The Golitsyn Predictions

Mark Riebling ^ | 08-17-06 | Mark Riebling

[brain bleeds red]

Even if one rejects Golitsyn's overall thesis -- viz., that Gorbachev's changes comprised a long-term strategic deception -- one must still acknowledge that Golitsyn was the only analyst whose crystal ball was functioning during the key period of the late 20th century.

When the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989, the CIA was chastised for failing to foresee the change. "For a generation, the Central Intelligence Agency told successive presidents everything they needed to know about the Soviet Union," said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "except that it was about to fall apart."

Sovietologists both inside and outside CIA were indeed baffled, for their traditional method of analysis had yielded virtually no clues as to what Gorbachev would do. When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in February 1985, after the death of Konstantin Chernenko, analysts like Roy Medvedev preoccupied themselves with trivial details in the Soviet press, and gained no larger view. "The black mourning frame printed around the second page where the deceased leader's picture was run] looked rather narrow," Medvedev observed. "It was still, however, a millimeter broader than the frames used for the second-page announcements of the death of senior Politburo members like Marshal Ustinov, who had died a few months previously." There was nothing in the measurement of picture frames to suggest liberalization in the USSR; therefore, no one suggested it.

CIA's leadership acknowledged that fell short in predicting Gorbachev's reforms, but could provide no real excuse. "Who would have thought that just five years ago we would stand where we are today?" Acting Director Robert Gates told Congress in late 1991. "Talk about humbling experiences." Gates could have said: Our reporting was poor because our Moscow network was rolled up, coincidentally or not, precisely as Gorbachev was coming into power. Gates did not say this, however. Instead, he suggested that "We're here to help you think through the problem rather than give you some kind of crystal ball prediction." This anti-prediction line was echoed by the Agency's deputy director, Robert Kerr, who told Congress: "Our business is to provide enough understanding of the issue ... to say here are some possible outcomes.... And I think that's the role of intelligence, not to predict outcomes in clear, neat ways. Because that's not doable."

Yet someone had predicted glasnost and perestroika, in detail, even before Gorbachev came to power. This person's analysis of events in the communist world had even been provided to the Agency on a regular basis.

In 1982, KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had submitted a top-secret manuscript to CIA. In it, he foresaw that leadership of the USSR would by 1986 "or earlier" fall to "a younger man with a more liberal image," who would initiate "changes that would have been beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin."

The coming liberalization, Golitsyn said, "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.... The KGB would be reformed. Dissidents at home would be amnestied; those in exile abroad would be allowed to take up positions in the government; Sakharov might be included in some capacity in the government. Political dubs would be opened to nonmembers of the Communist Party. Leading dissidents might form one or more alternative political Censorship would be relaxed; controversial plays, films, and art would be published, performed, and exhibited."

Golitsyn provided an entire chapter of such predictions, containing 194 distinct auguries. Of these, 46 were not soon falsifiable (it was too early to tell, e.g., whether Russian economic ministries would be dissolved); another 9 predictions (e.g., of a prominent Yugoslavian role in East-Bloc liberalization) seemed clearly wrong. Yet of Golitsyn's falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993 -- an accuracy rate of nearly 94 percent. Among events correctly foreseen: "the return to power of Dubcek and his associates" in Czechoslovakia; the reemergence of Solidarity" and the formation of a "coalition government" in Poland; a newly "independent" regime in Romania; "economic reforms" in the USSR; and a Soviet repudiation of the Afghanistan invasion. -Golitsyn even envisioned that, with the "easing of immigration controls" by East Germany, "pressure could well grow for the solution of the German problem [by] some form of confederation between East and West," with the result that "demolition of the Berlin Wall might even be contemplated."

Golitsyn received CIA's permission to publish his manuscript in book form, and did so in 1984. But at time his predictions were made, Sovietologists had little use for Golitsyn or his "new methodology for the study of the communist world." John C. Campbell, reviewing Golitsyn's book in Foreign Affairs, politely recommended that it "be taken with several grains of salt." Other critics complained that Golitsyn's analysis "strained credulity" and was "totally inaccurate," or became so exercised as to accuse him of being the "demented" proponent of "cosmic theories." The University of North Carolina's James R. Kuhlman declared that Golitsyn's new methodology would "not withstand rigorous examination. Oxford historian R.W. Johnson dismissed Golitsyn's views as "nonsense." British journalist Tom Mangold even went so far as to say, in 1990 -- well after Golitsyn's prescience had become clear -- that "As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive." Mangold reached this conclusion by listing six of Golitsyn's apparently incorrect predictions and ignoring the 139 correct ones.

Golitsyn's analysis was as little appreciated within CIA as it was in the outside world. "Unfortunate is the only term for this book," an Agency reader noted in an official 1985 review. A CIA analyst took Golitsyn to task for making "unsupported allegations without sufficient (or sometimes any) evidence," and for this reason would be "embarrassed to recommend the whole." Golitsyn's case, other words, was deductive: He had no "hard evidence," no transcript of a secret meeting in which Gorbachev said the would do all these things. Perhaps most fundamentally, as the philosopher William James once noted, "we tend to disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use." Who had any use, in the end, for Golitsyn's belief that the coming glasnost and perestroika would merely constitute the "final phase" of a long-term KGB strategy to "dominate the world"?

[strategofr]

"BTW, he also predicted the rise of Gorbi..."

Some of Golitzen's predictions were correct. However, there is no getting around the fact that, over time, his view has diverged from reality. This does not necessarily prove that some of his original insights were not real. But one of his core, fundamental beliefs---that Russia would pretend to move away from communism while actually not doing so---has turned out not to be true.

[GodGunsGuts]

I think the vast majority of Golitsyn's predictions were correct up to the early 1990s. It is quite possible that things took on a life of their own passed a certain point. I just wish Golitsyn was still publishing to see his take on modern development in Russia, E. Europe, Red China, Latin America and the Middle East. As for Golitsyn's major predictions, they strike me as just about as valid today as the day Golitsyn wrote them:

‘PERESTROIKA’, THE FINAL PHASE: ITS MAIN OBJECTIVES

‘The new method sees ‘perestroika’, not as a surprising and spontaneous change, but as the logical result of thirty years of preparation and as the next and final phase of the strategy: it sees it in a broader context than Soviet ‘openness’ has revealed.’

‘It sees it, not only as a renewal of Soviet society, but as a global strategic design for ‘restructuring’ the entire capitalist world.’

‘The following strategic objectives of ‘perestroika’ may be distinguished:

For the USSR

(a) ‘Restructuring’ and revitalization of the Soviet socialist economy through the incorporation of some elements of the market economy.

(b) ‘Restructuring’ of the Stalinist regime into a form of ‘Communist democracy’ with an appearance of political pluralism [= ‘democratism’, or false democracy].

(c) ‘Reconsructing’ a repressive regime with a brutal face into an attractive socialist model with a human façade and seeming similarity to the Swedish social democratic system.’

For Eastern Europe

‘Economic and political ‘restructuring’ of the existing regimes into pseudo-social democratic models while preserving specific national historical features such as the strong Catholic Socialist tradition in Poland and the pre-war democratic tradition in Czechoslovakia.’

For Western Europe

(a) ‘Bringing about a new political alliance between the pseudo-social democratic regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the Euro-Communist parties and genuine social democratic parties in Western Europe.

(b) ‘Restructuring’ political and military blocs—NATO and the Warsaw Pact—and the creation of a singe ‘Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals’ incorporating a reunited, neutral Germany.’

For the main US alliances

(a) ‘Splitting the United States, Western Europe and Japan.

(b) Dissolution of NATO and the US-Japan security pact, and the withdrawal of US troops from Western Europe and Japan.’

For Third World countries

‘The introduction and promotion of a new Soviet model with a mixed economy and a human face in Latin America, Africa and Asia through a joint campaign by the pseudo-social democratic regimes of the USSR and Eastern Europe and the genuine social democrats of Western Europe led by the Socialist International.’

For the United States

(a) ‘To neutralize the influence of the anti-Communist political right in the American political parties and to create favourable conditions for a victory of the radical left in the 1992 US presidential elections.

(b) To ‘restructure’ the American military, political, economic and social status quo to accommodate greater convergence between the Soviet and American systems and the eventual creation of a single World Government.’

The paramount global objective

‘The paramount global objective of the strategy of ‘perestroika’ is to weaken and neutralize anti-Communist ideology and the influence of anti-Communists in political life in the United States, Western Europe and elsewhere—presenting them as anachronistic survivors of the Cold War, reactionaries and obstacles to ‘restructuring’ and peace. Anyone who warns about Moscow’s true objectives is automatically branded a ‘Cold Warrior’, even by people who have doubts about Moscow’s motives.’

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

You have made the claim that 139 out of 148 of Golitsyn's predictions have come to pass.

I don't know how they "debate" in your trailer park, but in the rest of America, he who asserts either puts up evidence to support a claim, or he shuts up and admits he was talking through his dorsal vent.

You need to supply actual facts to back your assertion that 139 out of 148 of Golitsyn's predictions have come to pass as he described them.

[Thunder90]

In my own opinion, Golitsyn has a 70% accuracy rate. That is far better than a weather forcast.

[GodGunsGuts]

==In my own opinion, Golitsyn has a 70% accuracy rate.

I think the farther you go back in time, the greater the accuracy. I think we should use Riebling's cut off of 1993 as our basis for determining Golitsyn's accuracy. I will be researching this issue and posting my findings on each and every prediction. However, I still think he is right on in terms of his major predictions as per my post #82--GGG

[GarySpFc]

Some of Golitzen's predictions were correct. However, there is no getting around the fact that, over time, his view has diverged from reality. This does not necessarily prove that some of his original insights were not real. But one of his core, fundamental beliefs---that Russia would pretend to move away from communism while actually not doing so---has turned out not to be true.

Anyone who has been in planning sessions can make educated guesses as to what will happen in the future by looking at history, events, and trends. I have been a multiple lines insurance agent with a major company for 37 years, and it didn't take rocket science to know powerful hurricanes were eventually going to do major damage in southern Florida and New Orleans. Actuaries tell us these events will happen, and can give educated guesses when they will happen, but they are still guessing. Golitsyn was in a position to make educated guesses, and that is all his predictions were...nothing more than guesses. He simply added the caveat that the Soviet Union was a Phoenix and would fly again. As Romanov has pointed out the majority of Golitsyn's predictions were WRONG!

[Thunder90]

Agreed...


However, you don't even need Golitsyn to prove that Russia is a threat. Stanislav Lunev, another Russian defector, says that there is a distinct possiblity that Russia and China had a covert alliance behind the scenes (And Lunev was assigned to spy on China during the Sino Soviet crisis).

[rdb3]

Thanx. Good read.

[Centurion2000]

It says that the "Russians realized they couldn't defeat us militarily and so decided to defeat us by trickery and deceit.

Sorry but this is a complete pantload. The Russian people are not in the business of conquering the leading world power. They are busy trying to make money and most of them under 25 do not give a damn about world politics.

A few items that might have appeared if they were in the conquering business

Transport? Where's the huge amount of military transport ships for troops, tanks, beans and bullets?
Navy? The Russian Navy is a shadow of itself.
Army? The russian army is much smaller than it used to be during the Soviet era. They are NOT going to occupy a country with 70 million snipers

Even accounting for the possibility that the Chinese might load up THEIR army on supertankers, car carriers and other assorted nonsense. Even accounting for a decapitating strike on the USA. The US Navy would shred anything hostile in the waters that headed towards our shores.

If they think they can land in Mexico and move north. No one does mobile desert warfare better than the US.

[Centurion2000]

==In my own opinion, Golitsyn has a 70% accuracy rate.

I think the farther you go back in time, the greater the accuracy.

I think you guys are just mentally masturbating here since Romanov blew away your arguments.

Gentlemen, Russia is OUT of the world conquest business ... accept it. I used to be a seruiously hard core Cold Warrior that joined the Marines with the specific idea of invading the Soviet Union and helping to conquer it. The Soviet Union is on par with Stalin, Lenin, Hitler and Tojo .... in the ground and safely dead.

Have you guys even been to the heart of the enemy (Moscow) and checked out Russia?

Have any one of you three BEEN THERE yet? Or are you too convinced to have your minds actually influenced by facts and details?

[GodGunsGuts]

==I think you guys are just mentally masturbating here

I guess that makes you a Peeping Tom.

[Thunder90]

Russia has moved towards totaltarianism and anti-Americanism. It does not matter that it is Communist (However it has some of it's overtones"

[GarySpFc]

Sorry but this is a complete pantload. The Russian people are not in the business of conquering the leading world power.

It's worse than that. The logistics of supplying the Russian army going against the US would be impossible for Russia and China together to handle. Russia has trouble with Chechnya, and to think they could take on the US is a fairy tale.

[rottndog]

bookmark.

[GarySpFc]

Have you guys even been to the heart of the enemy (Moscow) and checked out Russia?
Have any one of you three BEEN THERE yet? Or are you too convinced to have your minds actually influenced by facts and details?

None of the Golysinites have been to Russia, but they are brave keyboard commandos fighting Cold War II on the Internet and in their dreams. Heck, the only thing Russia has over the US is their subway system. Their army, air force, and navy are jokes. Yep, we are KGB agents for telling it like it is over there.

[Centurion2000]

I guess that makes you a Peeping Tom.

Touche .... now ... have you or any of the other "Russia is Satan's nest" crowd actually gone to Russia and checked it out? Serious question as I was once in this same crowd back in the 80's.

[GarySpFc]

You need to take a look at this thread. If you think the TWA 800 is trash, then this will have you shaking your head in dismay.

[Romanov]

"Russia has moved towards totaltarianism and anti-Americanism."

You base this statement on what? Fantasy? Explain how Russia has moved toward totalitarianism. It's not even close to that. Also explain how they are anti-American. An American gets a better reception in Russia than he/she does in Britain, Germany, Canada, France, etc.

With the exception of some old hardline former commies bitter about the end of Communism, I rarely ran into anti-Americanism in Russia. When I was stationed in the UK I encountered it on a DAILY basis. President Bush has received more favorable coverage on Russian television news than he ever has on Western European or American news. You won't see a Russian news commentator calling Bush a "moron" but the ones in so-called Allied countries do so all the time. I don't seem to recall a Russian newspaper soliciting Ohioans to convince them a vote for Bush was stupid (see: UK Guardian). I'd love to hear your real-life examples of Russian anti-Americanism. Sure, their press people peddle in it, but so do ours. Once again - show me the anti-Americanism and totalitarianism. I want real life examples, not "Epstein says," Or "Nyquist says," or "Golytsin's theories show in the year 2005 Russians will be more anti-American."

You make all of these statements on here but with zero fact to back it up. Then you run over to the final phase forum and talk about how a lot of us on FR are either "pro-Chicom or "pro-Soviet (Russian)." And that brings me to the next point.

You claim to be a military-aged person and a patriot. You claim America is facing many enemies - and Russia is one of them. If America is under siege as you portray it why aren't you volunteering to serve your country in its time of need. After all, we ARE at WAR, and many fine young men and women are serving our country in its time of need. Why aren't you? Or are you all talk and no action?

[GodGunsGuts]

==Touche .... now ... have you or any of the other "Russia is Satan's nest" crowd actually gone to Russia and checked it out? Serious question as I was once in this same crowd back in the 80's.

No I have not. Can't speak for anyone else. I don't happen to believe that the Russian people are evil. However, I think Putin and his fellow KGB Commies are. The Russian people are suffering under their rule, just as they did before the Soviet Union suddenly collapsed IMO. BTW, I too joined the Marines to fight the Evil Empire back in the early 1980s. Small world.

[GodGunsGuts]

I would appreciate it if your East European ping buddies would comment on Golitsyn. I am not concerned whether you agree or disagree. I am only interested in your own knowledge, experience and input. Is there any validity to what Golitsyn wrote re: Eastern Europe, or was he completely wrong from the get-go? For instance, did the Communists attempt to feign their own collapse in the beginning and then things got out of their control? Is there any evidence that the Communists are still running things from behind the scenes? Why weren't the Communists put on trial and purged? Is there any evidence that they still occupy any positions of power in any of the E. European governments or intelligence services? Did Eastern Europe make a clean break with Russia? Is there any evidence of ongoing cooperation/coordination? Etc, etc. This is an honest attempt to try and understand what's going on over there.

PS See post #59 and below for original post of predictions and the ensuing controversy. Thanks a bunch--GGG