> How to explain the....
Is grammatically correct in American English? Sounds weird.
In UK, Aus, you'd ask "How do you explain the ..."
How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#12> How to explain the.... Is grammatically correct in American English? Sounds weird. In UK, Aus, you'd ask " How do you explain the ... "
Yep that’s normal
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#13So... I like spy novels and such and I've always wondered how the hell one would keep it a secret which 50% of an embassy are secret service. So many possible patterns! Turns out, one doesn't, unless extremely careful. I also seem to remember that "who is secret service at the embassy" was never an important line of defense against counterespionage, something the article doesn't mention.
In a place I used to work at, I attended a workplace party where I was approached by a newly hired staff member. His many questions was all very leading, along the lines of: 'I like drugs, do you like drugs?' Apart from the clumsiness of his technique, what gave him away was his haircut (very military).
Lol,
“I have a lot of debt, sexual exploitations, and access to sensitive information at work. How about you, brother?”.
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#14> How to explain the.... Is grammatically correct in American English? Sounds weird. In UK, Aus, you'd ask " How do you explain the ... "
Yes, it’s pretty common. “How do you…” sounds like a question.
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#15Throughout the Cold War, it was accepted common knowledge around American intelligence circles that our side had never successfully inserted agents into the USSR because their counterintelligence was so effective. I always wondered whether this was really true or whether it was just a cover story spread by our side to give the Soviets a false sense of security. There were known cases of insider espionage, but they were always men who had come to us on their own initiative.
By what I've heard, while the Russian military fell apart in the 1990s, they increased support for intelligence to compensate. I've not heard anything to indicate that they allowed their counterintelligence capabilities to deteriorate. Over the past year, Washington has done a lot of bragging over how much they have penetrated the Russian establishment, but I suspect there is a large element of bluff there.
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#16For anyone is into this kind of thing I would suggest checking out The Team House on YouTube which has a lot of very in-depth interviews with some very recently retired CIA folks talking about their experiences in the field.
Given a lot of the crazy shit I hear come up in the comments here every time the CIA tends to get mentioned in almost any context this might actually be a good resource for a lot of folks here to start separating fact from fiction.
I’ll drop a couple of my favourites here but they must have at least 20 of them by now.
Doug London https://youtu.be/aV9HdJtPbZA
This guy had a really long career at CIA in the particular job that you all think of when you think of a “spy” that spanned around 30 years from memory with 9/11 occurring right in the middle of his career.
He talks a lot about not only how that changed the face of the agency but about all the mistakes that got made along the way and how the wheels fell off the truck with things like the rendition programs etc. Overall, it’s a great self reflective and critical look at the agency from a very senior person on the inside.
Jim Lawler https://youtu.be/AFnfTDbcPOA
This guy is probably the most “spooky” kind of CIA guy I’ve ever seen them interview. Even to the point that he is rather unusual amongst his peers if his reputation is to anything to go by. You can immediately see why he was so good at his job almost from the start. Like Doug he was also VERY senior and at the pointy end of the spear as they say.
The later stage of his career was focused on nuclear non proliferation and its very interesting to hear him talk about things like the decision to invade Iraq for example and once again where things went completely off the rails.
Holden Triplett https://youtu.be/0NSGOJs150w
On the other side of the fence Holden was working to actively catch foreign spies in the US while working at the FBI where he left in mid 2020.
Covers a lot of interesting topics and stories that I think folks would be interested in.
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#17> How to explain the.... Is grammatically correct in American English? Sounds weird. In UK, Aus, you'd ask " How do you explain the ... "
Both sound correct to this native British speaker
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#18> How to explain the.... Is grammatically correct in American English? Sounds weird. In UK, Aus, you'd ask " How do you explain the ... "
"How to explain" is a common phrasing in Australia though?
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#19So... I like spy novels and such and I've always wondered how the hell one would keep it a secret which 50% of an embassy are secret service. So many possible patterns! Turns out, one doesn't, unless extremely careful. I also seem to remember that "who is secret service at the embassy" was never an important line of defense against counterespionage, something the article doesn't mention.
If you ask someone who can't tell you what they do, what they do, they'll give you a quick and really dull answer. Anyone implying that they "can't really talk about that" is most likely a service-desk technician.
Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)
#20Throughout the Cold War, it was accepted common knowledge around American intelligence circles that our side had never successfully inserted agents into the USSR because their counterintelligence was so effective. I always wondered whether this was really true or whether it was just a cover story spread by our side to give the Soviets a false sense of security. There were known cases of insider espionage, but they we…
Just as a heads up you seem to be referring to a VERY specific thing here and might not be meaning to.
“Inserting” someone into a hostile intelligence agency is known as a seeding operation and if you told me that they never were able to pull one off, I believe you.
However, they still had eyes and ears on the inside through a combination of recruiting existing officers already on the inside and via defectors.
Quite a lot has been written on the topic since then but I’d suggest checking out my other comment if you’re looking for some resources on that kind of thing.