Spy vs. spy: 2 famous defectors on Russian super-deception

Beware those who deride Anatoliy Golitsyn. In this case, we have a ‘defector’ who does noting to disprove Golitsyn, his theories nor predictions… 94% of which came to be true. This is essentially low-level slander and a character assassination from someone who wants to discredit. Mr. Pacepa is someone who spreads disinformation in order to cover up, whitewash or distract those who are concerned about threats originating from today’s neo-Soviet Union. He could also be a disinformationist himself. During Golitsyn’s time (and even today), it’s known that the Soviet Union had also dispatched numerous fake defectors in order to make true defectors hard to believe. The proven events alone as fact today should speak for themselves.

One of the hottest books of 2013 was written by Lt. Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking Soviet bloc official ever to defect in Cold War history, whose explosive exposé of Soviet “disinformation” strategies was turned into a blockbuster film.

However, other defectors have also tried to make Americans aware of the serious dangers posed to the West by Russia, though it is increasingly portrayed as America’s friend and ally.

One such defector was Anatoliy Golitsyn, a spy who defected in 1961 and who made over 200 predictions about specific strategies Russia would employ to deceive the West – most of them supplied to the CIA in the form of “memoranda,” and later published in a book titled, “New Lies for Old.” According to intelligence expert and author Mark Riebling, 94 percent of these predictions have come to pass. Among them:

Liberalization of the Soviet bloc (including the apparent separation of independent republics from Moscow). “Glasnost” and “Perestroika” would be deployed as buzzwords to deceive Western media.

Reunification of Germany and the demolition of the Berlin Wall.

Democratization of the Russian government (three separate branches: presidency, judiciary, and legislative – each with defined powers).

Disarmament talks and “peace” advocacy.

Renaming of the KGB.

Westernization of culture (press, plays, books, religion all permitted).

Regional unions promoted and advanced on several continents for the purposes of eradicating sovereignty and hastening East-West “convergence.”

WND reached out to Gen. Pacepa to get his take on Golitsyn’s famous analysis and predictions, as well as to judge whether or not his predictions are still relevant for American policy in today’s geopolitical climate.

WND: Was Golitsyn correct in his predicted events regarding Soviet disinformation?

PACEPA: No. Golitsyn’s so-called predictions generated an imagined Russia that left us unprepared to deal with the realities of that immense realm, which extends from the North Pole to the 35th parallel, encloses 12 seas belonging to three oceans, and it is estimated to have 55,000 nuclear warheads.

I understand your frustration with the secrecy still surrounding Russia, but I have no reason – none – to believe Golitsyn’s predictions. During the old Soviet days the West invented Kremlinology, a discipline of trying to decode whatever was going on behind the Kremlin’s wall of secrecy by, for instance, comparing the annual photos of the May Day parade to see which Politburo member stood closest to the ruler. It did not work – the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union caught us all by surprise.

Afterward we had Putinologists, like you, who are doing their best with the meager information available, but it is nearly impossible for outsiders to put themselves in the shoes of a man whose career was spent in the darkness of Soviet espionage. No one was able to predict that Putin would transform Russia into the first intelligence dictatorship in history.

Anatoliy Golitsyn

Now we have Golitsynologists. Of course, I have high regard for people who have had the guts to renounce their privileged lives in the political police of communist countries, and I respect Golitsyn for that. Eventually, however, he was encouraged to use his imagination instead of just sticking to the facts he knew, and he ended up making predictions that his chief intelligence handler, James Jesus Angleton, the head of the CIA’s counterintelligence staff, wanted to hear.

WND: What do you think about Golitsyn’s “New Lies for Old” and Mark Riebling’s studies stating that 94 percent of Golitsyn’s disinformation predictions have come to pass?

PACEPA: I have never believed in fortune tellers, and Golitsyn – who did indeed help our intelligence community catch several significant KGB spies – unfortunately ended up becoming a kind of Delphic Oracle.

I read both “New Lies for Old” and Riebling’s studies, and I realized that neither author even knew what disinformation was. No wonder. In 1978, when I was granted political asylum in the United States, I found out that most people in American intelligence, the military, academia and the media did not know either. Even today, when the word “disinformation” is on everyone’s tongue, few of its glib users know that disinformation did not figure in any Western dictionaries for most of the Cold War years. As late as 1986, two years after Golitsyn published his “New Lies for Old,” the word “disinformation” was not listed among the 300,000 entries of “Webster’s New World Thesaurus” or even in the 27 volumes of the “New Encyclopedia Britannica,” for it was wrongly believed that disinformation simply meant misinformation. That was another result of Soviet disinformation.

Full article: Spy vs. spy: 2 famous defectors on Russian super-deception (WND)

Comments are closed.