Putin's hard line echoes shadowy lobby group

Globe and Mail ^ | 05/23/2006 | GRAEME SMITH

[GarySpFc]

Is Putin still America's 'good friend' as he arms radical Islamic tyrants, as in the jihad trigger happy Iranians, and the likes of commie Hugo Chavez, among other sworn enemies of America?

Firstly, Putin is a Russian patriot.
Secondly, Russia is not an ally, but neither are they an enemy. Read Checney, Rice, and the comments from the military intelligence community.
Thirdly,Russia sells to anyone where they can make money. Fourthly, I share your love for Israel. You should know Israel considers Russia a friend.
Fifthly, your "hatred" for Russia shows in every post you make. You really need to get over your conspiracy theories.

[IrishMike]

Interesting !

PING

[Paul Ross]

Evidently you don't know who Penkovsky and Polyakov were. They were executed.

I know who they are. I am talking about the other defectors...who turned out to be plants and disinformants. Golitsyn is not a plant. As far as coincidence...that was not compelling at all. Goltsyn's message is corroborated. Over and over and over and over again. 94% of his predictions panned out.

Show me ONE thing Golytsin was accurate on. ONE. There are none.

You want proof of ONE THING? There are hundreds of things that were corroborated. Little things. And Big Things. Like massive infiltration of the CIA...which he corroborated by repeating almost word for word classified CIA documents he had memorized...that he could not have possibly had any other way than from an extremely highly placed mole. And Philby would not have had access to.

One of the simplest things to be aware of is that there are massive secret cells and communist structures lurking. It is indeed reasonable to suppose that the massive "Russian Mafia" was no such thing. Its our old 'friends.' One of the predictions, that they would make a show of disarmament...was confirmed. The Mobile SS-23's found in violation of treaty found secreted long after the Fall of Communiism...still ready for use and waiting in deep bunker hiding and neither declared nor destroyed. How many more lurk? How much else remains successfully hidden and tucked out of sight and CIA awareness?

Or is it your position that the former Warsaw PAct countries, including those now in NATO, are plotting against us?

The only one I would be confident in right now is Poland. They did a more thorough house-cleaning than the FSB expected. And note the very real enmity Putin has for Poland.

Is it your position that the Russian military isn't suffering from low morale, rusting equipment, and a conscript force that is killing each other?

So how does that undercut the existence of an ulterior plan and objective? And note the sudden re-emphasis by Russia on military expenditures, drastically increasing funding...when no one threatens them. Your imputation of paranoia is simply nuts. If we wanted to have taken them on, that would have been long ago...before we dismantled 75% of our nuclear deterrent, and 65% of our tactical. This ALONE debunks you...and every single other Golitsyn "debunker." Wm F. Buckley has proven to be a piker, and his smugness will result in blood on his hands. He has been drinking too much of the wine in his cellar. As W continues the pell-mell strategic and tactical disarmament we are in mortal peril.

I will always remain skeptical, but particularly skeptical of the Golitsyn debunkers such as Martin. Face it, you have fallen for the grand deception. You're dupes. The sudden obviously forced departure of Yeltsin proves it. The Apartment Terrorism that put Putin into power proves it. His program of stomping out the flowers of free speech and thinking proves it. The FSB proves it. The Shanghai Cooperation Pact proves it. The continued stonewalling on allowing any inspection of the vast underground site built into the Ural Mountains, known as Yamantau...proves it.

I believe JR Nyquist is closer to the mark than the debunkers. And the former Czech general named Jan Sejna's corroboration of the same plan, in his 1982 book, We Will Bury You, is noted by him here:

:

The Wilderness of Mirrors Revisited: How I got here J.R. Nyquist 08.15.01

---

Twenty years ago I was browsing in a book store for something different to read. As chance would have it, I happened upon David C. Martin's "Wilderness of Mirrors." It was about James J. Angleton, head of CIA counterintelligence and a KGB defector named Golitsyn.

Here was something worth knowing about. The subject touched on the essentials of spycraft, global strategy and leadership. The title was intriguing. So I bought the book and read it cover to cover. It was easier to follow than I thought, given the intricate subject matter. Obviously, Martin was deeply skeptical of Angleton and his favorite KGB defector, Major Anatoliy Golitsyn. Golitsyn had defected to the West in December 1961 bringing dark news of high level Soviet agents (i.e., "moles") inside NATO and the CIA.

Golitsyn had worked in Soviet counterintelligence. It was obvious that he had memorized many top secret NATO documents. How could he have seen these documents? Simply put, the West was thoroughly penetrated by communist bloc agents. That was the obvious answer, but a politically unacceptable one.

To make matters worse, it seems that Golitsyn did not show proper respect for the CIA's sophomoric methods. This did not win friends and influence people. The first public personification of Golitsyn offered to Americans adds color to this picture. Alfred Hitchcock's movie, entitled "Topaz," was based on Golitsyn's defection. Golitsyn is quite negatively portrayed in Hitchcock's movie as contemptuous and arrogant.

As I read Martin's book I did not think so much of Angleton's misjudgments and missteps, or Golitsyn's contagious paranoia. These epiphenomena are no doubt produced by longstanding emersion in intelligence work. I had no reason to distrust Martin's points about too much suspicion in the wrong place. What bothered me was the dismissive attitude toward Golitsyn.

Imagine a police detective without feelings of suspicion. How could he do his job? The same applies to counterintelligence officers. Certainly, some allowances must be made, and some attempt is long overdue to come to grips with the reality of Russian/communist penetration of American institutions. Martin seemingly had little sympathy in regarding those concerned with a real threat. I was intrigued that in his view, the danger came from the CIA, from men like Angleton. Okay, yes, there is some truth here. But one must go further, I thought.

As an example of the way Martin treated Angleton, consider the following passage: "Whether or not the KGB ever succeeded in penetrating the CIA, it had at the very least infiltrated Angleton's mind. Hadn't two of his chief mentors been Kim Philby and Anatoli Golitsyn?"

Kim Philby had defected from the West to East, Golitsyn had defected from East to West. It was somewhat clever of Martin to bring these contrary elements together. But it wasn't altogether honest.

Such was the tenor of Martin's writings about Angleton and Golitsyn. Martin took a negative view of Angleton for believing -- rather than suspecting -- there was a mole high up in the CIA. Martin said that Angleton "had taken suspicion and turned it into reality."

Surely there was more to the story than this. I did not trust Martin's judgments because of the heavy handed anti-Angleton rhetoric. As a general rule I prefer to read the words of people involved directly in historical matters. Never dismiss someone entirely without giving them a full hearing. And never dismiss somebody because they are flawed or imperfect. That would leave us all in the position of dismissing everyone.

Three years after I read Martin's book I stumbled upon Anatoliy Golitsyn's book, "New Lies for Old." Finally, I could read the other side of the story and form my own opinion.

Golitsyn's book is actually about strategy, psychological warfare and how to organize the implements of deception (of higher, intellectual warfare). Various tricks are discussed in the book. One trick is that of pretending to be at odds with those you are secretly allied with. Another trick is to reorganize your society and declare your own defeat in order to disarm an opponent. These tricks are thoroughly discussed by Golitsyn, who is blessed with analytical and strategical understanding.

After reading Golitsyn's portrayal of Soviet long range deception strategy I did not believe, even for a minute, that the Russians could successfully execute such elaborate strategies as Golitsyn described. As fascinating as the book was, as full of vital ideas, I did not think that any secret strategy could survive without exposure. Even if the West did not believe in a long range Soviet deception plan, once Soviet history began to move in the direction outlined by Golitsyn everyone would do a double-take, think back to Golitsyn's writings, and say to themselves: "Someone told us all about this years ago."

The fact that Golitsyn had predicted a fake Soviet collapse, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the communists giving up power in the Soviet Union, would make it clear to the Russian strategists that any such plan would be recognized and thwarted.

But three years after reading Golitsyn's book, in 1987, I was jolted into a new awareness. As a graduate student in political science I was reading through the defector literature. I was thinking of specializing in this area, and was working under a professor who later ran for president of a former Soviet republic. At this moment I happened upon a book, published in England in 1982, entitled "We Will Bury You." It was written by a Czech general named Jan Sejna, who had also worked closely with KGB General Dmitri Mironov, named by Golitsyn as one of the chief architects of Russia's long range deception plan. What made me sit bolt upright in my chair, was the fact that Sejna offered comfirmation of the existence of a long range communist bloc strategy.

According to Sejna the Russian strategists were thinking of dissolving the communist bloc alliance in order to lull the West into a false sense of security. On page 108 of Sejna's book he wrote: "To this end we envisaged that it might be necessary to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, in which event we had already prepared a web of bilateral defence arrangements, to be supervised by secret committees of comecon."

Having sat for a year in graduate seminars, listening to people who would soon work at the Rand Corporation presenting papers on the spread of communism, I suddenly realized that I'd been listening to a slew of young duffers. I'd heard so many judgments from scholars and "experts" that flew in the face of logic and reason I began to suspect human rationality itself. Had they not read this books? Had they not investigated this important point of corroboration between two defectors from differenent communist countries? If Golitsyn was right (and here he was confirmed by another defector in one part of his story), then there was a long range Soviet plan and, to the bargain, it was an article of faith -- pure and positive -- on the part of my academic brethren that no such plan could exist or did exist.

One must always be a little afraid of smug certainties.

It was this sudden merging of direct experience of our political science elite and defector testimony that jolted me out of my smug and very American frame of mind. I then became determined to read everything, consider every angle in order to test Golitsyn's overall thesis regarding a Soviet long range strategy to deceive and conquer the West. I had to know if there was something more out there to back this up.

That was more than two years before 94 percent of Golitsyn's 1984 predictions about the communist bloc came true.

Perhaps, with Angleton, I too am lost in the Wilderness of Mirrors. You may think so. You may even shake your head at me. Perhaps I am a crank, as many would say. One must always remain open-minded, since truth is difficult and we are poor observers and philosophers of it. That is my ultimate position. No mere mortal has a lock on truth

I will write more of this fascinating subject, and where it led me, in my next column.

and here

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24362

Thursday, September 6, 2001

---

---

The grand deception

---

Posted: September 6, 2001
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By J.R. Nyquist

---

© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Those who fear Russia are easily mocked. "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming," is on video. Watch it and laugh. Concern about communist subversion is also mocked. All you have to do is remember what a bad egg Joseph McCarthy was, if you remember at all. To allay any lingering doubt or fear, go to Russia and take the KGB tour. See all the rusting submarines and missile boats you want. You can even see rusty signs in front of Russia's ABM radar at Sofrino.

If you subscribed to "National Review" when it was still under the influence of Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham, you may remember a completely different magazine than exists today. It's funny how vigilance and a sense of danger can be turned into smug self-satisfaction over time.

Twenty years ago, a Russian KGB defector named Anatoliy Golitsyn went to see William F. Buckley, the editor of "National Review." Golitsyn needed help on writing a book with the title "New Lies for Old." It was about Russia's strategy of faking the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. As it happened, Buckley showed Golitsyn the door.

After the "patron saint of American conservatives" closed the door on the truth about communist strategy, few would have the courage to look back and say that Golitsyn was right. The changes in Eastern Europe have been deceptive, orchestrated and calculated from on high. The strategy has been to disarm the West and get communist bloc countries inside NATO – to subvert the alliance from within.

Consider the Czech Republic as an example. Having entered NATO, it is yet controlled by the old communists who are waiting for a signal from Moscow. That's all it will take for them to reverse the changes that have taken place since 1989. Yesterday, I received a letter from a politically active Czech citizen, Hana Catalanova. "I know how hard this is to make people see," she wrote. "You might think it is better over here ... no, it is not!"

The big lie of 1989, the grand deception, was cynically calculated to take advantage of modern apathy and ignorance: "... we are actually living our lives in such lies, and people don't care," wrote Catalanova. "What about the next generation, our kids?"

Hana worries about freedom and the truth. Explaining how the communists retained control after the Velvet Revolution of 1989, she noted, "The problem here is that too many people were involved and engaged in shady deals with the secret police and corruption ... betraying their friends, fellow workers, next door neighbors. And this is such a small country."

America has a different excuse for turning its back on freedom and the truth. As I once told a leading Russian military defector who asked about America's unpatriotic attitudes, "They're too busy shopping and having fun."

The Czechs have another problem. "In towns and villages everyone knows everyone," explained Catalanova, "They are hiding their past behind the silence. They stay deaf to everything that doesn't concern them, because if they speak up, somebody might tell who they were before. I can tell you, it is all very depressing."

Hana Catalanova has written an important essay on the imprisonment of Captain Vladimir Hucin, a Czech official who has uncovered the truth about secret communist structures controlling important public institutions. "The whole world must know that communism is not dead," wrote Catalanova. "It is very much alive and threatens to overthrow the world democracies."

People here in America look around and wonder why the environmentalists are so strong, why business is under assault and rural property rights are no longer secure. They wonder why so many are teaching Marxist propaganda in schools and universities. Some of us cannot understand why our political leaders keep insisting on further military cutbacks as they continue to do business with the gangsters in Beijing and Moscow.

The short answer is: We've been subverted, infiltrated, duped and manipulated by communists and leftists. We have been too busy shopping and having fun to notice their "long march" through our institutions. We have been too absorbed in our careers and personal satisfactions. And now our country has its own hidden (or not so hidden) communist structures. As Russia and China prepare new missiles against us, our own state system allows itself to be unthinkingly nudged toward self-dissolution.

The danger is real, despite all the ridicule that comes to mind about "communists under every bush." Have you talked to your daughter's social studies teacher? Have you any idea where all this political correctness ultimately comes from?

If I joined the present chorus writing about shark attacks, the response to my column would be huge. But since I write about the advance of communism, about evidence that our Cold War enemy has been playing a trick on us, I get hardly any response at all. Americans have lost their sense of self preservation, their sense of history.

Do you really think that an enemy of more than four decades simply ran up the white flag because he couldn't "pay the bills"?

Of course, that's what you want to believe to keep your peace of mind. But this peace of mind is for fools. Give it up and get with the facts and testimony. The superficial reports on Russia, Chechnya, Eastern Europe and the collapse of communism are laced with falsehood and distortion. Such reports do not convey a real understanding of events.

French journalist Anne Nivat's book on the Chechin war has recently been translated into English. It deserves to be widely read, though few will understand its importance. Nivat disguised herself as a Chechin refugee and watched events close up. Many of the Chechins she interviewed felt the war was a Kremlin puppet show. "I'm ashamed for Western Europe, where you live in a world of lies," an elderly Chechin told Navat. "We are all victims, manipulated by the politicians in Moscow."

The same could be said for America.

[Paul Ross]

We lost a lot of ground during the Clinton years and there has been a mixed message coming out of the current Administration on Russia. Time to refocus.

On this we can agree.

[Romanov]

Nyquist's rants on this subject doing nothing to prove Golytsin's validity.

"I know who they are. I am talking about the other defectors...who turned out to be plants and disinformants. Golitsyn is not a plant. As far as coincidence...that was not compelling at all. Goltsyn's message is corroborated. Over and over and over and over again. 94% of his predictions panned out."

Name the plants and disinformants - Nosenko? Already proven by qualified intelligence professionals that he was bismirched wrongly by Golytsin and his treatment damaged our ability to use his information. While Nosenko did lie on some issues, his credibility in the long run was proven.

" Like massive infiltration of the CIA...which he corroborated by repeating almost word for word classified CIA documents he had memorized...that he could not have possibly had any other way than from an extremely highly placed mole. And Philby would not have had access to. "

Golytsin was given access to the personal files of CIA members by Angleton - that helped him immensely in his real mission and was a complete security violation by a man entrusted to ensure foreign agents didn't get ahold of such materials.

"So how does that undercut the existence of an ulterior plan and objective? And note the sudden re-emphasis by Russia on military expenditures, drastically increasing funding...when no one threatens them. Your imputation of paranoia is simply nuts. If we wanted to have taken them on, that would have been long ago...before we dismantled 75% of our nuclear deterrent, and 65% of our tactical. This ALONE debunks you...and every single other Golitsyn "debunker." Wm F. Buckley has proven to be a piker, and his smugness will result in blood on his hands. He has been drinking too much of the wine in his cellar. As W continues the pell-mell strategic and tactical disarmament we are in mortal peril."

Rubbish - evidence actually proves otherwise. How many of those "destruction of WMD" missions have you been on? Have you seen the state of the Russian military first hand? Have you visited a Russian military base? Have you spoken with Russian military members and seen how they live? Have you seen their equipment? Have you kept track of their failure rate in military operations? Etc., etc., etc.

"And the former Czech general named Jan Sejna's corroboration of the same plan, in his 1982 book, We Will Bury You, is noted by him here:"

I didn't think it would be too long before the Golytsinites trotted out another phoney! Jan Sejna is a fraud and was an opportunist:

"The Claims of MG Jan Sejna: Crafted Nonsense




Summary. In the early 1990s, during the tenure of the Senate Select Committee on POW-MIAs, a witness appeared who told a story about US POWs from the Korean and Vietnam Wars. Major General Jan Sejna, a defector who had fled from Czechoslovakia to the US in 1968, claimed that he knew of a program whereby US POWs from Korea and Vietnam were used in medical experiments in Korea, Russia, and Czechoslovakia. Sejna's story was made more believable by the fact that he had served for years as a consultant to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a position he still held when he made his claims. His revelations are a major element of the MIA "activists' " gospel.

Sejna's story is a fabrication. Carefully crafted, skillfully presented, but a fabrication nonetheless. The Sejna saga started just after his defection when he was asked by the CIA if he had any knowledge of American POWs. His response was that he knew nothing about US POWs. He was asked the same question in different forms at different times, each time with the same response.

As with most other things related to the MIA issue, Sejna's story is not simple. I will compress it to a few facts and considerations here.

Sejna's Story
I will not relate all of Sejna's story here. If you wish to search for it, it can be found at various home pages and websites run by MIA "activists" and "activist organizations." Simply stated, Sejna claimed that he observed US POWs from Vietnam as they were moved through safe houses and other locations controlled by Czech intelligence on their way to the Soviet Union where they were the subject of medical experiments. He also claimed that he knew of similar activities carried out with US POWs from Korea.

To support his story, he provided details intended to add credibility. He named Czech and Soviet intelligence officers who were involved in this business. He described safe houses and other locations where US POWs were kept or passed through.

More to the Story
There are a couple of more things you need to know about Sejna. First, he was employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a consultant before and during the time he was telling this tale. Second, Sejna had a long and close association with an individual in the Washington, DC, area, Mr. Joseph Douglass. Douglass is a writer who produced a book entitled Red Cocaine that purports to lay bare the facts of a vast worldwide narcotics trafficking network that was controlled by the Soviets. Would you believe that Sejna was Douglass' main source for Red Cocaine?

Sejna and DIA
When Sejna defected in 1968, he was debriefed by the CIA. Afterwards, he needed some form of livelihood. As a Czech general officer, and at his age, there was not much for him to do. So, as happened with a lot of folks like Sejna, he was signed up as a "consultant" to one of the US intelligence agencies. Because of his experience in the Czech military and because of his connections with Czech leaders, his insights were important to US analysis of Czechoslovakian, Warsaw Pact, and Soviet affairs.

Sejna and Douglass
I do not know Mr. Douglass and have never read his book, Red Cocaine. All I know of him and of the book is what I have heard from a couple of people close to the case. Red Cocaine describes a network that moves cocaine and other drugs around the world into the US and the other western democracies. The book claims that this network is run by the Soviets and it is part of their grand scheme to lay low the United States. The main source for the book is Sejna.

One would expect that such revelations would have caused a huge stir in Washington and lead to major disruptions in US - USSR relations. Nothing of the sort happened because analysis determined that the book was flawed and that most of its claims could not be substantiated.

Douglass was also a promoter of Sejna's story about US POWs. Sejna did not testify publicly before the SSC; he provided a deposition. Later, Sejna testified publicly in hearings held by Congressman Robert Dornan.

Enough. Let's Examine the Story
"No. No, I have not heard anyone talking about it."
After Sejna fled Czechoslovakia in 1968 ( just before the Soviet invasion to put an end to the Prague Spring democracy movement ), he was debriefed extensively by US intelligence. This exchange is quoted from Sejna's March 23, 1968 debriefing:


Debriefer: Have you heard about our prisoners who are there in Vietnam? How many are there and where are they?
Sejna: No. No, I have not heard anyone talking about it. (Ja jsem neslysel nikoho o tom hovorit.)


(( Page 2, declassified US government memorandum, Subject: Jan Sejna, November 4, 1992, Records of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, RG46/Zwenig/No. 4, declassified 13/12/92. ))



So, in the midst of the Vietnam War, immediately after he defected, when his knowledge of activities inside the Soviet empire would be fresh, Sejna stated unequivocally that he knew nothing about US POWs.

Sejna's Storytelling Method
I have read the version of Sejna's story that is posted on the WWW and it is a coherent, believable story. However, when he was telling the story, it was an entirely different matter.

First, of course, is Sejna's statement in his 1968 debriefing in which he denied any knowledge of US POWs. Then, when he started telling his story, an pattern developed. I was present at only one of Sejna's debriefings but I have had extensive conversations with the analysts who debriefed him and who worked to analyze and investigate his claims.

Sejna's story grew by stages. When he first told his story, it was simple with a lot of holes and blank spaces. Initially, he had only heard some rumors of US POWs from Korea and medical experiments. When analysts told him that there were some parts of his story that did not check out, he filled in the holes and each time the story became more and more complete.

Sejna would be debriefed; in his debriefing he would describe all sorts of events, people, and places. US analysts would check out the story in various ways. We would compare what he told us to facts that we had verified previously. We would have US personnel in Czechoslovakia check out locations he had described. In doing this, we would find big holes and errors in the story. Debriefers would confront Sejna with these errors in his story and he would tell another story, correcting the errors or explaining them away.

Through this process of Sejna telling the story, US intelligence checking it out and challenging him, Sejna refining his story, his claims developed to their finished form. He went from his 1968 denials, to a simple story about having heard rumors, to detailed knowledge of activities, people, and places. In every subsequent debriefing, his story became more and more complete as he refined it to correct the flaws on which he had been challenged.

Thus, the story that Sejna finally told, the one that he related to the Dornan hearings and the one that is on the "activist" network, is a carefully crafted fabrication that Sejna perfected after several months of practice.

Why Would Sejna Lie?
Simple. To keep his job. Consider the following.

Sejna was not, as is claimed by the "activists," a Czech intelligence officer. Instead, he was a political officer -- a Communist Party hack -- attached to the Czech General Staff. During his 1968 debriefing, he stated that he knew nothing about intelligence matters. (( Page 1, memorandum cited above. )) His specialty was Communist party affairs. (( No one has ever proved it, but this position probably gave him prior warning that the Soviets were preparing to invade Czechoslovakia in 1968 -- just enough warning for him to get out. ))

Sejna was hired by DIA as a consultant because his position wold have given him insights into how things worked within Czechoslovakia, the Warsaw Pact, and the Soviet Union. He would have had some value in providing assistance to analysts who were wrestling with such matters.

However, consider what happened over time. As time passed, Sejna's insider information -- which ended in 1968 -- would have become more and more dated. The people whom he knew, the organizations he understood, all would have changed. Thus, after several years, he is not of much value. What is an old Commie to do for a living?

I am just cynical enough to figure that what he does is create something that makes him valuable. Could this explain Red Cocaine? What better way to make yourself important to the US government -- again -- than by spilling the beans on the Evil Empire's drug trafficking?

Then comes the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, and the whole Soviet Empire. The Communist government in Czechoslovakia is replaced by a fairly democratic anti-Communist government and Sejna's information is worthless.

Now, he really has a problem. No sweat. Just become an expert on US POWs and he's back on the payroll. (( Actually, he was always on the payroll. DIA kept him on because, well, they did not want to throw the old guy out. ))

We should not overlook the fact that Sejna maintains a close association with a "writer" -- who looks a lot like many others who are trying to be the next Woodward or Bernstein. (( Is this cynicism or what? ))

One of Sejna's Stories
I will not go into chapter and verse of Sejna's stories here but there is one tale that I would like to share with you. In telling of how US POWs from Vietnam were moved into and through Czechoslovakia, Sejna described a Czech intelligence safe house in Prague where US POWs would reside temporarily. He described the place in some detail -- the address, the exterior, even the paneling on the walls inside.

The US has an embassy in Prague. In each embassy there is a US Defense Attaché Office that is filled with military intelligence folks and there are rumors that each embassy has a CIA station. Probably just rumors.

Personnel in the attaché office live in rented homes, on the local economy. Because the defense attaché office is a legal intelligence operation, there are certain counterintelligence actions that are taken to protect attaché personnel. One thing that the counterintell folks do is keep track of what is going on in buildings that surround official residences. Simply put, we want to make certain that no one is using a building across the street from the attaché's home as an eavesdropping center.

The safe house that Sejna described -- the one that he claimed was a transit point for US POWs being hauled through Prague -- is located right next door to the US Defense Attaché's official residence. As such, that building would have been under considerable scrutiny by US counterintelligence and there simply is no way that US POWs would have transited that building unobserved.

This is one of the most egregious of the many major flaws in Sejna's story. It is not the only one -- his tales are replete with similar foolishness.

A Few More Questions
Why Wait So Long?
Sejna departed Czechoslovakia in 1968 and came directly to the US. If he really did have information about US POWs from Vietnam or Korea, why did he not say so during his initial debriefings? After all, this was the height of the Vietnam War -- it was in all the newspapers -- and he would have to have known that the US government was interested in all aspects of the war. He was asked specifically if he knew anything about US POWs from Vietnam. He denied any knowledge.

Sejna was a consultant to DIA in 1973 when the war ended and the US POWs came home. This was a major social event and he could not have missed it. Why did he not say something then? He was in DIA, he could have brought up the topic with his co-workers. He said nothing.

Jan Sejna had several opportunities to reveal his knowledge -- if he had any. He took none of those opportunities. He waited until his career was at an end, when he had no value of any kind to US intelligence. Then he brought up what he hoped would be his meal ticket.

What About the Czechs?
Let's not forget some other important actors in this affair -- the past and current Czech governments. Remember, in the collapse of the Evil Empire, the Communist governments of Eastern Europe were replaced with governments that may not have been Jeffersonian democrats but they sure as hell were anti-Communist. The West was, and in some cases still is, treated to all sorts of revelations about the evils done by the bad guys who were in charge. US TV was filled with special tours of formerly secret places, presented by the new governments to show just how crooked and evil the Commies were.

If the Czech communist government had been involved in medical experiments on US POWs, just how valuable would that information be to the new government? Revealing this fact, and cooperating with the US would solidify our friendship. The new Czech government could help identify the US POWs who were involved, thereby ending the uncertainty of their families. Be revealing this dastardly program, the new Czech government had everything to gain and nothing to lose. In fact, the new and current Czech government cooperated with US MIA investigators.

Yet, in spite of continuing US - Czech investigations into the matter, there is nothing there. Why not? Because there is nothing there.

Defectors
Let us now turn our attention to the subject of defectors.

I assume that most readers recall the years of the Cold War. We were the Good Guys and the Soviet Union, with its East European "satellites" was the Evil Empire. It had almost religious overtones. Everything about Them was evil. Everything about Us was good.

When an official from Their side saw the light and defected to Our side, it was as though the individual had come to Jesus. The popular media welcomed defectors as saved souls who threw off the chains that bound them to the Great Evil and came to the altar of democracy.

Fortunately US intelligence has a different view of defectors. Don't ever forget that this person whom we call a defector is, to the country from which he fled, a traitor. How do we feel about Americans, Brits, and others from the Western democracies who defected to the Evil Empire? You get the picture.

The fact is that a defector, no matter which direction he or she fled, has proven, by the simple act of defecting, that he/she is capable of great treachery. During the Cold War the defector frequently was a senior official from one of the Communist states. Here you have a person who benefited from the best his system had to offer -- as a party member, he could shop in special stores and shops, could travel, his children went to better schools, and he had access to apartments and hospitals that the common folks did not have. Yet, for some reason, this person turned his back on the system that nurtured him, and he betrayed that system. Now, because he came in our direction, we figure he is a good guy. But, we should not lose sight of the fact that this guy has proven what he is capable of and it ain't pretty.

Now, folks, you may be put off by what I have just said but remember one thing. In the intelligence business, we are dealing with serious matters. A defector may give us information that goes directly to the senior decision makers and that information may be used in making vital decisions. There is no room for error at this level so you had best keep your bullsh*t filter finely tuned.

Sejna was a defector. He fled Prague, leaving behind his friends and associates, just before Soviet tanks rumbled into town. As a Communist political officer, he may have known what was coming. He had proven what he was capable of doing. I believe, that in telling his POW story, he did it again -- he ran to save himself.

Conclusion
At this point, I do not need to wind your watch for you. I really believe most folks can figure it out. General Jan Sejna's tale about US POWs from Korea and Vietnam being taken to the Soviet Union, or to anywhere else for that matter, is a fabrication. Sejna revealed everything he knew about US POWs in his 1968 debriefing: nothing. "

That's what so frustrating to me - seeing Americans falling for the lies told by opportunists, plants, and phonies. On one hand you trot out the Russians (KGB) and their allies aren't to be trusted then you put all your faith in people who have no sense of loyalty, were personally involved in corruption, had motives to lie, and betrayed their country of birth. Such people will do anything for their own personal gain. End of story. Golytsin, unlike Penkovsky and Polyakov, refused to consider working as a double agent for us. He insisted he needed to defect immediately. That is the trait of a man with questionable motives and smacks of KGB infiltration.

I know I'll never be able to convince people like you of the peril of believing people like Golytsin, Sejnov, Litvienko, etc. But, know this, you have put your faith in people who only care about one thing - their own personal gratification and enrichment. Full Stop.

[Tailgunner Joe]

While Nosenko did lie on some issues, his credibility in the long run was proven.

Can you elaborate on this point? Thanks.

[Romanov]

"Despite the solitary confinement and hostile interrogation, Nosenko never changed his story that he was a KGB officer who truly defected. The debate within the CIA about Nosenko raged for four years. Helms, who had become Deputy DCI, under DCI Adm. William Raborn, and then DCI in 1966, finally tried to bring a conclusion to the debate. In late 1967, he asked his deputy, Adm. Rufus Taylor, to make an independent study of the case.

Taylor used the Office of Security to re-examine the entire matter. In October 1968, he advised Helms that he was not convinced how the KGB would have benefited by sending Nosenko as a false defector. Taylor recommended that Nosenko be accepted as a legitimate defector and that the CIA "rehabilitate," release, and resettle him. According to Helms, doubts remained "as strong as ever in some quarters...." Those "quarters" were in the Counterintelligence Staff, whose "representatives" continued to question whether Nosenko's authenticity had been conclusively proven. Other senior officers, however, believed that Nosenko should be accepted and that he had important services to offer the CIA and should be retained under Agency contract. Helms agreed. In time, Nosenko received American citizenship, assumed a new identity, married, and pursued a new career in the United States.22"

[Romanov]

And more on Angleton's security violations:

"See the testimony by John Hart, Hearings, Select Committee on Assassination, Vol. II, pp. 494-95. Hart had been directed by then-DCI Stansfield Turner to review the Nosenko case in 1977. Bagley also testified that Golitsyn submitted questions for and comments about Nosenko, and that the CIA used Golitsyn to check on Nosenko's statements. Ibid., Vol. XII, pp. 577-78."

Highly unusual and highly damaging to security - use of a "defector" to "prosecute" another defector.

[Lukasz]

Funny how Romanov become the main Kremlin apologist on FR after jb6 got a ban. Before he posted rarely and now we can read his excuses for them and “neutral explanations” why they are good guys in every Russian thread. He took all the "responsibility" for this apologism on own shoulders.

[Paul Ross]

I know I'll never be able to convince people like you of the peril of believing people like Golytsin, Sejnov, Litvienko, etc.

Hey, we don't even need any of these defectors to rationally come to the same conclusion.

Remember the short list of stuff...Yamantau Mountain. ...the violatory SS-23s.... the Shanghai Cooperative Pact.

Etc.

But, know this, you have put your faith in people who only care about one thing - their own personal gratification and enrichment.

I remain open to skepticism about everything. And also the possibility that there was a "Plan" to fake the Soviet Demise...but that it got out of hand in certain states...such as Poland. And even if the Plan is "broken"...that doesn't mean that certain elements in the FSB and Russian military aren't persisting thereto. To try and reinvent, or restore, the "Plan." In other words, not just a seeking after nebulous past glories. But a concrete objective.

Tell me the downside of being on guard for this possibility.

The upside, if this speculation is true, then there is actually something positive we can do about it short of a nuclear war. There is always the possibility that the FSB's puppets can still be put out of commission so long as these are 'illegitimate' underground structures. We could expose and shame them. And force a real revolution that would undermine the KGB attempts to carefully modulate and control.

I am particularly concerned about debunkers who offer no credible, nor even a conceivable "peril" to being suspicious. Why the fear of simply Inquiring into a report that we are being systemmatically lied to? This doesn't pass the smell test.

And frankly, I have every reason to concede some trust in the judgment of a dissident such as Vladimir Bukovsky, who arguably is not guilty of any treachery by defecting, when he warns us that... THE WEST LOST the Cold War and not fret over questions about whether Angleton was overly-suspicious because of Golitsyn. Nosenko besmirched? Please. Give it a break. It looks like he was justified.

And how would any of our policies differ, if we had totally rejected Golitsyn and Sejna and Vladmir Bukovsky been improved?

As for Jan Sejna, as you say, a political flack, I have little doubt he, "the clover General" was corrupt...but we both agree... it is an operational axiom that all defector-derived intel needs to be treated as suspect. After all, they defected. Nonetheless it needs to be considered in the event their story proves legitimate, and something new is provided us. Jan Sejna was also highly placed enough to have precisely such necessary knowledge of Soviet grand strategy in his book We Will Bury You .

As to your interpretation that he was confabulating the POW stuff, I will refrain from coming to any conclusion, and will explore it. The safehouse story may still be true despite your claim of U.S. surveillance...after all...we hardly could catch the blasted Beltway Sniper! But even if the story folds on the POWs regarding Sejna, it does not necessarily contradict or undermine the revealed strategy outlined in We Will Bury You. Remember, he was a communist, and Communists lie all the time. Nosenko did. But sometimes, when properly motivated, they can square with you.

So can we at least agree we should not be so foolish as to assume the communists are not a lingering threat?

[Paul Ross]

You can find a less-heated, fair treatment of Golitsyn here, at A Mind of Winter by Mark Riebling.

I got a particularly inriguing insight from this. The tantalazing possibility that Golitsyn's vague information about an Soviet plot targetting an unnamed Western Politician for assassination...Golitsyn speculated perhaps a European...may have been a tip-off of the impending JFK Assassination. Unfortunately he wasn't knowledgeable enough to give a concrete warning.

[Romanov]

"Hey, we don't even need any of these defectors to rationally come to the same conclusion.

Remember the short list of stuff...Yamantau Mountain. ...the violatory SS-23s.... the Shanghai Cooperative Pact.

Etc."

None of those items listed above "prove" a return to communism or the ridiculous theory that the Soviet Union is just "hibernating" - those are the actions of a country looking out for their own interests how they see fit. Granted, that means on occasion that they end up being in confrontation with us. However, that does not mean they are confronting us based on a continued belief in and adhering to communist doctrine. Their doctrine as stated today is to return Russia as an international and regional power. The fact that they are going about all wrong doesn't mean it's "Back to the USSR."

There are so many "analysts" out there making judgment on Russia and their intentions that have a.) never been to Russia to see firsthand what is occurring, b.) do not speak the Russian language and do not understand Russian history or culture - skills necessary to be able to observe and analyze the situation firsthand (unfiltered), i.e, without someone else telling you what you are seeing. Instead they rely on others to tell them what is happening. Sometimes the "others" are those that have hidden motives and agendas.

Having extensively traveled and lived throughout the former Soviet Union for the past 10 years and having studied them professionally (i.e, NOT a hobbyist)since 1983
the only conclusion I can make from their current state is they are a danger only to themselves. Accords, such as the Shangai one, are only made out of Russia's weak position regionally and a desire to be "heard" internationally.

The fall of the Soviet Union was a complete and utter surprise to those who ran it. Gorbachev, whether he was a "silent partner" in the coup of 1991 or not, never envisioned his "empire" collapsing around him. He underestimated Yeltsin and the people. Furthermore he and his cohorts always felt comfortable enough that if any uprisings occurred the men and women of the security services would join them in crushing it. That people, like Putin - by the way, in those forces refused to take up arms against their own was unprecedented and unexpected. That is why the GKChP failed and hearkened a quick retreat from the communist system.

Prior to the Soviet's demise the Warsaw Pact was in virtual rebellion. The Soviets had not the power nor the will to continue to impose their regime upon these people. This is mainly in part to great Western leaders such as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II (and the people in Eastern Europe who were brave enough to resist the communist powers). Golytsin's "theory" ignores actual historic events and tries to paint it as one big conspiracy to fool people - to include Reagan, Thatcher, and others. There are plenty of available archival documents released to the public and located at Russian archives and here in the US at the Library of Congress, the Hoover Institute, and the Woodrow Wilson Center that shows a communist party in complete panic and in complete despair that their empire was falling apart in front of their eyes. They had no reason to believe when they wrote these documents that people everywhere would be able to read about their efforts to stop the fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. (Suicides in the communist party were not uncommon after this event). Bitterness continues to be the main "feeling" of the old commies in the aforementioned countries. These communists would LOVE to believe as you Golytsinites do - that it is all a fake and they'll be back, fortunately, history and current events have proven them wrong.


And as far as defectors are concerned. Col. Schlatter, whom I quoted in the previous post, was 100% accurate when he described the motivations of a defector and whether or not they are reliable. Since Schlatter didn't have too much first hand exposure to people from that area (he was a Southeast Asia expert), I'll add this: Russians, Ukrainians, etc., are very adept at telling you what they think you WANT to hear - especially if their livelihood hinges on it. It's a trait they picked up as part of their own personal survival living under a criminal regime. Golytsin and others like him should be taken with a grain of salt (especially in light of Golytsin's rather low rank in the security forces - he wouldn't have the access to such sensitive plans as he claimed he did). As they lose their "usefulness" to their paymasters they try desperately to regain the attention that was once paid to them. They are not stupid men and are capable of weaving believable tales, however, the crux of their "theories" is incorrect - and they know it. But, they also know there is a market out there to peddle such trash. If you want more solid information that refutes Golytsin familiarize yourself with Mitrokhin.

Let me put it to you this way. If an American defector had been writing in Russia claiming we had a secret plan to pretend like we are Russia's friend, but in reality we are planning on occupying them and enslaving their people would you think Russians who believed them were being fooled? And if this American defector was smart enough to tie actual events into his treatise to make himself seem credible would you still think the Russians who believed him were following a fool who betrayed his own people?

Furthermore, what is your opinion of people who are willing to believe a man trained to lie over the very Americans who are trained to expose his lies?

[Paul Ross]

None of those items listed above "prove" a return to communism or the ridiculous theory that the Soviet Union is just "hibernating" - those are the actions of a country looking out for their own interests how they see fit.

We agree to disagree then. You don't see anything other than a little spat over self-interest. I see a lot more.

The incredible expense the Russians are devoting to Yamantau Mountain alone should have you deeply troubled. They were bankrupt. Yet they prioritized that above all else. And the Topol-M alongside that.

Just intellectual inertia? Or a patient design?

We have no real disagreement over taking the information given by defectors with piles of salt. The "Plan" would likely be flexible. In the event of a "real" coup, their job would be to win the power back to the FSB. And 'oila. Look who is filling all the offices up with FSB officers. It is possible to look at it either way... huge chunk of the Party was "out of the loop" and "left to twist in the wind" so that it made the collapse believable. Or it was a real collapse, but with the elements of the "Plan" still in place to try and recoup the party position covertly, under the mask of 'nationalism'. Hence less overtly threatening to US analysts.

Furthermore, what is your opinion of people who are willing to believe a man trained to lie over the very Americans who are trained to expose his lies?

There are a lot of Americans trained to expose lies. Jim Angleton was one.

[Paul Ross]

Prior to the Soviet's demise the Warsaw Pact was in virtual rebellion. The Soviets had not the power nor the will to continue to impose their regime upon these people. This is mainly in part to great Western leaders such as Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II (and the people in Eastern Europe who were brave enough to resist the communist powers).

Total agreement. Reagan's five-pillar strategy at work (outlined by Dr. Constantine Menges, Peter Schweitzer in their respective works). This part of the collapse was certainly real...especially in Poland. We worked hard to engineer it.

Golytsin's "theory" ignores actual historic events and tries to paint it as one big conspiracy to fool people - to include Reagan, Thatcher, and others.

I don't think we are talking about quite the same theory. Anyways, all but the Pope were already retired when the collapse came. They had, however, effectively delivered the "shove" that pushed the Soviets over the cliff. Indeed, we conservatives had won.

But the problem is...just how effective was GHWB at making sure the bastards didn't get back up off the mat? And then of course Xlinton came in and he couldn't have cared less. It would have gotten in the way of his policy of slicing and dicing the American military to have one big party, "the Peace Dividend".

So, with the return of thinly-veiled tyranny...There are good reasons for doubt. Vladimir Bukovsky paints a darker picture. The failure to ever "clean house" and put a much larger number of the CCCP henchmen... who in fact were guilty of great crimes...on trial is disturbing.

These communists would LOVE to believe as you Golytsinites do - that it is all a fake and they'll be back, fortunately, history and current events have proven them wrong.

How do "current" events prove them wrong? Hell, it proves them too damn close to being right.

[Romanov]

"But the problem is...just how effective was GHWB at making sure the bastards didn't get back up off the mat? And then of course Xlinton came in and he couldn't have cared less. It would have gotten in the way of his policy of slicing and dicing the American military to have one big party, "the Peace Dividend". "

AMEN. And it was very frustrating to watch and not be able to do anything about it.

[spanalot]

"You should know Israel considers Russia a friend."

HA!

[spanalot]

notice the structure of the posts - overly footnoted, irrelevant, and pointless.

[spanalot]

"I'll add this: Russians, Ukrainians, etc., are very adept at telling you what they think you WANT to hear -"

I think Yushchenkos selfless efforts at nation building prove that Ukraine is steering away from the Marxist relativist BS spouted by Russia and its supporters.

[Romanov]

"I think Yushchenkos selfless efforts at nation building prove that Ukraine is steering away from the Marxist relativist BS spouted by Russia and its supporters."

LOTFLMAO! SELFLESS?!?!?! You've got to be JOKING?!?

"There's a brewing mini scandal over here regarding the lifestyle of Yushenko's son. A series of articles have appeared in a Ukrainian Newspaper (entitled "Son of God?") that reveal that Yushenko's 19 year old son drives an (unmarked) $120,000 BMW M6, carries a $43,000 Vertu cell phone, lives in a ridiculously expensive apartment, regularly goes clubbing and goes through $1000 bottles of Cristal, and has a retinue of bodyguards that regularly shoo away police that try to get him to move the above mentioned M6 when he parks it in the middle of the street. Additionally, resident's in his neighborhood report that "he speeds up to 62,14 mph, shifts to the wrong lane, blocks other vehicles."

And the best part is that this 19 year old kid is able to live that lifestyle on a salary ostensibly earned from a part-time consulting gig.

In a country where the offspring of the rich and powerful typically steal entire factories and TV Stations something like this would probably just blow over...were it not for Yushenko's outburst when questioned about his son's conduct and resources. He called the journalist who wrote the story a "hired killer that has never worked a minute towards defending the freedom of the press." Ummm...ok."

[Romanov]

"The incredible expense the Russians are devoting to Yamantau Mountain alone should have you deeply troubled. They were bankrupt. Yet they prioritized that above all else. And the Topol-M alongside that."

While disturbing if it is targeted against us, it still does not rise to the level of "rebirth of the Soviet Union." The flipside to these developments are the two Chechen wars that have shown the Russian military incapable of handling an insurrection on their own territory. The frequent terrorist attacks also show a Russian security forces system unable and inept.

" In the event of a "real" coup, their job would be to win the power back to the FSB."

This is a common misperception by those who do not understand the Russian security services funtions. When the KGB was disbanded and reorganized the FSB was formed from the counterintelligence portion of the KGB. These were the thugs. The SVR was made up of people like Putin. When Putin was named the FSB head it was very controversial and really ticked off the FSB "CI" guys. The people of whom you speak that are on Putin's team now are mainly SVR guys and people that Putin worked with and knew. Had Putin been a more seasoned politician he wouldn't have had to rely on these people. As he inherited Yeltsin's corrupt officials he found himself easing them out and replacing them with people he can trust. Those he can trust are the ones he knew from work. Not even close to some sort of "FSB" (or "SVR") silent coup.


"There are a lot of Americans trained to expose lies. Jim Angleton was one."

Unfortunately Jim Angleton was deeply affected by the betrayal of his friend Kim Philby. That weighed on him deeply and made him paranoid and very susceptible to charaltans spinning fancy tales. Those tales and Angleton's belief in them paralyzed the CIA, sullied the reputation of good loyal Americans, and caused harm to our national security. Such events were the dreams of the KGB. The source of these events was Golytsin. KGB mission accomplished.