found no longer justified.”
Defense expenditures increased.
“The argument for accommodation would be strengthened.”
Wrong.
“Even China might throw in its weight in favor of a Soviet-socialist line on arms control and disarmament.”
Didn't get involved.
“After successful use of the scissor strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected.”
Soviet Union dissovled. No Sino-Soviet reconciliation. Now just economically advantageous agreements.
“European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace.”
Didn't happen.
“Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor.”
Didn't happen.
“The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist”.
Didn't happen.
“At that point, the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see.”
Didn't happen.
“Convergence would not between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc.”
Didn't happen.
“The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable.”
Didn't happen.
“Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise.”
Didn't happen.
“Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism.”
Didn't happen.
“The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence.”
Didn't happen.
“Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking thier idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.”
Never happened.
What a load of rubbish. Golytsin is definitely adept at playing to the paranoid crowd. What he predicted did not happen and most glaring of all is his failure to see how quickly and finitely the Soviet Union collapsed. His "Scissors Strategy" is laughable because it doesn't take into account reality. Even if we were to say the "Russians" are the "leaders" of the Golytsin theory - look at the world today. Russia only has ONE true ally - Belarus. They can't count on Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgyzstan. They still have to watch China. The Balts are not their friends. The Ukrainians are still trying to figure out which way they want to go. Almost all of Eastern Europe hates them, etc.
But thanks for providing the so-called "predictions" it gave me a good laugh. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how people can actually believe this tripe.
Because it lets some of life's perpetual losers pretend that they're smarter than the rest of the world that doesn't know "The Truth." Same thing goes on with 9/11 conspiracy loons and people who think Paul McCartney's really dead because of the "clues" on the Abbey Road album.
1.China is a Russian ally (What is the SCO?)
2.Western Europe has become more socialistic, and France goes along with Russia and China on most UN issues.
3.The latin American thing... See Hugo Chavez to answer any Golitsyn questions
4.Yamautu Mountian in Russia and the Topel M SS-27 system prove that Russia is not serious about arms control.
You don't need Anatoliy Golitsyn to see that Russia is a threat to our national intrests.
Bluff, bluster, and wrong, wrong, wrong do not constitute answers. I don't know how you guys carry on "debates" in Russia, but here in the US we cite our sources using direct quotes and/or links.
Thanks for posting, GGG. I've heard about the predictions and the purported 94% accuracy rate but never seen the list before. I appreciate it.
It looks like this 94% accuracy claim was exaggerated. This doesn't mean that Golitzen did not have significant validity, but this particular statement does not seem to hold up under scrutiny.
If you do not like "Bluff, bluster, and wrong, wrong, wrong," then don't use it.
I don't know how you guys carry on "debates" in Russia, but here in the US we cite our sources using direct quotes and/or links.
I'm not in Russia. But, if you're going to bitch and moan about a lack of direct quotes or links...
...you need to provide direct quotes and links to support your claims that each of the "predictions" made by Golitsyn came to pass as he described them.
You have not done that.
Look at the play they made in the last 10 years in first opening their economy, especially in petroleum, receiving the investment and infrastructure upgrades, and then essentially nationalizing it again - jailing the oligarchs.
Compelling evidence in support of Golitsyn.
"Look at the play they made in the last 10 years in first opening their economy, especially in petroleum, receiving the investment and infrastructure upgrades, and then essentially nationalizing it again - jailing the oligarchs.
Compelling evidence in support of Golitsyn."
It would be "compelling evidence" if what you wrote was actually factual. Unfortunately for you, facts and truth do not back up your statement. The only "oligarch" in prison is a murderous thug named Khodorkovsky - you might as well be cheerleading for Marc Rich if you think Khodorkovsky shouldn't be in jail.
Name some industries that have been completely "renationalized"? Not too many in Russia. Unfortunately, after Yeltsin's reign of "Kleptocracy" the current regime had to reel back in a few enterprises that were placing all of their ill-gotten wealth in offshore accounts - thus robbing Russia and the Russian people.
You cannot build a democracy when your so-called "capitalists" are engaging in open theft, tax evasion, and worse. What exactly do you guys expect a government to do when their "businessmen" are robbing them blind and ripping off workers? Teddy Roosevelt knew how to deal with such people.
BTW, he also predicted the rise of Gorbi...
July 4, 1984: ‘At this time, the Soviet Strategists may replace the old leader, Konstantin Chernenko, who is actually only a figurehead, with a younger Soviet leader who was chosen some time ago as his successor, namely Comrade Gorbachev. One of his major tasks will be to implement the so-called liberalization. The strategists may also replace the old ‘hardliner’ Andrei Gromyko with a younger ‘soft-liner’…The new Soviet leadership may introduce economic reforms and striking political initiatives in order to project a clear message that the changes in the Soviet leadership and in Soviet policy require changes in US leadership, in US military policy and in the US budget. Inasmuch as both conservatives and liberals are confused by strategic disinformation about Soviet strategic intentions, it is possible that these manoeuvres, assisted by Soviet agents of influence, will be successful.’
Where is our Muslim Golitsyn?????
Indeed, I'd say Golitsyn pretty much nailed it!
Taken from Golitsyn's second book, Perestroika Deception:
August 1985: ‘There are no valid grounds for favourable illusions or for the euphoria in the West over the Gorbachev appointment and the coming ‘liberalisation’. In fact, these developments may present a major challenge and serious test for the United States’ leadership and for the West. The liberalization will not be spontaneous nor will it be genuine. It will be a calculated liberalization patterned along the lines of the Czechoslovak ‘democratisation’ which was rehearsed in 1968. It will be initiated from above and will be guided and controlled by the KGB and the Party apparatus. The ‘liberalisation’ will include the following elements:
(a) Economic reforms to decentralize the Soviet economy and to introduce profit incentives on the lines of those in Hungary and China. Since Gorbachev is a Soviet agricultural expert, one can expect a reorganization of the kolkhozy or collective farms into sovkhozy or state farms. In fact, Lavrentiy Beria was already planning the liquidation of the kolkhozy in 1953.
(b) Religious relaxation along the lines of Iosif Stalin’s relaxation during the Second World War. The recent sensational Soviet invitation to the Reverend Billy Graham to preach in Soviet churches indicates that the Soviet strategists have already introduced this element and have not waited for the formal installation of Gorbachev as Party leader.
(c) Permission for a group of Jewish émigrés to leave the USSR.
(d) Relaxation of travel restrictions to allow Soviet citizens to make visits abroad. This will be done to impress the West with the Soviet government’s compliance with the Helsinki agreements.
(e) Some relaxation for Soviet intellectuals and cultural defectors. Soviet writers and producers will be permitted to write books and produce plays on controversial subjects. Cultural defectors, musicians and dancers will be allowed to perform in the USSR and to travel abroad, thus getting the best of both worlds. One can expect that amnesty will be declared for the so-called dissidents.
(f) Some reduction in the military budget and the transfer of some military funds to improve the state economy’.
‘If presented and advertised by the innocent and uninitiated media as major radical change in the Communist system, the “liberalization” will allow the Communist leaders immediately to regain the political initiative and to revive the political and diplomatic détente which was so disastrous for the West and so beneficial to the Communists in the past. The charismatic personality of Gorbachev may play an important role in the over-reaction of the Western media’.
‘The Soviet “liberalization” is a major part of the strategy of the whole Communist Bloc, and particularly of Poland and East Germany, against the West. The main objective is to launch a political offensive against the United States and NATO and to develop a military détente in Europe by changing the political and military situation. This strategy is designed to accomplish the following:
(a) To bring about a “German Confederation” of East and West Germany and withdrawal from both the Warsaw Pact and NATO.
(b) To break up NATO and force a United States withdrawal from Europe’.
‘One can expect that, in order to accomplish their objectives, a similar “liberalisation” will be introduced in Poland and East Germany.
‘Presented and advertised as a new reality in Europe, the Soviet, Polish and East German “liberalization” will have a stunning and mesmerizing effect on both West Europeans and Americans. The resulting confusion will be exploited by the Soviet, Polish and East German leaders through their activist diplomacy especially towards West Germany. Czechoslovak, Hungarian and Romanian leaders may actively contribute to this strategy…’
‘The “liberalization” in the USSR, Poland and East Germany may set off a chain reaction in the West and inflict irreparable damage particularly on the NATO countries and the US military posture unless its true nature and role in Communist strategy are realized.’
‘The “liberalization” and its strategic manipulations, combined with overt and covert Communist operations, will also present problems for the leadership of the West. It will be aimed at confusing the Western leaders, splitting the West European allies from the United States and then splitting the people from their elected leaders. The leaders who are taken in by the “liberalization” can be expected to make erroneous and costly decisions, albeit unwittingly, in the interests of the Communists’.
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.