But what of Golitsyn's many correct predictions and inferences? The most striking at the time was that at some point, the Sino-Soviet split, whether real or fake, would become healed. Witness recent events between the two. Another key element of Golitsyn's thesis was that Perestroika, and subsequent false liberalizations, would tempt the West, especially western technology businesses, into arrangements which would ultimately result in Western technology moving to the East. And that is exactly what has happened. People who, 25 years ago, worked on projects aimed, ultimately, at attacking the West and killing millions, have, with no real extensive background checks, and no public repudiation of their past sinister work, gone on to do high tech business with the West, and have acquired substantial western intellectual property. This actually fits right in with Golitsyn's thesis.
Both Golitysn and Angleton were / are ill fitted in many ways for modern life. Both were / are throw backs, not unlike characters such as Patton, to a more manly, less politically correct, 19th century mindset. The swashbuckler has no more role in the technocratic atmosphere of today. As early as the end of WW2, it was apparent that the swashbucklers' days were numbered. I am not in agreement with this state of affairs, but it is what it is. Angleton and Golitsyn were / are swashbucklers in a world of bon vivants and metrosexuals. But to ignore or discredit their analyses may yet prove quite foolish.
"But what of Golitsyn's many correct predictions and inferences? The most striking at the time was that at some point, the Sino-Soviet split, whether real or fake, would become healed. Witness recent events between the two."
Any student of Soviet History and Russo-Sino relations would be able to predict this pattern of behavior. Golitsyn, contrary to what some say, was not the only one making this "revelation." Nixon and Kissinger knew they had to exploit the Sino-Soviet split as quickly as possible. Why would that be? Because they understood that the Sovs and the Chicoms both knew that a unstable relationship was harmful to both of them. They wanted to exploit the split before it healed. Remember, the "communists" were supposed to be in the same camp and followed the same sort of ideology. Nothing amazing in this "prediction" - most of my professors and langauge instructors said the same thing. Strangely enough - before Golitsyn's books were released.
"Another key element of Golitsyn's thesis was that Perestroika, and subsequent false liberalizations, would tempt the West, especially western technology businesses, into arrangements which would ultimately result in Western technology moving to the East. And that is exactly what has happened. People who, 25 years ago, worked on projects aimed, ultimately, at attacking the West and killing millions, have, with no real extensive background checks, and no public repudiation of their past sinister work, gone on to do high tech business with the West, and have acquired substantial western intellectual property. This actually fits right in with Golitsyn's thesis."
And those institutes and factories at which they previously worked have been converted, with US assistance, into factories/institutes producing and developing products that can compete in the international market. And not weapons. Oh, and those Western companies doing business over there - well, they're staffed with Westerners making big $$$$. At one place I worked at previously in Russia, our secretary was a physicist and one of our drivers was a chemical engineer. They would much rather work in those jobs at a Western company than get paid the 100/month they'd get at a Russian company.
And, once again, a student of Soviet history, Marxist-Leninist theory, etc., would also predict the same about Perestroika. Here's the deal - they thought they could liberalize with Perestroika, and would compliment this with the loosening on restrictions of political criticism (Glasnost), but they opened the Pandora Box from which they cannot recover. (READ YAKOVLEV - He addresses all of this.) Additionally, the Soviets took the step of Perestroika because Ronald Wilson Reagan was kicking their butts in the arms race and the stagnated Soviet society/economy could not keep up. It was a last grasp measure of liberalizing, just like NEP, just like letting the peasants go to church during WWII, and they really thought they'd be able to get things turned around and stay in power. The events in Eastern Europe (Solidarity, etc), combined with the Chernobyl disaster (oh, I guess the Sovs planned that one too?) and the fallout (pun intended) after Gorbachev's attempt to hide the disaster from the world and from his own people set off a chain of events that led to the implosion of a rotten corrupt dying system. (And Golitsyn did NOT predict and could not have predicted this) Ya see, Golitsyn predicted a "collapse" as a ruse, as a one-step forward-two-steps-back routine. He didn't predict the utter and final irreversible collapse of the Soviet Union.
And, regarding sinister work, let's be fair here: Are our scientists who worked on similar projects also sinister? The "sinister" ones of which you speak aren't working with Western companies. More than likely, they're selling their knowledge to the highest bidders (perhaps, N. Korea, Syria, Iran?).
The contradiction of the claims by Golitsynites are interesting. The same people who post that Russia is a hotbed of disease, poverty, alcholism, immorality, death, destruction, poorly run conscript army, ineffectual security services, are the same ones who want the uninformed to believe that somehow this is an intricate plot to fool the West into thinking they're down and out and then they'll be able to take over the world. They are so far out of shape, behind in many many many areas, that the biggest threat the Russian government poses is to itself. So, when this country, with a rich history (and a 70-year period of evil), tries to set itself on the right course (and makes many many mistakes in doing so), they are derided by the "Cry Wolf" crowd which appears to be unduly influenced ONCE AGAIN by a person (GOLITSYN) who overstated his qualifications, manipulated a high-level CIA officer resulting in a 10-year stagnation at the CIA, and is revered by them like the second coming of Christ.
Think about it. Do you REALLY trust a man, who only had 9 years experience in the KGB, to have such access to what he claims? Have you given thought that he may have had "help" in writing those treatsies? Perhaps by some people who may have seen the benefit in overstating the Soviet and post-Soviet threat? Ensuring that people would never believe that the Russian bear was a little less threatening and justifying higher budgets on favorite programs?
And, as always, none of you answer the questions I pose. How is it that the so-called alleged superman of defections, the so-called most valuable defector, the so-called most damaging to Soviet aims, is not listed anywhere on any sites as being a traitor to his homeland? And, do you really buy into the argument that he was so well informed when he was a junior Major, who spent the majority of his brief KGB career posted keeping tabs on Russian emigres (Austria), that he somehow was so trusted so schooled in the most sensitive plans of the KGB and the Soviet Union even though the KGB is a very compartmentive secretive need-to-know based organization? How is it a CI guy knew so much about the activities of the First Directorate. A very closed society (1st Dir.) that would not have allowed said CI guy into their realm. The First directorate guys were the elite, they looked down on the others. The CI guys were the ones who did most of the oppressing/repressing. Can you answer these questions logically? Can you explain the total contradiction in his background versus his claims? Can you admit that Golitsyn is the only one who verifies his background? Don't you find that a little suspect? Do you realize Golitsyn laughs at you, his "useful idiots," who stir up the conspiracy theorists who buy his books who make him rich and give him legitimacy?