Replies

"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?

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.

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.