Replies

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?

"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?