Replies

Koba wrote: “Well this "Cold Warrior" has to get a kick out of the fearmongering going on. I see first hand what this "threat" is - hyped up in the papers, on the net. It's still the paper tiger it was when they were the Soviet Union.”

You are correct, the Soviet Army has always been a paper tiger. The Soviets utilize Marxist-Leninist revolutionary techniques to conquer nations from WITHIN (or they rely on the West to hand them whole regions of the world intact...Yalta comes to mind). They know, just as we should know, direct invasion will simply lead to their defeat (such as Afghanistan...and that's with absolutely ZERO rules of engagement). The following sums up the Communist strategy for World Revolution quite nicely:

Marxism-Leninism, then, is not an ideology, but a strategy for achieving world revolution. Communists are the disciplined members of an international organization that uses Marxist-Leninist techniques. And terrorism is a key ingredient in the success of such revolution. To see how the entire strategy works, we now turn to an overview of Communist revolutions in action.

Because open warfare against target governments would simply lead to defeat, the Communists always disguise their revolutions as civil wars. They camouflage their intentions by pretending to fight for the liberation of one class of people from another, using a divide-and-conquer technique against a nation's social structure. This method is referred to as a "war of national liberation," and it adapts its tactics to the unique circumstances of each country. Such a war can pit industrial workers against capitalists, as in Russia, Catholics against Protestants, as in Northern Ireland, blacks against whites, as in South Africa - or Arabs against Jews, as in Israel. The Communists do not openly identify themselves, acting instead as representatives of the supposedly "oppressed" class of people.

By painting their revolution as a spontaneous uprising of "oppressed masses," the Communists hope to convince the target population that it faces an unwinnable war rooted in fundamental social tensions. If the government is also paralyzed and cannot stop the terrorism, public morale quickly drops and the weakening government loses popular support. Believing that the revolution must eventually win, the population abandons active opposition to the terrorists and instead sues for peace at any cost. The perception ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the government collapses altogether.

Koba wrote: “Do the Russians want a neo-Communist revolution and world domination? No and No.”

If you mean by that the Russian people, then we agree. If you are referring to Putin and the KGB/FSB, then your are dead wrong.

Koba wrote: “But hey, let's quote all of these "wise" KGB defectors, like Golytsin, or pawns of Berezovsky, like Epstein, or believe Soros funded publications, and start building our bombshelters. Regarding defectors - the ones who should be revered are the ones who were executed after being betrayed by our traitors. They didn't flee for "riches" in the West. They stayed behind and continued the fight from behind the lines. The ones who fled have hidden agendas: 1) ingratiate themselves on their adopted homeland and 2) justify their actions.”

Golitsyn knew the CIA and the FBI were penetrated by Soviet agents. To stay in place would have been suicide. His only option was to defect.

See the following link for more:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1224848/posts

Koba wrote: “Also, if you knew Russians you would understand this: If they want you to like them or do something for them they will write and say what they think you want to hear. Golytsin was doing what he thought his new masters wanted, just like when he (and Kalugin, and others) were at the beck and call of their KGB comrades - oppressing, repressing their own people.”

You obviously don’t know anything about Golitsyn, see link above. Golitsyn was tossed out of the CIA, as was his main supporter, James Jesus Angleton, for bringing news the CIA/FBI most decidedly DID NOT WANT TO HEAR. As for Kalugin, it is quite clear he’s a phony who was sent by the KGB/FSB to deceive the West...but I have already told you that.

Koba wrote: “Here's the difference - You can read Golytsin's book written in 1995 and I can talk to and know the author of the concepts of ‘Perestroika’ and ‘Glasnost’”

Actually, Golitsyn anticipated Glasnost and Perestroika in his 1984 book “New Lies For Old.” He made 148 extremely detailed predictions of the impending phony collapse of the Soviet Union. Of those 148 predictions, 139 (or 94%) of them came true by 1995. You might want to read his books before you go about slandering Golitsyn’s name.

Koba wrote: “Here's the difference - You can read Golytsin's book written in 1995 and I can talk to and know the author of the concepts of "Perestroika" and "Glasnost" - Aleksandr Nikolaevich Yakovlev.”

Again, Golitsyn’s predictions were published in 1984. However the book was ready for publication in 1980. It took Golitsyn and his supporters in the CIA, MI5 and MI6 four solid years before they could find a publisher will to publish his book (that’s a story in and of itself). As for Yakovlev, I have a feeling you already know my position on his lies.

Let me educate you on some glaring errors of your postings:
" They know, just as we should know, direct invasion will simply lead to their defeat (such as Afghanistan...and that's with absolutely ZERO rules of engagement). The following sums up the Communist strategy for World Revolution quite nicely"

Name one local conflict (other than Chechnya - doesn't fit with this mold) that the Russians have engaged in post-Afghanistan?

"Marxism-Leninism, then, is not an ideology, but a strategy for achieving world revolution. Communists are the disciplined members of an international organization that uses Marxist-Leninist techniques. And terrorism is a key ingredient in the success of such revolution. To see how the entire strategy works, we now turn to an overview of Communist revolutions in action."

Confusing it with the Marxism that Trotsky was a proponent of: Comintern, world revolution. This, while popular in Lenin's day, was actually turned away from in the late 20s and 30s. Granted, they never entirely gave up on the fomenting of revolution or subversion in other countries WHILE they were the Soviet Union. Times have changed. They easily could have turned Ukraine into a model of this if they were really adhering to this principle.

"Because open warfare against target governments would simply lead to defeat, the Communists always disguise their revolutions as civil wars. They camouflage their intentions by pretending to fight for the liberation of one class of people from another, using a divide-and-conquer technique against a nation's social structure. This method is referred to as a "war of national liberation," and it adapts its tactics to the unique circumstances of each country. Such a war can pit industrial workers against capitalists, as in Russia, Catholics against Protestants, as in Northern Ireland, blacks against whites, as in South Africa - or Arabs against Jews, as in Israel. The Communists do not openly identify themselves, acting instead as representatives of the supposedly "oppressed" class of people. "

Actually they fought or became involved in these local conflicts because they were following the "balance of power" principles. If they thought we were getting the upper hand in a region they'd make a countermove, then we would countermove, then they would contermove. Always seeking a zero-sum gain.

"By painting their revolution as a spontaneous uprising of "oppressed masses," the Communists hope to convince the target population that it faces an unwinnable war rooted in fundamental social tensions. If the government is also paralyzed and cannot stop the terrorism, public morale quickly drops and the weakening government loses popular support. Believing that the revolution must eventually win, the population abandons active opposition to the terrorists and instead sues for peace at any cost. The perception ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as the government collapses altogether."

Apply this to post-Soviet Russia. Oh, what's that you say? You CAN'T?

"If you mean by that the Russian people, then we agree. If you are referring to Putin and the KGB/FSB, then your are dead wrong."

Putin doesn't want world domination, but he (wrongly) is following the French belief that a multipolar world is better than a unipolar world. He knows that Russia cannot be an equal to the US in a bipolar world (like we had during the Cold War), so his way of making Russia relevant in today's world is to seek a part of the sought for multipolar one. They believe the world is more stable if multi-powers exist and are frightened of one superpower (they're wrong of course). Once again, for today's Russian government balance of power politics remains relevant.

"Golitsyn knew the CIA and the FBI were penetrated by Soviet agents. To stay in place would have been suicide. His only option was to defect."

Sure, a Major assigned to the Rezidentura in Helsinki would be privvy to what was going on back at the Centre and would have been informed about KGB moles working in the CIA and FBI. Once again, you do not understand how the KGB operated. AND, must I point out that others were able to continue in-country without being exposed for YEARS after Golytsin defected (google it). So, once again, he was wrong or purposely misleading in order to justify his actions.

"You obviously don’t know anything about Golitsyn, see link above. Golitsyn was tossed out of the CIA, as was his main supporter, James Jesus Angleton, for bringing news the CIA/FBI most decidedly DID NOT WANT TO HEAR. As for Kalugin, it is quite clear he’s a phony who was sent by the KGB/FSB to deceive the West...but I have already told you that."

Golytsin was an arrogant blowhard who provided questionable unverifiable information (search the web on it). Kalugin is surely not a phony sent here by the KGB. He has been sentenced to 15 years in absentia for treason. He has been stripped of his rank/retirement by the KGB. He's an opportunist, like Golytsin, who claims to be an expert in all matters related to security services. The only thing that gives any of his wild claims credibility is that he was a General and may have been privvy to some of that information. Golytsin was a junior office and would not have been entrusted with such things.

"Actually, Golitsyn anticipated Glasnost and Perestroika in his 1984 book “New Lies For Old.” He made 148 extremely detailed predictions of the impending phony collapse of the Soviet Union. Of those 148 predictions, 139 (or 94%) of them came true by 1995. You might want to read his books before you go about slandering Golitsyn’s name."

Hmm, 5 years prior to Perestroika, but not surprising. When he defected Khrushev was in power and was speaking about perestroika type reforms. Of course, Khrushev was ousted and died in disgrace because he was considered not to be toeing the totalitarian line. I guess that also was part of the elaborate plan to fool us all. The Soviet Union imploded in 1991, not 1995.

"As for Yakovlev, I have a feeling you already know my position on his lies."

Hmm, what lies? Please list them here. What have you read of him? Obviously you don't know who he is or what he has written. Go read some of what he has said and you'll feel like a fool for stating he was deceitful. As a matter of fact, you'd probably post some of his articles here if you could understand them (they're critical of Putin). But, since Yakovlev wasn't a KGB defector he shouldn't be trusted???

Once again, please explain how a junior Major who was assigned to the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki could possibly have access to all that he has written about? Unless, of course, someone fed him the lines to justify massive budgets.. But that would never happen would it?
And don't forget to explain how possible it was based on the KGB's very compartmented need-to-know basis structure... Oh, yeah, you can't can you.

The Cold War is over, at least for the sane. But, I really "enjoy" seeing your incessant posts infering that a great man like Ronald Reagan was duped and his legacy is for naught.