Anatoli Golitsyn

Anatoli Golitsyn

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Anatoli Golitsyn was born in in Piryatin, Ukraine, on 25th August, 1926. After leaving college he joined the KGB. He worked in the strategic planning department and eventually the rank of Major. According to a KGB report "in the mid-1950s he reacted painfully to a demotion in his position; he could not tolerate having his mistakes and blunders pointed out and commented on." Golitsyn said that only bad luck had prevented him from becoming a highly successful senior officer during the Joseph Stalin period. (1) Golitsyn became disillusioned with life in the Soviet Union and spent six years at Moscow Center making notes of high-level files. (2)

In 1961 under the name "Ivan Klimov" he was assigned to the Soviet embassy in Helsinki, Finland, as vice counsel and attaché. In December of that year he walked into the American embassy and asked for political asylum. (3) Golitsyn was immediately flown to the United States and lodged in a safe house called Ashford Farm near Washington.

CIA officers found him as being "unpleasant and egotistical". They also commented that as a major in the First Chief Directorate of the KGB, he was "almost too fortunate and too high up to have a reason to defect". He demanded that he be interviewed by James Angleton. He insisted that no one else in the CIA was smart enough or knew enough to question him. Attorney General Robert Kennedy went to see Golitsyn and was told that the CIA was deliberately keeping him away from Angleton. He promised to take up the case with President John F. Kennedy. (4)

As a result of President Kennedy's intervention, Golitsyn was interviewed by Angleton. A fellow officer, Edward Perry, later recalled: "With the single exception of Golitsyn, Angleton was inclined to assume that any defector or operational asset in place was controlled by the KGB." Angleton and his staff began debriefing Golitsyn. He told Angleton: "Your CIA has been the subject of continuous penetration... A contact agent who served in Germany was the major recruiter. His code name was SASHA. He served in Berlin... He was responsible for many agents being taken by the KGB." (5) In these interviews Golitsyn argued that as the KGB would be so concerned about his defection, they would attempt to convince the CIA that the information he was giving them would be completely unreliable. He predicted that the KGB would send false defectors with information that contradicted what he was saying.

James Jesus Angleton later told a Senate Committee: "Golitsin possesses an unusual gift for the analytical. His mind without question is one of the finest of an analytical bent... and he is a trained historian by background. It is most difficult to dispute with him an historical date or event, whether it pertains to the Mamelukes or Byzantine or whatever it may be. He is a true scholar. Therefore, he is very precise in terms of what he states to be fact, and he separates the fact from speculation although he indulges in many avenues and so on."

Peter Wright, the author of Spycatcher (1987) has argued that Angleton believed Golitsyn: "A string of senior CIA officers, most notably Dave Murphy, the head of the Soviet Division, unfairly fell under suspicion, their careers ruined. In the end, the situation became so bad, with so many different officers under suspicion as a result of Golitsin's leads, that the CIA decided the only way of purging the doubt was to disband the Soviet Division, and start again with a completely new complement of officers. It was obviously a way out of the maze, but it could never justify the damage to the morale in the Agency as a whole." (7)

Stephen De Mowbray, was the MI6 liaison officer in Washington and in March 1962 he arranged for Arthur Martin, head of MI5's D1 Section, to interview Golitsyn. Golitsyn claimed that Kim Philby, Donald Maclean and Guy Burgess were members of a Ring of Five agents based in Britain. He also provided material that helped to establish the guilt of George Blake and John Vassall. Other information suggested that Alister Watson was a spy. However, Golitsyn was unable to provide any new evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law. (8)

According to a document prepared by MI6 for the Home Secretary, a summary was given about the information provided by Golitsyn: "In 1962 a defector (Golitsyn) from the Russian Intelligence Service stated that in the 1930s there was a very important spy network in the United Kingdom called the Ring of Five because it originally had five members all of whom knew each other and had been at the university together. He knew that Burgess and Maclean were members of the ring. He thought that the network had expanded beyond the original five." (9)

In June 1962 Yuri Nosenko made contact with the CIA in Geneva. Nosenko was deputy chief of the Seventh Department of the KGB. In his autobiography, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003), Richard Helms explained why he believed Nosenko was a good source: "From a security viewpoint, Nosenko's alleged background and Moscow assignment - he served in the American Department of the internal counter-intelligence service of the KGB - made him an extremely attractive source." (10) Nosenko's main responsibility was the recruitment of foreign spies. In return for a small payment, Nosenko began to give CIA officer, Tennant H. Bagley, valuable information. He revealed that he served in the Far East and specialized in the recruitment of tourists in Tokyo and other cities. (11)

In July 1963, Golitsyn travelled to London to be interviewed by Arthur Martin. He like Nosenko, provided evidence that John Vassall was a Soviet agent. "The problem was Golitsin's obsession with his methodology. He claimed that if he was given access to the files of Western intelligence service it would trigger associations in his memory which could lead him to spies. (12) Soon afterwards a senior MI5 officer leaked information to British newspapers that they were interviewing a KGB defector in London. As soon as this story appeared in the press, Golitsyn returned to the United States and refused to give any more information to MI5.

In January 1964, Yuri Nosenko defected. He claimed that he had been put in charge of the KGB investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald. He denied the Oswald had any connection with KGB. After interviewing Oswald it was decided that he was not intelligent enough to work as a KGB agent. They were also concerned that he was "too mentally unstable" to be of any use to them. Nosenko added that the KGB had never questioned Oswald about information he had acquired while a member of the U.S. Marines. This surprised the CIA as Oswald had worked as a Aviation Electronics Operator at the Atsugi Air Base in Japan. (13)

Members of the Warren Commission were pleased to hear this information as it helped to confirm the idea that Oswald had acted alone and was not part of a Soviet conspiracy to kill John F. CIA chief of intelligence, James Jesus Angleton, did not believe parts of Nosenko's story. He was supported by Golitsyn. He had worked in some of the same departments as Nosenko but had never met him. After being interviewed for several days Nosenko admitted that some aspects of his story were not true. For example, Nosenko had previously said he was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB. He confessed that he had exaggerated his rank to make himself attractive to the CIA. However, initially he had provided KGB documents that said Nosenko was a lieutenant colonel.

Richard Helms, the CIA's Deputy Director of Plans, was not convinced that Yuri Nosenko was telling the truth: "Since Nosenko was in the agency's hands this became one of the most difficult issues to face that the agency had ever faced. Here a President of the United States had been murdered and a man had come from the Soviet Union, an acknowledged Soviet intelligence officer, and said his service had never been in touch with Oswald and knew nothing about him. This strained credulity at the time. It strains it to this day." (14)

Evan Thomas, the author of The Very Best Men (1995), points out that James Jesus Angleton also did not believe Nosenko. "Angleton never got over suspecting that the Russians or Cubans plotted to kill Kennedy. He thought that the Russians or Cubans plotted to kill Kennedy. He thought the Russian defector, Yuri Nosenko, who claimed that the Kremlin was innocent, was a KGB plant to throw the CIA off the trail. But most reputable students of the Kennedy assassination have concluded that Khrushchev and Castro did not kill Kennedy, if only because neither man wanted to start World War III." (15)

In 1964 Golitsyn was interviewed once more by James Angleton. Golitsyn claimed that Hugh Gaitskell had been murdered in January 1963 to allow Harold Wilson, a KGB agent, to become leader of the Labour Party. Angleton believed Golitsyn but few senior members of the CIA agreed with him. They pointed out that Gaitskell had died after Golitsyn had left the Soviet Union and would have had to know in advance what was about to take place.

Golitsyn also suggested that W. Averell Harriman had been a Soviet spy, while he was the U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Angleton was convinced by this story as he knew someone was involved in spying the negotiations that took place between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt. However, other CIA officers thought the story ridiculous and Harriman was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson as ambassador-at-large for Southeast Asian affairs. (16)

James Angleton created CAZAB in 1964. It was a highly classified forum in which selected counterintelligence personnel from Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and Great Britain to met periodically to exchange counter-intelligence information relating to the KGB and GRU. Golitsyn was invited to address the CAZAB conference in Melbourne in 1967. During his speech Golitsyn criticised the Western intelligence services: "I know of more spies, why are you not willing to cooperate with me."

The following spring he was invited for further interviews by British intelligence. He was set up in a safe house near Brighton and every week he was given a fresh batch of secret files to study. For the next four months he gave information based on the information in the files: "He studied the VENONA, and was able to fill in a few groups using his knowledge of KGB procedure... But in the crucial area - whether or not he could shed any light on the penetration problem - he was a complete loss... He spent weeks studying the VENONA traffic to see if he could help us identify the unknown cryptonyms." He did claim that "David" was probably Victor Rothschild, but MI5 rejected the suggestion. (17)

James Jesus Angleton, chief of the CIA's counter-intelligence section, believed that Anatoli Golitsyn was a genuine double-agent but argued that Nosenko was part of a disinformation campaign. However, Richard Helms (CIA) and J. Edgar Hoover (FBI) believed Nosenko and considered Golitsyn was a fake. In 1984 Golitsyn published a book about Soviet foreign policy called New Lies For Old. This was followed by The Perestroika Deception.

After the initial debriefing, the CIA sent to MI5 a list of ten "serials," each one itemizing an allegation Golitsin had made about a penetration of British Security. Arthur initially held the complete list. Patrick Stewart, the acting head of D3 (Research), conducted a preliminary analysis of the serials, and drew up a list of suspects to fit each one. Then individual serials were apportioned to different officers in the Dl (Investigations) section for detailed investigation, and I was asked to provide technical advice as the investigations required.

Three of the first ten serials immediately struck a chord. Golitsin said that he knew of a famous "Ring of Five" spies, recruited in Britain in the 1930s. They all knew each other, he said, and all knew the others were spies. But Golitsin could identify none of them, other than the fact that one had the code name Stanley, and was connected with recent KGB operations in the Middle East. The lead perfectly fitted Kim Philby, who was currently working in Beirut for the Observer newspaper. He said that two of the other five were obviously Burgess and Maclean. We thought that a fourth might be Sir Anthony Blunt, the Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, and a former wartime MI5 officer who fell under suspicion after the Burgess and Maclean defections in 1951. But the identity of the fifth was a complete mystery. As a result of Golitsin's three serials concerning the Ring of Five, the Philby and Blunt cases were exhumed, and a reassessment ordered.

In a remarkable attempt to resolve the issue, Nosenko underwent "hostile interrogation." He was kept in solitary confinement for 1,277 days under intense physical and psychological pressure.

He was put on a diet of weak tea, macaroni, and porridge, given nothing to read, a light was left burning in his unheated cell twenty-four hours a day, and his guards were forbidden to speak with him or even smile. His Isolation was so complete that Nosenko eventually began to hallucinate, according to CIA testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Toward the end of this ordeal, Nosenko was given at least two lie detector tests by the CIA. He failed both. But Nosenko did not crack.

The believers of Nosenko, headed by the CIA's Richard Helms and J. Edgar Hoover, took his intransigence to mean that he was telling the truth but the KGB having no interest in Oswald.

But doubts remained. So at the CIA's request, the Warren Commission obligingly made no reference to Nosenko. Angleton retired from the CIA and later wrote: "The ... exoneration or official decision that Nosenko is/was bona fide is a travesty. It is an indictment of the CIA and, if the FBI subscribes to it, of that bureau too. The ramifications for the U.S. intelligence community, and specifically the CIA, are tragic."

The counterintelligence faction, led by Angleton, still believes that Nosenko's defection was contrived by the KGB for two purposes: to allay suspicions that the Soviets had anything to do with the JFK assassination to cover for Soviet "moles," or agents deep within US intelligence.

In November 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Everyone in the (Soviet) mission was stunned and confused, particularly when there were rumors that the murder had been Soviet-inspired... Our leaders would not have been so upset by the assassination if they had planned it and the KGB would not have taken upon itself to venture such a move without Politburo approval. More important, Khrushchev's view of Kennedy had changed. After Cuba, Moscow perceived Kennedy as the one who had accelerated improvement of relations between the two countries. Kennedy was seen as a man of strength and determination, the one thing that Kremlin truly understands and respects. In addition, Moscow firmly believed that Kennedy's assassination was a scheme by "reactionary forces" within the United States seeking to damage the new trend in relations. The Kremlin ridiculed the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald had acted on his own as the sole assassin. There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot. Perhaps one of the most potent reasons why the U.S.S.R. wished Kennedy well was that Johnson was anathema to Khrushchev. Because he was a southerner, Moscow considered him a racist (the stereotype of any American politician from below the Mason Dixon line), an anti-Soviet and anti-Communist to the core. Further, since Johnson was from Texas, a center of the most reactionary forces in the United States, according to the Soviets, he was associated with the big-time capitalism of the oil industry, also known to be anti-Soviet.

The extent to which the Security Service suspected trade union leaders and protesters of being potential subversives during the cold war has been revealed with the publication of the official history of MI5. Targets for surveillance included Jack Jones, the doyen of the Labour movement, and the Greenham Common women's peace camp.

The book, The Defence of the Realm, suggests that leaders of both main political parties were often more keen than MI5 to monitor the activities of their MPs or trade union leaders.

The authorised history, by the Cambridge historian Christopher Andrew, says Jones, who the Guardian has been told was the subject of more than 40 volumes in MI5 archives, was not "being manipulated by the Russians". But Andrew says MI5 was "right to consider the possibility that he was".

Britain's top spy in the KGB, Oleg Gordievsky, said Moscow "regarded Jones as an agent" and he provided it with Labour party NEC documents, Andrew writes. He adds that Jones received some money from the KGB, though the trade union leader broke contact with Moscow after the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Three Labour MPs are named as Soviet bloc agents: John Stonehouse, who became postmaster general in Harold Wilson's government, Bernard Floud and Will Owen. The three were "outed" by a Czech defector but there is no evidence they passed over sensitive information.

MI5 opened a file on Wilson under the name Norman John Worthington. Officials were alerted by his east European friends and his role in trade with the Soviet Union. Andrew dismisses claims of a "Wilson plot" under which MI5 tried to smear the Labour prime minister and destabilise his administration. However, a footnote in the 1,000-page history says that claims Wilson was a Soviet agent derive from conspiracy theories perpetuated by a KGB defector, Anatoli Golitsyn. Andrew adds: "Sadly, a minority of British and American intelligence officers … were seduced by Golitsyn's fantasies."

(1) Mitrokhin Archive (Volume 6, Chapter 1)

(2) John Costello, Mask of Treachery (1988) page 582

(3) Christopher Andrew, The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 (2009) page 435

(4) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 232

(5) Edward Perry, interviewed by Joseph Trento (21st July, 1988)

(6) James Angleton , testimony before the Senate (5th October, 1978)

(7) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987) page 315

(8) John Costello, Mask of Treachery (1988) page 583

(9) Quoted in Christopher Andrew, The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 (2009) page 435

(10) Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003) page 238

(11) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 232

(12) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987) page 314

(13) Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder (2003) page 240

(14) John Ranelagh, The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA (1987) page 320

(15) Evan Thomas, The Very Best Men: The Early Years of the CIA (1995) page 308

(16) Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA (2001) page 307

(17) Peter Wright, Spycatcher (1987) page 316-17


NEW LIES FOR OLD The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation ANATOLIY GOLITSYN TO THE MEMORY OF Anna Akhmatova CONSCIENCE. Throughout KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book Under Golitsyn’s original understanding, as presented in New Lies for Old. New Lies for Old- The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation has 40 ratings and 4 reviews. Steve said: Written Anatoliy Golitsyn. · Rating.

Author: Mazukinos Brara
Country: Dominica
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Love
Published (Last): 6 May 2014
Pages: 353
PDF File Size: 15.31 Mb
ePub File Size: 19.2 Mb
ISBN: 691-7-42006-773-5
Downloads: 37519
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Moogull

Two examples illustrate this. Although these difficulties complicate the study in the West of communist regimes and policies, they do not make it impossible.

Anatoliy Golitsyn – Wikipedia

Aryeh rated it really liked it Jan 30, The agents would be guided not only to obtain information, but also to take certain actions or to exercise influence wherever and whenever the plan required.

The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power, and the president of the Soviet Union and the first secretary of the party might well be separated. The strategy of strengthening the communist bloc while presenting an appearance of communist disunity is neatly expressed in Sun Tzu’s aphorisms: The security service was volitsyn armed force was used to crush revolt in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Want to Read Currently Reading Read. This encouraged pre-existing conspiracy theories within the British security services concerning Wilson. The USSR’s relations with these countries [the communist satellites] are an example of entirely new relations among states, not met with before in history. It referred to Stalin not as an outstanding leader, but simply as “Stalin, 1. Topics kgbsovietsdesinformationcold warcommunism.

They were to introduce national long-term economic planning. The emigre leaders should return to Russia to make their contribution. In communist regimes crises are usually hidden from the outside world because of the absence of democratic processes and the suppression bolitsyn internal opposition, popular political, social, and eco- nomic discontents accumulate and threaten to develop into serious upheavals or revolts of the entire population against the system as a whole.

Western and Unitized Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. New Lies for Old. Revolts occurred in Georgia, Poland, and Hungary. The author holds three Doctorates naatoliy writes on a philosophical level that is hard to grasp. By he was already beginning to be disillusioned with the Soviet system. Fear of Bolshevism waned. The result was allied intervention on Russian territory.

Colonel Kostenko who in the s appeared in England under diplomatic cover was its specialist on aviation. Advanced embedding details, examples, and help!

The naive illusions displayed in the past by the West in its attitudes and policies toward communism, the failure of the Western allies to develop a coordinated, long-range policy during their alliance with the Soviet Union in the Second World War, and the inclination of capitalist countries anatoliu pursue policies based on national interest were all taken into account in planning how to bring influence to bear on the West.

Random House,pgs. The Manifesto produced by the Eighty-one-Party Congress No- vember clearly betrays the influence of Lenin’s ideas and practice, as does Khrushchev’s follow-up speech of January 6, In he was posted to Vienna, where he served for two years under cover as a member of the apparat of the Soviet High Commission. Liees clearly discern the fraudulent collapse of the USSR by 1 the continued existence of thousands of statues to the anathema Lenin standing proudly throughout Russia 2 the continued existence of anathema Soviet iconography and 3 post USSR electorates electing back into power Soviet era Communist Party member Quislings.

Valuable experience was gained by the Comintern in the simultaneous use of revolutionary as well as mew tactics, in its readiness to switch from the one to the other, and in its ability to coordinate with Soviet diplomacy. Communist Sources The communist sources need to be treated as a separate category.

It was the first tacit admission to the party membership of the fallibility of Stalin. To the world at large, the NEP meant that foreign industrialists were offered concessions in Soviet industry and invited to open businesses in Soviet Russia that Soviet industrial enterprises were to be reorganized as trusts and operated on a profit basis that smaller enterprises and properties could be owned by cooperatives or private individuals that money was back in use and private trade permitted that restrictions on travel were relaxed that emigres were encouraged to return under amnesty, while some Soviet citizens were allowed to emigrate and that Soviet diplomacy was seeking peaceful coexistence with the West.

Though the bid to form a united front with the Socialist Internationals failed, some socialist parties — the German, French, Spanish, and Czechoslovak — split under the influence of the communist approach the left-wing groups joined communist parties or formed new ones.

My researches have not only strengthened my belief, but have led me to a new methodology by which to analyze communist actions. The internal role of disinformation is, on the one hand, to conceal the undemocratic, antinational, unlawful, and even criminal methods of resolving internal crises and, on the other, to minimize or neutralize internal antiregime activities while at the same time preventing or neutralizing any attempt from outside to foment and exploit those activities.

The Clenched Fist—Revisiting Golitsyn’s Predictions

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet

Many people have probably never heard of Anatoliy Golitsyn. I had never heard of him until several years ago after I started heavily researching the history of the Soviet Union, and the strategy and tactics Communists employ against their adversaries.

Golitsyn’s name was again brought up during a lengthy discussion I had with author Trevor Loudon back in 2014. I decided right then and there that I needed to look deeper into this intriguing character.

Rare photo of Anatoliy Golitsyn (Credit: Wikipedia)

Anatoliy Golitsyn was an ex-KGB officer who spent 15 years in Soviet intelligence work, which put him in contact with high-ranking Soviet officials. He defected to the West in 1961. Golitsyn wrote two books that outline in painstaking detail the Soviet’s “grand strategy” against the West and the non-communist Third World: New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995).

Both books contain some astonishing and disturbing predictions. In a nutshell, Golitsyn claimed that the alleged fall of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent end of the so-called “Cold War,” was nothing but a ruse designed to lull Western powers and non-communist nations into believing Communism had been defeated—when, in fact, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Golitsyn wrote in New Lies for Old:

The feigned disunity of the communist world promotes real disunity in the noncommunist world…. False alignments, formed with third parties by each side against the other, make it easier to achieve specific communist goals, such as the acquisition of advanced technology or the negotiation of arms control agreements or communist penetration of Arab and African states. In Western eyes the military, political, economic, and ideological threat from world communism appears diminished. [1]

Communist strategy has long used the tactic of “controlled opposition” to deceive and lull their enemies into complacency. The purpose of “false opposition” is to further confuse and undermine any genuine opposition in the communist world. Vladimir I. Lenin best summed up the dialectical strategy of controlled opposition by stating, “The best way for us to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948. [2]

Granted, when one examines claims by former intelligence operatives who allege to have “seen the light” and are now trying to warn us for solely altruistic reasons, one should exercise a healthy amount of caution and skepticism. They may be acting as a double-agent or they could be an outright fraud altogether. So it is wise to test their claims and allegations and ask oneself, “To whose benefit?” Does it stack up? How do their revelations compare to other defectors of a similar vein?

What makes Anatoliy Golitsyn stand out is the uncanny accuracy of his predictions. Mark Riebling wrote in his spy book Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and the CIA, “[O]f Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993—an accuracy rate of 94 percent.” [3]

One of the goals behind the Soviet Union’s “false liberalization” facade was to put a “happy face” on Soviet-style communism. Golitsyn predicted the emergence of a “younger leader with a more liberal image, who will continue the liberalization more intensely.” [4] By falling for the Soviet “liberalization” ploy, the West begins to question its massive defense expenditures since it seems wasteful and unnecessary now that the “Cold War” is allegedly a thing of the past.

Further warnings Golitsyn tried to impart to the West in the 1960s included his predictions that the Berlin Wall would come down, East and West Germany would be reunited, and the Warsaw Pact would be dissolved. The goal of all these tactics was to create a “neutral, socialized Europe.” All of these predictions have come to pass. We now see a “neutral, socialized Europe” in the form of the European Union (EU). Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky once referred to the EU as the “pale version of the Soviet Union.”

Concerning the six-percent of Golitsyn’s predictions that were left unfulfilled, a plausible explanation could be, that since Golitsyn had defected to the West in 1961, any changes in Soviet strategy following his defection would be unknown to him, since he was no longer privy to top-secret KGB intelligence. Plans change as circumstances dictate.

It is worth noting, too, that Golitsyn’s predictions were penned several years prior to his first manuscript for News Lies for Old being published in the West in 1984.

One of the most important revelations by Golitsyn had to do with the Sino-Soviet split. For many years there has been a widely accepted belief in the West that there was a serious rift between Red China and the Soviet Union. Billions of dollars in massive U.S. aid programs were poured into the USSR in an effort to exasperate and prolong the so-called Sino-Soviet split.

Golitsyn warned (emphasis added):

  • A closer alignment of an independent socialist Europe with the Soviet bloc and a parallel alignment of the United States with China. Japan, depending on whether it remains conservative or moves toward socialism, might join either combination.
  • A joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to seek allies in the Third World against the United States and China.
  • In the military field, an intensive effort to achieve US nuclear disarmament.
  • In the ideological and political field, East-West convergence on communist terms.
  • The creation of a world federation of communist states.

The concept of the “swinging pendulum” applies here—well-understood by the devoted Communist. As the United States bounces back and forth between East and West in search of alliances with foreign powers that are, in fact, hostile to U.S. interests, America finds it self caught between the jaws of a dialectical, geopolitical bear trap—specifically, the convergence between Russia and China. Golytsin used the analogy of being caught between the blades of a pair of “scissors” in New Lies for Old.

[Emphasis added]

After successful use of the scissors strategy in the early stages of the final phase of policy to assist communist strategy in Europe and the Third World and over disarmament, a Sino-Soviet reconciliation could be expected. It is contemplated and implied by the long-range policy and by strategic disinformation on the split. The communist bloc, with its recent accretions in Africa and South- East Asia, is already strong. European-backed Soviet influence and American-backed Chinese influence could lead to new Third World acquisitions at an accelerating pace. Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet “reconciliation.” The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of “one clenched fist.” At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime. [6]


Andropov’s proposals about improving relations with China are not aimed at undermining China’s relations with the United States, but at stimulating a revival of an American interest in closer relations with China, which are presently perceived as weakened after the departure of such strong proponents of United States-Chinese military cooperation as Brzezinski and others. Its main purpose is to facilitate the acquisition by China of American weaponry and military technology. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan also may be designed to create more favorable conditions for China’s penetration into Moslem countries, capitalizing on China’s success with Pakistan. The recent trip of China’s premier to Africa, which included visits to Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco, confirms another point in the book about the existing division of labor between the Soviet Union and China. It seems that the influencing of Moslem countries has been left to China by the Soviet strategists. As for China’s role in the realization of communist strategy in Europe, the Sino-Soviet rivalry might be exploited by China’s intervening in European politics under the pretext of resisting “Soviet hegemony.” In this case, the Chinese strategists might try to gain a Rapallo [see Rapallo Treaty of 1922] type of arrangement with some conservative governments of Western Europe. [7]

Another oft-employed strategy by communists worldwide is exploiting what is known as a “Popular Front.” The concept behind a popular front is the creation of a temporary alliance with disparate elements of a populist rebellion or political movement that is often times local or regional in scope. The leaders of a popular front may believe they are in sole charge of it when, in reality, it is being controlled and coordinated by outside forces (like the KGB/FSB, for example) working behind the scenes.

Popular fronts in their violent manifestation are sometimes referred to by radicals and revolutionaries as “wars of liberation.” Consider the war between Iraq and Iran during the 1980s:

… The Iraqi attack on Iran looks like a concerted effort by radical Arab states, each of which is in a united front relationship with the Soviet Union against “imperialism,” to use dual tactics (hostilities by Iraq, assistance by Syria and Libya) with the single overall objective of bringing Iran into an anti-Western alliance with them. The object of the alliance would be to gain control over a strategically vital area of the Middle East. Its success could but serve the strategic interests of the communist bloc. Despite Saddam Hussein’s alleged purges of communists in Iraq and the moderation in his attitude toward the United States, he is continuing to receive arms supplies from communist sources, as are his Iranian opponents. [8]

Such a scenario, as described above, may seem preposterous to the uninitiated. Many may not realize Iraq had the largest Communist Party presence in the Middle East at one time. Additionally, Iran also has its communist elements as well.

The victory of the 11th February 1979 [Iranian Revolution] resulted in the emergence of a political atmosphere in which for the first time, after 25 years political parties and organisations were allowed to organise freely. Tudeh [Communist] Party of Iran was among those too.


On the 1st of October 1991, the Tudeh Party of Iran celebrated its fiftieth birthday and in February 1992, the Party held its 3rd Congress after more than 43 years and reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of Marxism – Leninism. The Tudeh Party elected a new central committee and re-elected comrade Ali Khavari as the chair of the party. [9]

Some Kurdish groups, like the YPG and PKK, currently battling ISIS in Syria and Iraq are themselves Marxist-Leninist organizations, and are even on terrorist watch lists by both the United States and the EU. Granted, while many of us in the West are indeed rooting for the Kurds in their life and death struggle against the barbaric and ultra-violent Islamic State, and understandably so, it is worth remembering just who some of these Kurdish groups are in the grand scheme of things, particularly as it concerns the overall geopolitical goals of Russia and China.

One particularly chilling passage in New Lies for Old covers what Golytsin called the “Czechoslovak rehearsal,” in reference to the Prague Spring of 1968, implying it was a dress rehearsal of sorts for a much larger “grand strategy” set for the appropriate time in the future.

Also mentioned in the same passage is the so-called reforming of the KGB—which, by the way, did occur. The KGB is now known as the FSB or Russian Federal Security Service.

Political “liberalization” and “democratization” would follow the general lines of the Czechoslovak rehearsal in 1968. This rehearsal might well have been the kind of political experiment Mironov had in mind as early as 1960. The “liberalization” would be spectacular and impressive. Formal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party’s role its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced. The Supreme Soviet would be given greater apparent power and the president and deputies greater apparent independence. The posts of president of the Soviet Union and first secretary of the party might well be separated. The KGB would be “reformed.” Dissidents at home would be amnestied those in exile abroad would be allowed to return, and some would take up positions of leadership in government. Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government or allowed to teach abroad. The creative arts and cultural and scientific organizations, such as the writers’ unions and Academy of Sciences, would become apparently more independent, as would the trade unions. Political clubs would be opened to nonmembers of the communist party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political parties. Censorship would be relaxed controversial books, plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited. Many prominent Soviet performing artists now abroad would return to the Soviet Union and resume their professional careers. Constitutional amendments would be adopted to guarantee fulfillment of the provisions of the Helsinki agreements and a semblance of compliance would be maintained. There would be greater freedom for Soviet citizens to travel. Western and United Nations observers would be invited to the Soviet Union to witness the reforms in action. [10]

Naturally, if you are an American who believes in the unalienable rights of the individual and the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the eery accuracy of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s predictions should certainly give one great pause. Golitsyn was either a clairvoyant, or he knew the score.

Equally as ominous as Golitsyn’s predictions was the inexplicable and chilly reception he received in the West by the press and U.S. intelligence experts. The wall of opposition that Golitsyn crashed into when he attempted to warn the appropriate Western authorities is both infuriating and bone-chilling.

… So thoroughly was his information discounted and his credibility questioned that he began to fear for his life. Eventually, he was also repudiated by [William F. Buckley, Jr.]

Had it not been for the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence, James J. Angleton, the astonishing Golitsyn revelations might never have reached the public. Golitsyn sought to convince CIA officials that there would be a complete turnabout in Communist strategy. In 1963, almost everyone at the CIA scoffed at Golitsyn’s contentions, prompting Angleton to have Golitsyn transferred to his supervision. [11]

Having read similar accounts by other defectors from socialist and communist nations, a disturbing pattern emerges: there is a regular and consistent pattern in the West to try and silence and disparage former intelligence operatives from communist regimes who have attempted to warn Western governments and intelligence services about the active communist conspiracy that is unceasingly plotting and working against the Western world, both in the past and at present. What is especially troubling is the historical resistance toward those with intimate knowledge of communist designs against the West.

Over the past 20 years or so, a lot of new and unsettling information has come out that reveals an incredible level of infiltration at the highest levels by Soviet “agents of influence,” communists and fellow travelers (sympathizers). Sources such as the Venona decrypts, Mitrokhin Archives and Vassiliev’s Notebooks, among many other sources, are chock full of references to high-ranking U.S. government officials and well-known Americans that were actively working with the Soviets and the KGB (I will have more details on some of these individuals in an upcoming article on Sen. Joseph McCarthy).

Several very well-researched books*, with plenty of footnotes, have also been published over the past few decades that further pull back the covers on just how bad the infiltration truly has been (and, I suspect, still is). Consider our current president, Barack Obama, and his troubling connections with leftist radicals … people like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, just to name a few.

For Western intellectuals and Establishment types—whether they are of the Maoist or Marxist-Leninist or Trotskyite or similar schools—it would behoove them to consider just what sort of world it would be if the scourge of “pure socialism” were to take root in the form of a global federation of communist states (i.e. world government).

KGB defectors like Anatoliy Golitsyn and Yuri Bezmenov (a.k.a. Tomas Schuman) have warned that once the situation has been “normalized” (see “Prague Spring”)—meaning, the full implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat—the Gramcsiist Communists (“useful idiots,” “Cultural Marxists,” etc.) and Anarchists (“useless idiots”) will be ruthlessly swept aside. They will have served their intended purpose—to prepare the populace to accept pure socialism and they will have no place in a communistic world.

Because the despotic tyrants that would rule over the aforementioned individuals know full and well they would become their most ardent enemies once they discover just how repressive and oppressive pure socialism truly is in its undiluted and toxic form.

In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful…. [12]

One need look no further than Putin’s Russia or Red China to see how counter-revolutionaries, anarchists, minorities, religions, bourgeoisie, homosexuals, and the like, are dealt with—mercilessly and ruthlessly.

* A few recommended books on the subject matter: M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History, Herbert Romerstein & M. Stanton Evans’ Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, Weinstein & Vassiliev’s The Haunted Wood, Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev’s Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, Diana West’s American Betrayal, Herbert Romerstein’s The Venona Secrets, Christopher Andrew & Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB.

Anatoli Golitsyn - History

The Psychopath Under the Bed - PART ONE

Commentary for 2 November 2014

Because we can see that there is a complex and clever system in Russia, quite opaque and full of interesting details and inner rules, we should conclude that the system came about by intelligent design. But how? The evidence strongly suggests that it did not come about by chance. This book firmly rejects the ideas often promulgated in Western academic circles that Putin is an &lsquoaccidental autocrat&rsquo or a &lsquogood tsar surrounded by bad boyars.&rsquo
- Karen Dawisha, Putin&rsquos Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?

The elite [are] the ultimate authority [in Russia]: it provides the collective leadership of which [the president] is a member and which decides, among other things, how long he should serve as President. The elite has to have some mechanism at its disposal through which such decisions can be reached and through which controlled political events can be coordinated. It is essential to the success of the strategy that this mechanism should be well concealed from the West. I lack the facilities to study how it might be operating. The likelihood is, however, that it functions under cover of some openly acknowledged body. The National Security Council might be a candidate for investigation as a possible front for this secret mechanism.
- Anatoliy Golitsyn, Memorandum to the CIA: 1 October 1993

I want to warn Americans. As a people, you are very naïve about Russia and its intentions. You believe because the Soviet Union no longer exists, Russia now is your friend. It isn&rsquot, and I can show you how the SVR [Russian Foreign Intelligence Service] is trying to destroy the U.S. even today and even more than the KGB did during the Cold War.
- Sergei Tretyakov, as quoted by Pete Early in Comrade J, 2007

America&rsquos old enemy is still there, plotting the overthrow of capitalism. But this is a paradox because communism supposedly died 23 years ago. What died, of course, was something different. What actually died was the practice of admitting to communist beliefs. That is what died! The fashion today &ndash in Russia and China, the U.S. and Europe, Latin America and Africa &ndash is to deny that one is a communist. Thus, Nelson Mandela was not a communist, but a &ldquodemocrat.&rdquo Hugo Chavez was not a communist but a &ldquopopulist.&rdquo President Xi Jinping is not a communist, but a &ldquopragmatist.&rdquo Vladimir Putin is not a communist but a &ldquoChristian.&rdquo And so the game is played, around the world, so that nobody is a communist except those who wear a red beanie, or have a hammer and sickle emblazoned on their forehead.

And who would be such an idiot and wear such a beanie? Only a fool would say that he is coming to tear down capitalism for the capitalists have money and power, and they will resist any open or direct assault on their position. Therefore the communist label interferes with the accomplishment of the communist goal because even a relatively clueless businessmen instinctively fears expropriation. Therefore, the advance of communism must be a dissimulative process in which the communists take over under a &ldquoprogressive&rdquo banner, promising better medical care and better living conditions. Or as Lenin promised the Russian people in 1917, &ldquoOur policy is bread and peace!&rdquo Their campaign gives itself away, however, by its envious telltale, and by the husbanding of destructive forces and impulses &ndash especially by keeping alive the memory of past injustices and those tragedies of history which can be credibly blamed on &ldquogreed,&rdquo or on the &ldquorich.&rdquo But in truth it is not the &ldquorich&rdquo we have to fear. For wealth is not the same as evil. The criminal and the psychopath are not so much motivated by greed as they are motivated by the hatred of normal society. &ldquoA man is not a socialist,&rdquo wrote Gustave le Bon, &ldquowithout hating some person or thing&hellip.&rdquo The background of the great socialist leaders, from Mao and Castro, to Stalin and Lenin, was a background of psychopathology. Totalitarian socialism, in fact, has always been government by psychopaths. The final giveaway is the presence of ordinary criminal types within the leadership of the Communist Party and its revolutionary cadre. Here we find the sadists, the robbers, the killers, and the misfits. Revolution is alluring to them, because it gives them permission to do their thing under cover of an ideal. As Sam Vaknin has pointed out, &ldquoThe suppression of envy is at the core of the narcissist&rsquos being. If he fails to convince his self that he is the only good object in the universe, he is bound to be exposed to his own murderous envy. If there are others out there who are better than him, he envies them, he lashes out at them ferociously, uncontrollably, madly, hatefully, he tries to eliminate them.&rdquo

If one is pathological, then one belongs to a pathological tribe. And yes, they can recognize each other. It is this subset which works to destroy Western civilization and eliminate what is best in the world. The psychopath, energized by politics, realizes himself in a new way. One is not destined to commit mere petty crimes if one has sufficient grandiosity. One can commit crimes on an undreamt of scale, against millions of defenseless people. The scheme is given an idealistic coloring. The perpetrator is presented as a champion of the downtrodden. And that&rsquos how the whole enterprise is sold to the feeble-minded, the naïve, and the half-baked. Here is the subset which presently lures our businessmen into a massive trade relationship with China. Here is the subset responsible for changing the school curriculum in the various jurisdictions of the United States. They have taken over the major unions. They have a surprising degree of influence over the media and Hollywood. They have a major hand in designing America&rsquos environmental policies, with a special view to crippling the capitalist economy and making it impossible for America to compete economically. And as Trevor Loudon has shown in his latest book, The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress , these &ldquoenemies&rdquo even write our laws &ndash in the state houses and in Congress.

Today we are supposed to believe that the communist world movement no longer exists. It no longer has its capital in Russia. We are supposed to believe that the Chinese communists are communists in name only. Is it wise to believe that communism died because the psychopaths behind it were cured? Or would it be wiser, overall, to assume that the psychopaths who composed the core of a criminal system remain as they were? Why would it be any different now? Today they fool us with the pretense that they have turned over a new leaf. But there is no leaf, and there is nothing to turn over. Psychopaths are not cured by becoming capitalists.

Tens of millions were murdered by the Communist Party system between 1917 and 1991. Who stood trial for these murders? Was property restored to the families of the victims? Was restitution given? No. Lenin was not even buried, but remains on display in Moscow, as fresh as a daisy. His statues remain standing throughout Russia. It may be argued that in 1991 the Communist Party Soviet Union changed its formation, going partly underground. If the system in Russia is opaque, as Russia expert Karen Dawisha shows, then it is by careful design . Why should Russia&rsquos political reality be so murky except that Russia has been organized with a deception in mind &ndash with a dark veil drawn over key events and personalities? We need to look closer at the work of Anatoliy Golitsyn, who successfully predicted the entire course of Russian policy from 1985 to the present. He predicted perestroika and glasnost. He predicted the Communist Party giving up its monopoly of power. He predicted the establishment of checks and balances in the Russian political system. And he predicted these checks and balances would be a swindle perhaps the greatest swindle of all history, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.

Many researchers strongly suspect the apartment bombings that struck Russia in 1999 were staged by the FSB so that Muslims would be blamed and a war could begin against Chechnya. Some researchers suspect this was done as an opening move to consolidate a new type of regime in Russia. Yet it was not merely a new type of criminal regime, but a reconfiguration of the Soviet regime (same criminals, different label). As outgoing head of the FSB prior to the bombings, Vladimir Putin must have been involved in the planning, and he was certainly the political beneficiary of the outcome. The subsequent resumption of the war in Chechnya, which was then dubbed &ldquoOperation Anti-Terror,&rdquo was not merely the Kremlin&rsquos alibi in advance of 9/11. It set up Putin to play the role of faithful ally to the United States (which he never was ). That this alibi was a fake was even acknowledged by Putin&rsquos handpicked Gauleiter in Chechnya, Akhmad Kadyrov, who gave an interview for the 7 January 2000 edition of the London Arab language newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat in which he obliquely suggested that Russian generals controlled both sides of the Chechen conflict. How very intriguing indeed! &ldquoThis is not jihad,&rdquo Kadyrov explained, &ldquoit is rather deception.&rdquo He had personally confronted Putin about this fact, and Putin had supposedly admitted that &ldquomistakes were made.&rdquo According to Kadyrov, &ldquoI told Putin that if Russia really wanted to, not a single foreigner [i.e., al Qaeda terrorist] could have infiltrated into Chechnya or extended a single dollar to it, which means that this whole thing was deliberately planned.&rdquo

Oh yes, and it was planned for a number of carefully thought-out reasons. As Anatoliy Golitsyn later argued, the war in Chechnya proved to everyone that Russia was militarily weak and incapable. It could no longer be a threat to the West. This further reinforced the shift of the West&rsquos intelligence assets away from Russia toward the new Islamic threat. As Golitsyn suggested, the policies and actions taken by the Communist Party Soviet Union (CPSU) from 1985-1991 had this outcome in mind from the start.

Thirty years ago former KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn warned, in New Lies for Old , that &ldquothe next five years will be a period of intense struggle. It will be marked by a major coordinated communist offensive intended to exploit the success of the strategic disinformation program over the past twenty years and to take advantage of the crisis and mistakes it has engendered in Western policies toward the communist bloc.&rdquo This offensive, he said, had been carefully prepared since the late 1950s. It would involve secret collaboration between Moscow and Beijing. According to Golitsyn, Russia and China were committed to a &ldquoscissors strategy,&rdquo and in &ldquothe final stroke,&rdquo wrote Golitsyn, &ldquothe scissors blades will close.&rdquo The European option &ldquowould be prompted by a revival of controlled &lsquodemocratization&rsquo on the Czechoslovak pattern&hellip.&rdquo Golitsyn explained that the intensification of hard-line policies during the early 80s &ldquoexemplified by Sakharov&rsquos arrest and the occupation of Afghanistan, presages a switch to &lsquodemocratization&rsquo following, perhaps, Brezhnev&rsquos departure from the political scene.&rdquo Golitsyn then made an astonishing prediction: &ldquoBrezhnev&rsquos successor may well appear to be a kind of Soviet Dubcek. The succession will be important only in a presentational sense. The reality of collective leadership and the leaders&rsquo common commitment to the long-range policy will continue unaffected.&rdquo Golitsyn predicted that an era of Soviet reform would be at hand. Control would be decentralized, self-managing firms would be created, and material incentives would be employed. According to Golitsyn, &ldquothe [communist] party&rsquos control over the economy would be apparently diminished. Such reforms would be based on Soviet experience in the 1920s and 1960s, as well as on Yugoslav experience.&rdquo Despite outward appearances, Golitsyn warned, the party &ldquowould continue to control the economy from behind the scenes as before. The picture being deliberately painted now of stagnation and deficiencies in the Soviet economy should be seen as part of the preparation for deceptive innovations&hellip.&rdquo

These deceptive innovations would include political liberalization. &ldquoThe &lsquoliberalization&rsquo would be spectacular and impressive,&rdquo wrote Golitsyn. &ldquoFormal pronouncements might be made about a reduction in the communist party&rsquos role its monopoly would be apparently curtailed. An ostensible separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary might be introduced&hellip. The KGB would be &lsquoreformed.&rsquo&rdquo Unfortunately, warned Golitsyn, &ldquothe &lsquoliberalization&rsquo would be calculated and deceptive in that it would be introduced from above. It would be carried out by the party through its cells and individual members in government &hellip and by the KGB through its agents&hellip.&rdquo

Golitsyn never received due credit for his many successful predictions, but his insights are being confirmed &ndash however indirectly. In Karen Dawisha&rsquos new book, Putin&rsquos Kleptocracy , we find a detailed description of the mechanism by which the Communist Party Soviet Union hoped to continue its control of the post-Soviet economy in secret . Of course, Dawisha does not fully recognize that the described object (the KGB cabal around Putin) is a mechanism for secret control by an underground ruling party. She does recognize that it is a mechanism composed largely of KGB operatives. According to Dawisha, &ldquowhen the newly elected Russian president Boris Yel&rsquotsin banned the CPSU after the failed 1991 August coup attempt against Gorbachev, the CPSU&rsquos guidance ceased, and the control over this vast mountain of foreign money fell to the KGB agents who had access to foreign operations and accounts.&rdquo

Dawisha&rsquos statement is naïve, of course for how does she know who is actually in charge? The KGB continued to exist after 1991. The overall military system of the Soviet Union, however attenuated, also continued to exist. We have testimony on this from KGB, FSB, and GRU defectors. But more than that, the international communist struggle continued to exist! ( Check out this recent video from Cuba .) Please consider, that if the communists were not still in charge of Russia, why would Russia now be expanding its sphere of influence into communist-dominated Nicaragua as documented by Valeria Gomez Palacios ? It is a fact beyond dispute, that President Daniel Ortega is a communist. The Sandinista Party is in fact a Marxist-Leninist Party which only pretends to be a &ldquosocial democratic&rdquo party. The gangsters who ran the party in the 1980s are the same people who run it today. The game in Nicaragua, in fact, runs parallel to the game in Russia. The game, of course, has been to put social democratic lipstick on the same old communist pig.

If Moscow is now Russian and not communist, why would they support Ortega and the Sandinistas by installing a Russian military base in Nicaragua? According to Gomez, &ldquoAs of February 2014, illegal changes to Nicaragua&rsquos constitution went into effect, thus providing a new decree of authority to the president and changing the entire essence of the political system. The new reform of the constitution has Nicaraguans living in a legalized dictatorship and has undermined the little democracy left in the country.&rdquo In other words, a communist takeover in Nicaragua has been finalized, and a number of Russian military bases will be constructed . If the CPSU is not ruling Russia, even now, why would support for Ortega be such a priority? And why would Russian soldiers walk arm-in-arm with a dedicated communist? Even more to the point, why would the Nicaraguan communists trust the Russians unless they know that the Russians are still faithful to their cause? Furthermore, Nicaragua under Ortega is now a dictatorship opposed to the United States. Is it merely coincidence that Russia under Putin is now a dictatorship opposed to the United States? Let us be realistic, at last. Let us admit what has been happening since 1991.

During the 1990s, after the supposed fall of communism in Russia, the Kremlin continued to send military supplies to the MPLA communists in Angola. Even when the United States stopped supporting Jonas Savimbi , the Russian supply planes continued to deliver their weapons and ammunition. If advancing global communism was no longer a Russian objective, then why support the idiotic MPLA? Why deploy pilots to Angola? The same goes for Russia&rsquos relationship with South Africa and the communist-controlled ANC government under Mandela and his successors, and with Chavez in Venezuela. Sending warships and military aircraft to Venezuela was not merely a friendly visit. It was something more.

Karen Dawisha suggests that Russia&rsquos present leadership, which is drawn from the KGB, is oriented toward self-enrichment. She doesn&rsquot see the communist part of this grand scheme, despite the many statues of Lenin that are still standing throughout Russia (as they were still standing in Ukraine only a year ago). Why not take down the statues? Why not bury Lenin? Why threaten the people who took down the Lenin statues in Ukraine? These questions are glossed over, and they shouldn&rsquot be. For if the supposed KGB rulers in Moscow were not communists, but merely greedy criminals, how do we explain their apparently suicidal prodding and poking of America today? How do we explain their ferocious lashing out? How do we explain their annexation of Crimea, their belligerence toward the Baltic States and NATO? Surely, if their plan was to enjoy their ill-gotten gains in peace, they would merely bribe key Western officials and present themselves as non-threatening, nuclear-armed &ldquofriends&rdquo who would rather get access to the Western financial system than shoot down civilian airliners and annex chunks of neighboring countries. What better way to preserve their wealth than to avoid conflict? Why build military bases in Central America? Why send strategic bombers to fly along the California coast ? What kind of man risks World War III in order to possess $80 billion instead of a $40 billion? This is not greed. It is a psychological abnormality, a defect symptomatic of a communist misfit.

Oh yes, Putin and his gang are criminals. As Karen Dawisha shows, Western leaders knew about this long ago. Here the label of &ldquocriminal&rdquo replaced the more threatening brand name of &ldquocommunist.&rdquo Here was a diversion wrapped inside an alibi, sugared with the promise of a lucrative partnership. The diversion was successful, the alibi was accepted without a second thought, and the partnership was a farce. Showing his true colors today, Putin snarls threats as we move beyond the final phase of the great deception &ndash toward what Anatoliy Golitsyn called &ldquoone clenched fist.&rdquo The danger of war is growing. The Russian military drills are becoming more frequent. Bases are being prepared in Nicaragua. ISUS is advancing in Iraq. North Korea is preparing for war. China is preparing for a &ldquoregional war.&rdquo

In Karen Dawisha&rsquos book we read about the massive wealth controlled by the Russian president and his associates. These people hold key positions in global finance, enabling them to (in Dawisha&rsquos words) &ldquoundermine &hellip Western financial institutions, the banks, equity markets, real estate markets, and insurance companies&hellip.&rdquo Prominent Western politicians have been corrupted, like Silvio Berlusconi, and major companies have been compromised like the Bank of New York. The new Russian sistema controls the political and economic development not only of Russia, but has intertwined itself, insinuated itself, into Western politics and business. According to Dawisha, &ldquoThe KGB moved the CPSU&rsquos vast financial reserves offshore, out from under President Mikhayl Gorbachev&rsquos control, thus further crippling his regime.&rdquo But the money wasn&rsquot moved off shore to cripple Gorbachev. It was moved offshore to infect the West. Dawisha has yet to realize that a strategy was then being engaged. She does not grasp the sophisticated methods and tactics of the CPSU and its Sword and Shield (the KGB) so she has yet to recognize the process that was actually being advanced in 1991. When Lev Pavolovsky warned that Putin belonged to &ldquoa very extensive but politically invisible layer of people who &hellip were looking for a &lsquorevanche&rsquo in connection with the fall of the Soviet Union&rdquo he was perhaps referring to the Communist Party Soviet Union, which continues to exist. And yes, it still is running things because we can trace its larger design (which is thoroughly Red). Amazingly, Dawisha comes very close to seeing this larger picture. She acknowledges that Putin&rsquos favorite songs are Soviet, yet she tends to lay a greater emphasis on Putin&rsquos greed. While Putin was stationed in East Germany, she explains, &ldquohe had the leaders of the German Red Army faction &hellip steal speaker systems for him when they had a moment free from their terror campaigns.&rdquo

Communism, as I noted earlier, has always been about looting. It has always been infused with envy. The Communists steal and lie and kill. This is the history of Communism &ndash in Russia, in China, in Cuba, in Venezuela, etc., etc. It is not a testimony to their anti-communism that the KGB operatives in charge of the CPSU&rsquos money have enriched themselves. We should not feel surprise at Bill Gertz&rsquos Free Beacon article of last April 7, &ldquoPutin Corruption Network Revealed.&rdquo What should surprise us is the recent communist advances in Colombia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and inside the USA. The leading communists have always been greedy. To believe in their rhetoric about the exploited workers is completely idiotic. The communist leaders have never really cared about the workers. Malignant narcissists and psychopaths do not care about other people. They care about their own grandiose place in the universe while seeking to eliminate those who threaten to expose their true insignificance.

In her excellent outline of Putin&rsquos criminal ties, Dawisha assumes that all of this automatically tells us what these links are designed to do, and what purposes they serve. She does not stop to think that wealth is merely one of the trappings of absolute power and not the thing itself. She does not stop to think that if &ldquotop Kremlin elites&rdquo set the guidelines for working with criminal structures, that the central purpose may be strategic aggrandizement through an appeal to personal aggrandizement. The thing which allowed Anatoliy Golitsyn to make so many accurate predictions about Russia was his ability to stay focused on the strategic significance of actions and events. In her analysis, Dawisha is almost there. She has put the pieces together admirably when she quotes a Spanish prosecutor as saying that &ldquoone cannot differentiate between the activities of the [Russian] government and organized crime groups [in Russia]&hellip. The FSB is &lsquoabsorbing&rsquo the Russian mafia [and using them for black ops].&rdquo

This is very important. The Sword and Shield of the CPSU is &ldquousing&rdquo the Russian mafia. It is not the other way around. Here I want to return to one of Dawisha&rsquos most intuitively brilliant insights: &ldquothat the [Russian] system came about by intelligent design.&rdquo Few realize how sophisticated that design truly is, and how much study, and how much brain power, has gone into it. This is no ordinary criminal network. These are not merely &ldquocorrupt officials.&rdquo The Soviet Academy of Sciences made its contribution. Top Soviet experts in every field also contributed for the Soviet Union was geared to one objective, one mission, and the collapse of the Soviet Union was not the end of that mission but a means to it . Again, the Spanish prosecutor that Dawisha quotes spoke of wiretaps which showed that Russian mafia bosses &ldquohad a &lsquodangerously close&rsquo level of contact with senior Russian officials.&rdquo

What kind of system does Russia have? Who was behind the &ldquointelligent design&rdquo she writes about? And what is the objective of this design? &ldquoI suggest that the antidemocratic and politically illiberal aspects of the plans were present from the beginning&hellip.&rdquo Dawisha is very close to the truth, indeed. And what is more antidemocratic and politically illiberal than communism? I have to wonder if Dawisha has found another way of discussing the true situation while omitting the more embarrassing, outmoded terminology of the Cold War &ndash even though we are still in the Cold War, and we are still fighting the same people. If Putin&rsquos name were Donald Duck, it would not change what he is. Our habit of mistaking our labels for the &ldquothing itself&rdquo has contributed to our confusion and so it&rsquos good to read such a clever researcher as Dawisha.

What is happening now, in the Far East and the Near East, in Ukraine and Central America, is all of a piece. We have to think strategically. We have to realize that an abnormal political system and it's abnormal leaders cannot change what they are. A tiger may hide in a tree, and wait for its victim. But it cannot change its stripes. What we interpretted as change in 1989-91 was mere adaptation. The animal remains the same, especially under the skin.

Thoughts inspired by Karen Dawisha&rsquos book,
Russia&rsquos kleptocracy , in the light of Golitsyn&rsquos methodoloy

Anatoliy Golitsyn Perestroika Deception

After personally witnessing and documenting the plan Golitsyn struggled to convey since 1990 I am a true believer in both his books. I am an experienced investigative journalist, intelligence analyst starting in 1969 with a CBS affiliate at the height of the Vietnam War.

After being deployed undercover by the FBI and BATF during the VANPAC mail-bombing case in 1990 I came to the conclusion the KGB was responsible for the mail-bomb attacks against the United States 11th Circuit Appeals Court and other courts.

The KGB plan included taking America from the top-down, an easy approach to subdue Americans, utilizing obedience to the law without gun-violence and insurrection in the streets.

I have been able to document and align most of the current and past events in America the book faintly points to as a how-to-guide in reference to the collapse of Soviet states.

I have been able to identify key infiltrators by the KGB in Florida and Alabama and modification of the evolving plan as the Chinese PLA (People's Liberation Army) placed themselves in the final stage by the adoption of "Unrestricted Warfare" during 1999.

The book's most important and unexplored region involves the Kleptocratic break of Soviet Sattelite states by the embezzlement of those states treasuries. This is an event we are are witnessing real-time in America. Perestroika Deception is Hard reading but worth every page.

Throughout KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book 'The Perestroika Deception' (1995) the author decries the West’s blind acceptance of the political and economic changes that occurred within the Soviet Bloc, culminating in the collapse of the East Bloc and later the collapse of the USSR. In a typical passage denoting exasperation that can be found throughout the book, Golitsyn writes:

"Western acceptance of the changes in the USSR and Eastern Europe as a trend towards genuine democracy which serves Western interests and therefore merits Western support show how little the West comprehends the essence of the changes and the dangers they entail. In part this non-comprehension arises from confusion over terminology. What the West calls ‘democratisation’, Soviet strategists call the transformation of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ into the ‘state of the whole people’."

Western governments, of course, are well aware that the collapse of the USSR (and East Bloc) is a strategic ruse, its purpose to lull the West into complacency, and the West keeps its silence concerning the ruse, enabling the ruse, because the political parties and institutions of the West were long co-opted by Marxists, including co-option of Western intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Golitsyn wouldn’t have been aware that the political parties of the West were already long co-opted by Marxists when he wrote his first book, New Lies for Old (1984), and had no reason to suspect Marxist co-option of the West even during the process of collapse within the USSR. After the collapse, however, is a different story. Because the USSR altered its strategy (no doubt after the publication of New Lies for Old) and instead of utilizing a 'liberalization' ruse it instead opted for a 'liberalization resulting in a collapse' ruse, a 'liberalization resulting in a collapse' ruse would have clued Golitsyn to the Marxist pedigree of the West, globe even, by the time he was preparing The Perestroika Deception for publication.

We clearly discern the fraudulent collapse of the USSR by (1) the continued existence of thousands of statues to the anathema Lenin standing proudly throughout Russia (2) the continued existence of anathema Soviet iconography and (3) post USSR electorates electing back into power Soviet era Communist Party member Quislings. With a liberalization' ruse there would be no problems with the continued existence of such Soviet themed artifacts and electing into power Communist Party members, but with a 'liberalization resulting in a collapse' ruse those Soviet artifacts and elections are tell tale signs proving that the collapse of the USSR is a strategic ruse. Under Golitsyn's original understanding, as presented in New Lies for Old, the USSR was to only 'liberalize', after which the continued existence of Soviet themed artifacts and the election of Communist Party members would be normal. Not normal, however, if the USSR had collapsed. Indeed, the fact that not one political party in the West voiced a need to verify the collapse of the USSR would have also alerted Golitsyn that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

In The Perestroika Deception Golitsyn doesn't discuss what he knows concerning the Marxist co-option of the West (the book is a mere collection of memorandum the author submitted to the CIA between 1973 and October 1995), which is where this researcher fills in the gaps. The following succinct proof proves the Marxist co-option of the West.

The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

In fact, the 'freed' Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 5-6 million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union's Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of Perestroika (1986-1991).

Due to New Lies for Old, the USSR was (1) forced to alter its strategy which (2a) allows one to empirically verify the fraudulent collapse of the USSR thereby (2b) also allowing one to empirically verify the Marxist infiltration of the West's political parties and institutions.

Two discoveries I made in April 2015:

(I) Communist control of Yugoslavia ‘civil wars’ gone unnoticed.

Secessionist Yugoslav Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim factions waged dirty wars against each other, neglecting to first wipe out the 9% of the population that attempted to do away with religion in Yugoslavia, proving the wars were orchestrated and controlled by the communist faction.

Murder, torture and legal discrimination of those professing religious sentiment was so intense under the Marxist regime in Belgrade, that those who professed no religious affiliation increased from less than 10% pre-1945 to a bewildering 32% by 1987.

"Like in most former Communist countries in Central, Eastern and South­‑Eastern Europe, the means and actions applied by the Yugoslav Government between 1945 and 1990 to reduce the influence of religions and religious organisations were quite effective: While there was just a tiny group of people who regarded themselves to be without a religion before the Second World War (less than 0.1% of the population), this number grew to 13% in 1953 and to 32% in 1987."

That 9% constitutes members of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, the Marxist party that subjugated Yugoslavia from 1945 until the party's dissolution in January 1990. Before any religious sectarian strife, first there would have been massive reprisals against the reviled Communists who implemented policies to wipe out religion in Yugoslavia. The fact that no such reprisals took place proves that the breakup of Yugoslavia, during the Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001), was manufactured and controlled by the Communists and

(II) When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist-atheist oppression on December 26, 1991, the day the USSR officially ended, there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists, otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn't have gotten away with the ruse.

ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us.

Google: The Atlantic magazine 20 Years Since The Fall of the Soviet Union

Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the 'collapse', yet ZERO celebrations after the 'collapse'!

The above means that the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause (ii) causing chaos around the globe and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending ‘War on Terror’ the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’ which will (5) see the end of NATO.

The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.

The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.

Anatoliy Golitsyn

Soviet KGB defector and author of two books about the long-term deception strategy of the KGB leadership.

He was born in Piryatin, Ukrainian SSR. He provided "a wide range of intelligence to the CIA on the operations of most of the &aposLines&apos (departments) at the Helsinki and other residencies, as well as KGB methods of recruiting and running agents."

He is an Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) and, as late as 1984, was an American citizen.

Source: Wikipedia Soviet KGB defector and author of two books about the long-term deception strategy of the KGB leadership.

He was born in Piryatin, Ukrainian SSR. He provided "a wide range of intelligence to the CIA on the operations of most of the 'Lines' (departments) at the Helsinki and other residencies, as well as KGB methods of recruiting and running agents."

He is an Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) and, as late as 1984, was an American citizen.

Anatoliy Golitsyn, James Jesus Angleton, and double agents in the wilderness of mirrors of the Cold War by Miguel A. Faria, MD

A close friend, with whom I frequently hold discussions on the subject of the Cold War and communism, told me that we are still being deceived by the Russians, that the Cold War is not over, and that “…We have convinced ourselves that ‘communism is in the dustbin of history,’ which is exactly what the Soviets wanted us to think — just as Golitsyn disclosed in his book, New Lies for Old.” Furthermore, he asserts his friend, the author Joseph Douglass, insisted and documented in his book that “the drug trade is directed by the FSB [Russia’s Federal Security Service], which handles more money than the KGB ever had for operations and is larger than the KGB and better entrenched in all aspects of American and European society and government.” Finally, he opined, “The role of the terrorist is to destroy the fighting ability of the United States and its allies and to bankrupt them in their effort to protect themselves from the terrorists. The evidence for this is overwhelming. We have been fooled…”

First, while I agree that the twin evils of socialism and communism are not dead, I believe the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet communist Empire in 1991 were real pivotal events in history.

Communism, in its most overtly malevolent form, still survives in Cuba and North Korea. Even China, in order to save face with Mao’s legacy of collectivism, still calls itself communist, but is more akin to an economic fascist giant passing as government than anything else.

There is also a crude mixture of socialism and corruption ubiquitous in many third world countries of Africa, Asia, and in a few countries in Latin America, such as Ecuador and Venezuela, where the results have been catastrophic.

But most dangerous and insidious is the seductively gentler form of global socialism conceived in the minds of the elitist global intelligentsia who pull the strings animating the masses. This gentler “socialism with a human face” afflicts the “social(ist) democracies of Europe, Australia, and even insinuates itself in the United States’ once a constitutional republic. This variety is certainly the most dangerous because of the incredible degree of deception affecting the most developed nations of the West, presumably with the best informed, most literate, and most sophisticated populations!

Russia’s tsarist legacy of autocracy and authoritarianism must not be confused with the much worse Soviet-style communism and totalitarianism. In fact, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, writing about his experiences in Siberia, could not muster approval from the Tsar’s or (Czar’s) censors for some of his writings because his description of life in exile was deemed too comfortable and would invite criminals to commit crimes to get there! Compare that with the Soviet gulag system! imagine the irony: Dostoyevsky had to edit his manuscript (magnify his discomfort in exile) in order to pass the censors and get published in Tsarist Russia!

Russia’s legacy of submission to arbitrary rule began with her conquest by the Mongol hordes of the 13th century barbarism followed with Ivan the Terrible, not softening considerably through the centuries even with the much-touted reforms of the over-celebrated Peter the Great. But again, Russian Tsarism should not be confused with Soviet communism.

So it is worth repeating that in Russia today the pre-1991, Soviet-style communism is dead as it is in Central and Eastern Europe.

Admittedly, there is much truth in what my very knowledgeable friend said. During the Cold War, there was evidence the drug trade was in part handled by communist intelligence services of various countries, intending to use it to subvert the West, as well as to make profits to carry out further subversion. Certainly this was true of the Soviet KGB and the Cuban DGI, working through third countries such as Colombia and Panama. I have read and cited Joseph Douglass’ book, Red Cocaine, in some of my articles. The Russian FSB today, like the old Soviet KGB, remains formidable. And if some Americans in high places have been fooled, particularly in government circles, it has been by either their arrogant ignorance, their desire to be fooled because of their concordant treasonous ideology, or because of venal financial gain. One person that satisfied the latter two conditions, for example, was the late business entrepreneur Armand Hammer, as recounted in the monumental biography by Edward J. Epstein.

Now, let’s say a few words of introduction about Anatoliy M. Golitsyn (1926-2008), the formidable Soviet KGB defector who actually triggered this discussion. In 1961, Golitsyn, a Soviet KGB major with a photographic memory, defected from his station in Helsinki, Finland, along with his family. In the West, Golitsyn not only helped uncover a number of communist spies infiltrating Western governments, but provided intelligence services with information that proved invaluable. For example, he described Soviet intelligence operations and methods of recruitment and running spies. After years of debriefing, Golitsyn became a consultant for the CIA and a brilliant analyzer of information. From the time of his defection and all through the Cold War, Golitsyn worked with the CIA and other Western governments, including Great Britain, earning the title of Honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE). Golitsyn, an American citizen since 1984, is still highly respected as an anti-communist freedom fighter and a genuine hero of the Cold War. James Jesus Angleton (1917-1987), the CIA chief for counterintelligence from 1954 to 1975, called Golitsyn, ”the most valuable defector ever to reach the West.“ Reportedly, he is still under deep cover today.

Nevertheless, Golitsyn was not omniscient and infallible, as many in the CIA (particularly in counterintelligence) believed. In fact he submitted several analyses that turned out to be incorrect. Because of some of these errors and Golitsyn’s belief in his own infallibility, the CIA suffered enormously for almost two decades. Golitsyn was an important defector but his errors were to the CIA as the frontal assault ordered by General Robert E. Lee was to the Battle of Gettysburg for the Confederacy. Because Angleton also believed in and abetted the infallibility of Golitsyn’s judgment, the CIA counterintelligence unit hunted for a super-mole in the agency who did not exist — sowing distrust, dissension, and wreaking havoc in the CIA for many years. But the problem was only partially Golitsyn’s. The lion’s share of the problem was the judgment of the head of the CIA counterintelligence unit, James Jesus Angleton.

Angleton, like Golitsyn, was a brilliant intelligence officer, a man of photographic memory and superior deductions and intellect. He was also a dedicated spy hunter and an American patriot. But he had a serious flaw, a personal flaw that should have been detected by the CIA chiefs years before. Angleton had been deeply hurt psychologically and emotionally by the betrayal of his friend and colleague, the communist British traitor Kim Philby (1912-1988).

Psychologically, Angleton never got over his friend’s betrayal, and perhaps because of this psychological wound and the guilt associated with his professional failure to detect that personal and ideological betrayal, the counterintelligence chief saw Soviet spies where there were only shadows, and deduced the existence of complex, long-term deception where there were only coincidences, incompetence, and outright errors made by his adversaries.

Angleton shared Golitsyn’s belief in the near omnipotence of the Soviet KGB and far overestimated its capability for mounting strategic long-term deception against the U.S. and the West. Both men were convinced that Soviet spies were everywhere, infiltrating, deceiving, and stealing the secrets of the CIA and other Western intelligence services. Spy hunting became an obsession in a “wilderness of mirrors,” and thus the CIA, during the 1960s and 1970s was immersed in turmoil, becoming irresolute and utterly ineffective.

Ronald Reagan’s July 27, 1987 meeting with MI6 asset Oleg Gordievsky

The Sino-Soviet split, which Golitsyn believed was strategic deception, was real and exploitable. In this instance, Golitsyn was correctly believed to be wrong and the Nixon administration (1968-1974) took advantage of this to deepen the rift between the Soviets and the communist Chinese. But in many other fronts, the Soviet KGB was gaining ground over the American CIA and the British MI6. The hunt for the nonexistent CIA mole continued. During the administration of President Gerald Ford (1974-1976), Angleton was finally dismissed (1977), but that was not the end of the troubles for the agency. Additional damage was done to the intelligence and spy detection capabilities of the CIA by the various congressional investigative committees and the veritable political persecution of the agency during the administration of President Jimmy Carter and the tenure of his CIA Director Stansfield Turner (1977-1981). The CIA did not recover until its revamping during the administration of President Ronald Reagan and his CIA Director William J. “Bill” Casey (1913-1987 Director of the CIA, 1981-1987) a decade later in the 1980s.

In the 1960s Golitsyn had helped uncover a number of Soviet agents that had infiltrated Western governments and had provided a cornucopia of intelligence extremely valuable to the CIA, but by the 1970s, the defector’s intelligence was no longer timely. Yet Golitsyn wanted to remain the star defector, so he began to deduce information based on global political assessments and analyses of more current events. With great confidence Golitsyn continued to warn about the infiltration of the CIA by a deep cover Soviet mole insisted that he was the last true defector and those who followed him were dangles and double agents sent by the KGB to deceive the CIA insisted that the Sino-Soviet split (1960-1989) was long-term deception and later asserted that even the collapse of Soviet communism (1989-1991) was not real but more disinformation and long-term deception.

Golitsyn thought he could distinguish between true Soviet intent and disinformation, as the wheat is separated from the chaff, and break through and unravel Soviet long-term strategic deception to conquer the West. But what he was now providing was not intelligence, but erroneous analyses based on circumstantial intelligence and his own developing political beliefs as they formed while living in the West, instead of timely, human intelligence as he had obtained while operating within the Soviet bloc as a KGB officer.

Golitsyn’s supporters in the CIA believed his deductions to be accurate. Most damaging of all, a slate of Russian patriots, legitimate Soviet KGB defectors, were thought to be “dangles,” false defectors, Soviet double agents. It took years, veritably until after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, to ascertain the bonafides of these Russian-American patriots, such as (and most importantly), Yuri Nosenko (1927-2008). For Angleton there had only been one true defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, who understood the world of Soviet deception. All other defectors were considered double agents or dangles sent by the Soviets in their grand design to deceive the West. In the world of counterintelligence — that “wilderness of mirrors” in which one was at a loss to identify and separate the true legitimate spy from the “dangle” and double agent — no one was to be trusted. The additional problem was that Yuri Nosenko was not as smart as he was expected to be by the CIA stalwarts, and he did not possess an incredible memory like Anatoliy Golitsyn. This was enough for James Jesus Angleton to doubt his legitimacy as a true defector. Accordingly, Nosenko was interrogated, kept isolated, and incarcerated for years, treated as a double agent.

General Dimitri Polyakov

Even the great heroes, General Dimitri Polyakov (“Top Hat”), Oleg Gordievsky, and Col. Oleg Penkovsky came under suspicion as possible double agents, but they were all genuine defectors, American heroes who helped the West immensely. Some doubts still remain about the mysterious FBI agent ”Fedora.” These men risked life and limb for the cause of the United States and the West. Gen. Polyakov and Col. Penkovsky paid with torture and execution. All of these Soviet defectors not only helped the West, but also assisted their motherland, Russia, by helping to bring about the freedom that Russia enjoys today.

As if this turmoil in the CIA was not enough, the world situation left a lot to be desired. Below is how I summed up the CIA and world situation during those years of political turmoil in a critical review of the book, Farewell — The Greatest Spy of the Twentieth Century by Sergei Kostin and Eric Raynaud (2011):

From 1972 to 1973, the Watergate scandal rocked the U.S. government and shook the American nation and by 1973, America had lost the Vietnam War. President Richard Nixon resigned but not before he fired Richard Helms (1913-2002), the veteran spymaster and head of the CIA (Director, 1966-1973), “the man who kept the secrets.” CIA counterintelligence (CI) had been severely hampered during this time because of the prevailing culture of paranoia engendered by the unproductive search for the mole “Sasha,” and in December 1974, CI chief James Jesus Angleton (1917-1987) was dismissed by William Colby (CIA Director, 1973-1976). To add insult to injury, in 1975 during the presidency of Gerald Ford (1973-1977), the CIA was investigated by the Rockefeller Commission and then battered by the hostile congressional investigation headed by Senator Frank Church (1924-1984). The CIA was accused of violating its charter, conducting domestic surveillance of U.S. citizens, and sanctioning assassinations in the 1960s and early 1970s. The Church Committee had indeed come dangerously close to dismantling the operational and intelligence gathering capabilities of the CIA.

Under Admiral Stansfield Turner (CIA Director, 1977-1981) during the presidency of Jimmy Carter (U.S. President, 1977-1981), the CIA suffered even more serious setbacks, including drastic cutbacks in personnel (e.g., 820 clandestine CIA officers were dismissed in the so-called “Halloween massacre” of 1977). Its powers were severely trimmed so that the agency was virtually de-fanged in intelligence and counterintelligence (CI) capabilities. As a result, America was to suffer humiliations and defeats unparalleled in her history. The Soviets and their surrogate warriors, the Cubans, were playing for high stakes. Like toppling dominoes, country after country on three continents fell prey to communism and revolution: Ethiopia fell to the communists (1973) and the revered King of the Ethiopians, Haile Selassie I, was deposed and assassinated Mozambique (1975) and Angola (1976) also fell followed by civil wars the Sandinistas, backed by the Cubans and Soviets, took Nicaragua in 1979 the Russians invaded Afghanistan and murdered its president, turning the country into a puppet nation and its mountainous terrain into Russian killing fields the Shah of Iran, Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, fell from power in the Iranian Revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, and fled his country finally, the economic problems facing the U.S., on top of the Iran hostage crisis (1979-1980) and the failed Carter helicopter desert mission to rescue the American hostages, triggered a complete and general demoralization of the United States. President Carter called it a “general malaise.”

One important author who took the side of Angleton and Golitsyn in this affair is a man who I admire greatly because his outstanding skills, not only as an investigative journalist but also because of the logical approach and eloquence of his narrative as a writer. This author is Edward J. Epstein whose books are always fascinating and elucidating — as with his tomes, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald (1978) and Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer (1996). Epstein repeats his superb performance in a book in which he stands by Golitsyn in general and Angleton in particular. This book is Deception: The Invisible War Between the CIA and the KGB (1989), which is still a must read book for spy aficionados as well as scholars from both espionage and historical perspectives, even though some of the conclusions Epstein reaches have been found to be erroneous as newer information is obtained with the passage of time.

With the fabulous revelations of that great Russian, Vasili Mitrokhin, the KGB defector who brought with him the family jewels of the KGB’s First Chief Directorate (foreign intelligence secrets) and his cooperation with British historian, Christopher Andrew, treasure troves of materials have been uncovered and studied. Many of the traitors and double agents from the labyrinthine wilderness of mirrors have been exposed, and many mysteries from the Cold War solved.

The truth is that the KGB’s Chief Directorate was a powerful foreign intelligence agency, but not omnipotent or omniscient, despite tremendous power and resources given it by the Soviet empire, resources and power that dwarfed those of the CIA. The police state Directorates were overburdened with corruption and failures, not to mention the immorality of the Soviet system and its communist leadership, rotting from the top. It could not carry on the grand design of deception that KGB chief Alexander Shelepin (1958-1961) envisioned, and that the Soviet premier defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, believed was firmly in place as Soviet policy in the 1960s-1980s. Disinformation, betrayals, double agents, “Trust” operations, “dangles,” yes, they were all part of the great game, but a grand design of long-term deception that included a series of false defectors (double agents), no a faked Sino-Soviet split, no a feigned collapse of the Soviet empire and its satellites, no. Such planning and grand design were not, could not be, implemented — instead the Soviet Empire collapsed.

It took me years of studying and reading dozens of books to convince myself of the fact that Golitsyn’s and Angleton’s deductions in this case were incorrect and that in three other major assessments (discussed above) Golitsyn’s conclusions were wrong.

Unless one reads all three of Christopher Andrews’ books with the great KGB defectors Oleg Gordievsky and Vasili Mitrokhin, one does not begin to understand Soviet espionage. Mitrokhin essentially brought the entire file of the KGB First Chief Directorate to London (i.e., files recording all major agents and operations from the inception of Soviet foreign intelligence up to the year 1984). The Mitrokhin papers were so extensive that they are referred to as the Mitrokhin Archives. (See Espionage and Cold War section in Great Books) You could say that the “KGB’s own sword had been used to pierce its very shield” in the hands of KGB defector Mitrokhin, whose recorded intelligence severed the Gordian knot of Soviet secrets and exposed the truth in an incredible number of cases.

Besides Gordievsky, Mitrokhin and other valiant Soviet defectors, the U.S. also had an American, a deep undercover agent, working for the FBI, who for many years sat with the top Kremlin leadership, a man who had known Lenin personally, and who was invited to attend discussions held by the Soviet leaders through the time of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Andropov, sitting with them as an honorary Bolshevik — Agent Solo, reporting everything to J. Edgar Hoover and the American presidents! (See Operation Solo — The FBI’s Man in the Kremlin by John Barron [1996] in Great Books.)

Thus, we now have multiple confirmatory evidence illuminating the scope of Soviet power, the truth about the wilderness of mirrors and what Soviet espionage really accomplished and did not accomplish. (See Espionage and Cold War section in Great Books.)

In conclusion I’m not denying that a grand design of long-term deception against the West ever existed in the minds and actions of the KGB and Soviet leadership. In fact, the concept may have been applied and carried out at various stages and strategic points, when the USSR was in need of deception to bolster its flagging economy and in need of economic assistance from the West — in the framework that Golitsyn described in his books, New Lies for Old (1984) and The Perestroika Deception (1995). The grand design of deception was probably ready for implementation at the behest of the young, innovative head of the KGB, Alexander Shelepin (1918-1994 head of the KGB, 1958-1961) — just about the time that Golitsyn could have been directly involved and on his way to Finland. This timing explains why Golitsyn was privy to it. Premiers Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev both instituted their deceptive periods of glasnost and perestroika, before those terms had even been divulged to the world. Khrushchev with his denunciation of the cult of personality of Stalin and his program of peaceful coexistence with the West, and Brezhnev with his policy of détente and his many photo sessions and much wining and dining with President Richard Nixon! All the time, the Cold War continued worldwide unrelenting.

It was finally Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev (1931- head of the Communist party, 1985 -1991), who popularized glasnost and perestroika in the Soviet’s final attempt to deceive the West, while propping up and trying to keep the collapsing communist regime afloat — but things went terribly wrong. Gorbachev wanted to reform communism/socialism, not destroy it. In fact, the cooperative Secretary later claimed he wanted to follow the European socialist democracy model, as has just been applied in Spain with the repeated re-elections of the socialist government of Felipe Gonzalez. In fact, Gorbachev remained General Secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR until its dissolution in 1991. The cataclysmic problem for the Soviet leadership was that the desperate gamble they took was of such a degree that once put into effect, with the new openness and the taste of freedom that entailed, the cat was out of the bag, and there was no turning back!

Boris Yeltsin (1931-2008 first President of Russia, 1991-1999) was the real hero, the Russian patriot who stood on the tanks during the crisis — the attempted communist coup of 1991. Yeltsin fearless, and defiant would not allow the return of Russia to communism — and the evil empire gasped its last breath. Alas, Yeltsin was criticized and taken to task by the Russian people for accelerating the process of Soviet dissolution and democratization at the expense of causing temporary hardship and misery. It has been forgotten that he played the pivotal role in giving Soviet totalitarianism the coup de grace. Yeltsin has still not received the proper credit he deserves for bringing peace, freedom, self-government, and eventually prosperity to the Russian people since time immemorial.

Golitsyn family

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Golitsyn family, Russian noble family descended from the 14th-century Lithuanian grand duke Gediminas. Three members played prominent roles as statesmen around the time of Peter I the Great (r. 1682–1725). Vasily Golitsyn was chief adviser to Peter’s regent, Sophia Alekseyevna. Boris Golitsyn (1654–1714) was court chamberlain (1676) and Peter’s tutor he participated in the coup that placed Peter on the throne and was associated with the major achievements of Peter’s early reign. Peter dismissed him after his despotic rule of a province in the lower Volga resulted in a major revolt. Dmitry Golitsyn (1665–1737) held several posts under Peter from 1697 but opposed Peter’s reforms and in 1724 was deprived of all public duties. In 1727 he became a member of the Supreme Privy Council, which governed for Peter II until his death (1730). He urged the council to offer the throne to Anna Ivanovna if she would sign a set of conditions transferring crucial prerogatives to the council. She initially agreed, then dissolved the council. He was condemned to death (1736) for his antiautocratic beliefs, but Anna commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.

This article was most recently revised and updated by Maren Goldberg, Assistant Editor.

Anatoli Golitsyn - History

Paperback - 247 pages
Second edition (1998)
Edward Harle Limited
ISBN: 189979803X

From the backcover: "Anatoliy Golitsyn's first book, 'New Lies for Old', caused a long running sensation when it was discovered that, unlike most Western analysts, the Author had accurately predicted, some years ahead of the events, the 'Break with the Past' which took place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in 1989-91. In his book 'Wedge: The Secret War between the FBI and CIA' [Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994], Mark Riebling, who carried out a methodical analysis of Golitsyn's predictions in 'New Lies for Old', credited the Author with 'an accuracy record of nearly 94%'. This singular achievement puts all other analysts, including some official services, to shame and it is precisely because of his record of pin-point accuracy that Western Governments, policymakers and even some intelligence services, whose record bears little comparison with Golitysn's, have competed with one another over the years to find reasons why Golitsyn's perceptive explanations of Soviet strategy should be ignored. But events as they unfold are relentlessly proving this remarkable analyst of Soviet strategy to be right. 'The Perestroika Deception' explains the devious secret intent behind the Leninist strategy which the 'former' Communists are pursuing under cover of fake 'reform' and 'progress towards democracy'. The immediate strategic objective is 'convergence' with the West -- on their terms, not ours. The ultimate objective is Lenin's: replacement of nations states with collective regional governments as building blocks of the 'New World Social Order' -- World [Communist] Government."

About the Author: Anatoliy Golitsyn was born in the Ukraine in 1926, served as a member of the KGB in various intelligence, counterintelligence, and counterespionage roles, until he defected to the United States in 1961 of which he is now a citizen. Since that time he has diligently studied Communist and international affairs, reading both the Western and Communist press which has lead him to submit Memoranda to the CIA outlining his analysis of Communist affairs.

Introduction: The book includes a series of memoranda that the author sent to the CIA in recent years. Golitsyn felt that since his "warnings" have basically gone unheeded by the government that he would publish them in a book. He asked the CIA to declassify them, and they agreed. The author cites several reasons for this consideration of presenting his memoranda to the public. I'll quote just two:

(1) ". The democracies of the United States and Western Europe are facing a dangerous situation and are vulnerable because their governments, the Vatican, the elite, the media, the industrialists, the financiers, the trade unions and, most important, the general public are blind to the dangers of the strategy of 'perestroika' . The democracies could perish unless they are informed about the aggressive design of 'perestroika' against them." (pg. XIX)

(2) ". I could not imagine that American policymakers, and particularly the conservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties, despite their long experience with Communist treachery, would not be able to grasp the new manoeuvres of the Communist strategists and would rush to commit the West to helping 'perestroika' which is so contrary to their interests.

"It has been sad to observe the jubilation of American and West European conservatives who have been cheering 'perestroika' without realising that it is intended to bring about their own political and physical demise. Liberal support for 'perestroika' is understandable, but conservative support came as a surprise to me." (pg. XIX)

In trying to understand the reason that Golitsyn's warnings have been overlooked by Western leaders, the editor writes:

"The first main reason for the general (but not in fact complete) rejection of the Author's analysis is that, as the case of Aldrich Hazen Ames has shown, the Russians won the intelligence war through their penetration of Western intelligence services--a message which, naturally, these services do not wish to hear. In the course of his work with the American, British and French services, the Author found that penetration had destroyed their ability to interpret events in the Communist world correctly." (pg. XXV)

The following items are just a sampling of what is covered in this 247 page book:

- Perestroika is the result of 30 years of preparation and strategy in the "restructuring of the whole world." (pg. 45)

- The actions of Russia in securing victories by the Leftist parties in the recent elections of the U.S., West Germany, France and Britain. The Russians feel that Conservatives might "recover" from the idea of perestroika so it would be best to have Liberals in office.

- In 1989, Golitsyn suggested to the CIA that Gorbachev could possibly be replaced by either a conservative of Ligachev's type or by a liberal of Yeltsin's type. The author further speculated that Gorbachev's replacement would be a calculated move and, depending on circumstances, may even be brought back into power at a later date.

- The Chinese-Russian relation and the West's failure to understand this relationship. In 1989, the author wrote to the CIA: ". China is destined to become a Soviet partner in the future World Government towards which Moscow and Peking are jointly preceding." (pg. 36) In another memorandum to the CIA in February 1993, Golitsyn wrote in reference to a "mask of diplomatic and political cooperation" by Russia: "When the right moment comes the mask will be dropped and the Russians with Chinese help will seek to impose their system on the West on their own terms as the culmination of a 'Second October Socialist Revolution.' (p. 158).

- The three centers of nuclear military power that Russia and China must deal with: the United States, Western Europe and Israel. The Russians calculate that the U.S. and Western Europe neutralization will be handled diplomatically via arms agreements and such. The issue of Israel is another matter, which the author suggests that neutralization might occur via sabotage of nuclear facilities.

- The author discusses the possible 'perestroika' event in China at Tienanmen Square that was later changed at the last minute, reminding us that this Chinese crackdown occurred on the "eve of the changes in Eastern Europe" and immediately after a visit by Gorbachev suggesting that this event was far from coincidental. He questions the "massacre" at Tienanmem surmising that reporters only heard gunfire and tanks from their hotel rooms but were not true eyewitnesses to the events inside the square. He cites conflicting news reports on the matter. He also suggests that any deaths may have been "selective killing of the unorganized elements" involved in Tienanmen Square. This is in line with his belief that the demonstration started out as a Party-organized event that later turned into genuine spontaneous involvement by many "unorganized elements" which would of course threaten Chinese control of the demonstration. (pg. 108)

- Golitsyn discusses the Western press and their inability to accurately report events in Russia and other Communist countries due to their ignorance, in part, of what perestroika actually is. Their version of perestroika is so in tune with what the Communists would have them believe, that now Russia allows its public to listen to such radio programs as "The Voice of America" and the BBC.

- On the topic of religion, Golitsyn wrote to the CIA in 1990: ". greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of their consciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion." The author continues in saying that when these new "church leaders" have achieved their goals, that a mass withdrawal of these agents will occur to disrupt and destroy the churches. Golitsyn warns that "never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction." (pp. 116-117)

- In a memorandum dated April 1995 the heading reads: "An Assessment of the Invitation to Billy Graham to Preach in Soviet Churches During His Second Visit to the USSR." Golitsyn writes: "This was an extraordinary, moving and impressive event with serious political and strategic implications." (p. 186)

- The "contrived and military bungling" of events in Chechnya in 1994 to give the false impression of the ineptness of the Russian military.

Conclusion: "The Perestroika Deception" is packed full of information. And remember, this information was first given to, and generally ignored by, the CIA as an expert analysis. The author does not mix words. He tells it as he sees it. Definitely not a book you would want to curl up with at night, but perhaps a book to consider reading in helping to balance out the mis- and disinformation that is fed to us now.

Anatoli Golitsyn - History

Golitsyn, Anatoli (1990, 1984). New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (2 nd ed.) Atlanta, GA: Clarion House

Date Posted: January 25, 2013

Was the collapse of the Soviet Union an event planned by the KGB who saw this as way to do an end run around the West and eventually take over the world? Golitsyn suggests this, but to me it is far-fetched.

According to the author, Anatoliy Golitsyn, writing before the collapse of the Soviet Union, perestroika was little more than a false front for the “dead” Soviet Union. This top-ranking KGB GRU defector reveals the long-term game plan and disinformation campaign for the now “dead” Soviet Union.

Is KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn right? Do the communists have a long-range strategy to destroy the west, implemented in the 1960 time frame and extending over 40 years? He makes a strong case, based on his personal experience in the KGB and the history of the USSR. Furthermore his predictions have largely come true – if anything he was too conservative. At any rate, if Golitsyn was right, the strategy ought to be coming together real soon, the point of which is to isolate and defeat America with a united communist front.

I think that the core of the Soviet Union was so rotten that a collapse was inevitable. Ascribing to the KGB the ability to plot such a Machiavellian plot as planning the collapse so that an eventual takeover of the world would occur seems to me to be the stuff of delusion.

Nevertheless, If you want to learn more about Perestroika and the “fate” of the Soviet Union, read Golitsyn’s other book, The Perestroika Deception. Also, The State Within a State: The KGB and Its Hold on Russia-Past, Present, and Future, by Yevgenia Albats, and Red Cocaine by Joseph Douglas. Popular books in the limelight like the Mitrokin Archive are interesting, and make a fascinating counterpoint to this book.

Watch the video: Anatoli Original Mix (May 2022).


  1. Devere

    I apologise, but, in my opinion, you are not right. I can prove it. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

  2. Mazuru

    What words ... The phenomenal, magnificent phrase

  3. Takoda

    Totally agree with her. In this nothing in there and I think this is a very good idea. Fully agree with her.

Write a message