Golitsyn’s overarching thesis, the so-called “grand strategy,” is laid out in painstaking detail over two books: “New Lies for Old” (1984) and “The Perestroika Deception” (1985), which can be summarized as follows:
The Soviets developed a long-range strategy to defeat the West back in the late 1950s based on a Leninist strategy of strategic deception and subterfuge, replete with a planned collapse — including potentially tearing down the Berlin Wall (which Golitsyn first detailed in a 1978 memorandum embedded at the end of this post) – in combination with perestroika and glasnost, words whose true definitions were far different than those the West ascribed to them.
These moves according to Golitsyn were designed to invite the West’s capital, technology and most of all gullibility/trust to Russia, which it could then use to build itself up, and, while the West moved leftward and intertwined itself inextricably with Russia and other socialist states, “converge” and dominate the West under a world government headed by none other than the Russians and Chinese.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/19/...-listened/
(03-20-2014 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Golitsyn’s overarching thesis, the so-called “grand strategy,” is laid out in painstaking detail over two books: “New Lies for Old” (1984) and “The Perestroika Deception” (1985), which can be summarized as follows:
The Soviets developed a long-range strategy to defeat the West back in the late 1950s based on a Leninist strategy of strategic deception and subterfuge, replete with a planned collapse — including potentially tearing down the Berlin Wall (which Golitsyn first detailed in a 1978 memorandum embedded at the end of this post) – in combination with perestroika and glasnost, words whose true definitions were far different than those the West ascribed to them.
These moves according to Golitsyn were designed to invite the West’s capital, technology and most of all gullibility/trust to Russia, which it could then use to build itself up, and, while the West moved leftward and intertwined itself inextricably with Russia and other socialist states, “converge” and dominate the West under a world government headed by none other than the Russians and Chinese.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/19/...-listened/
This is pretty big speculation that should be reserved for the tin-foil hat set. The fact that these books were written when it was pretty clear that the USSR was in serious trouble, is enough to discredit them.
There are many authoritative sources that describe the collapse of the USSR but none better than Mikhail Gorbachev's own "Memoirs", in which he confirms that the two biggest factors were the US deployment of the Pershing tactical nuclear missiles and the Strategic Defense Initiative. The Pershings broke the Soviets bank because they choose to match deployment and SDI was the killer blow. At Rejkevik, Gorby tried to discourage Reagan from going forward on SDI because he knew that it would sway the nuclear balance to the US forever.
(03-20-2014 01:58 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ]Golitsyn’s overarching thesis, the so-called “grand strategy,” is laid out in painstaking detail over two books: “New Lies for Old” (1984) and “The Perestroika Deception” (1985), which can be summarized as follows:
The Soviets developed a long-range strategy to defeat the West back in the late 1950s based on a Leninist strategy of strategic deception and subterfuge, replete with a planned collapse — including potentially tearing down the Berlin Wall (which Golitsyn first detailed in a 1978 memorandum embedded at the end of this post) – in combination with perestroika and glasnost, words whose true definitions were far different than those the West ascribed to them.
These moves according to Golitsyn were designed to invite the West’s capital, technology and most of all gullibility/trust to Russia, which it could then use to build itself up, and, while the West moved leftward and intertwined itself inextricably with Russia and other socialist states, “converge” and dominate the West under a world government headed by none other than the Russians and Chinese.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/03/19/...-listened/
This is pretty big speculation that should be reserved for the tin-foil hat set. The fact that these books were written when it was pretty clear that the USSR was in serious trouble, is enough to discredit them.
There are many authoritative sources that describe the collapse of the USSR but none better than Mikhail Gorbachev's own "Memoirs", in which he confirms that the two biggest factors were the US deployment of the Pershing tactical nuclear missiles and the Strategic Defense Initiative. The Pershings broke the Soviets bank because they choose to match deployment and SDI was the killer blow. At Rejkevik, Gorby tried to discourage Reagan from going forward on SDI because he knew that it would sway the nuclear balance to the US forever.
Absolutely, I saw a documentary about the details of how these talks went. I came away with much more respect for Reagan.
You are saying that Palin and Romney were right about Russia.
(03-20-2014 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]You are saying that Palin and Romney were right about Russia.
I was talking about Reagan. Palin and Romney pale in comparison.
Problem we are having currently is that those charged with managing these "relationships" don't maintain the healthy skepticism/distrust of the Russians and commies that they should.
Things like "the 80's called, they want their foreign policy back". Or the deflated football with eyes claiming "”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion" regarding the invasion of Crimea does exactly zippo.
Cause, well, you know why? Guess what you utopian hacks, YOU don't get it that Putin doesn't give a schit what you think. You don't scare him, you don't scold him, you don't even give him pause.
"Wait until after the election and I'll have more flexibility" - sure spells speaking from a position of strength. Putin and Medvedev probably cracked a fresh bottle of Stoli, lit a fine cuban, sat back and said "is this guy kidding? Wait a few months and he'll do essentially do our bidding for us?"
Damn right Comrade! Ice cubes jangle in glass.
"Trust, but verify" has been replaced with "peace in our time". Putin wins without firing a shot at the West.
For a long time, the Cold War was pursued as a military and diplomatic evolution. Reagan changed it to an economic contest. Why? Simple, he believed that the military/diplomatic contest would simply continue to escalate, whereas an end--and victory--were possible in the economic arena. Our economy could simply bludgeon the USSR's into submission. As noted in the Gorbachev quote, that was the goal of SDI--spend the Russians so far in debt that they would have to give up. Our economy could handle that, theirs couldn't.
When I hear anyone make fun of Reagan for SDI *cough* Robert *cough* I point out that whether or not it would have ever worked, there there was one guy who sure as hell believed in it: Mikhail Gorbachev.
Anyone who's been to Russia or China and thinks they have a workable realistic plan to dominate us either is blind, deaf and dumb or a complete tin-foil hat wearing certified nutter.
(03-20-2014 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]You are saying that Palin and Romney were right about Russia.
I was talking about Reagan. Palin and Romney pale in comparison.
Correct, Palin and Romney were following Reagan's line of thought. They were ridiculed, incessantly by the left. So now you are saying that Palin, Romney and Reagan were right to fear the Russian.
(03-20-2014 03:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]You are saying that Palin and Romney were right about Russia.
I was talking about Reagan. Palin and Romney pale in comparison.
Correct, Palin and Romney were following Reagan's line of thought. They were ridiculed, incessantly by the left. So now you are saying that Palin, Romney and Reagan were right to fear the Russian.
That's just it. I don't think Reagan feared the Russians. That is why I respect him.
(03-20-2014 04:43 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 03:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote: [ -> ] (03-20-2014 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]You are saying that Palin and Romney were right about Russia.
I was talking about Reagan. Palin and Romney pale in comparison.
Correct, Palin and Romney were following Reagan's line of thought. They were ridiculed, incessantly by the left. So now you are saying that Palin, Romney and Reagan were right to fear the Russian.
That's just it. I don't think Reagan feared the Russians. That is why I respect him.
Exactly. Reagan didn't fear the Russians. He figured out how to beat them. What Reagan did fear was a continuation of the Cold War. So he ended it. On his terms.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Putin is a Russian patriot of the highest order.
(03-20-2014 05:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Putin is a Russian patriot of the highest order.
Make that Soviet Union patriot.