Live data from Hacker News

How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

salon.com

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#21
post #15

Throughout 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…

Where did you get this idea? There is a ton of intelligence the US had gained from its intelligence community, along with a ton gained from allied intelligence agencies. There's an entire category on Wikipedia dedicated to well-known defectors[1] and spies[2] in the USSR.

The reason you hear less about it from a Western perspective is because the Western allies leveraged reconnaissance technologies more efficiently. They had better aerial reconnaissance, a wider satellite network (from the late-70s onward), nearer proximity to Moscow, wider military projection and better code breaking. It is well-accepted that the Soviets, and the Russian successor state, have always had a hell of a time keeping encryption secret long from the combined US, Commonwealth, Israeli and German intelligence.

While the West didn't know everything going on inside, they were able to see almost everything from a birds eye view. It was necessary for the Soviets to have an extensive spy network to get the equivalent viewpoint.

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_intelligence_p...

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_spies_agains...

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#22

> 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.

The title of the linked article has a question mark, while the HN title does not.

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#23

> 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?

"How dya explain" is very common, not sure I've ever heard a genuine "to".

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#24

For someone wanting a bit more of this with great anecdotes, I direct you to the Mitrokhin Archive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive ) sourced pair of tomes (The Sword and the Shield (1999) and The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (2005)). An incredible source covering more than a century of operations, predating the revolution, and spanning all continents. The first…

A strong argument in favor of rooting out ideologically unaligned thinking. Would you want a communist working in the US government? Clearly they would be far more likely to sympathize with the Soviet Union than a capitalist would.

Most anglosphere communists I know have a term for such people: tankies.

And they hate them: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#25

> How to explain the.... Is grammatically correct in American English? Sounds weird. In UK, Aus, you'd ask " How do you explain the ... "

I don't know if its right, I always used it, but googling for "how to explain the", you will find occurrences in many places, including:

https://medium.com/@aaronDfrank/how-to-explain-the-metaverse...

https://www.hiig.de/en/explaining-ai-explain-the-unexplainab...

Or even books like "How to Explain the Trinity"

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#26
post #16

For 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…

I can't believe you left out the interview with Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes:

https://youtu.be/wGeqoQeJj8Y

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#27

For someone wanting a bit more of this with great anecdotes, I direct you to the Mitrokhin Archive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive ) sourced pair of tomes (The Sword and the Shield (1999) and The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World (2005)). An incredible source covering more than a century of operations, predating the revolution, and spanning all continents. The first…

A strong argument in favor of rooting out ideologically unaligned thinking. Would you want a communist working in the US government? Clearly they would be far more likely to sympathize with the Soviet Union than a capitalist would.

The UK conservative party employs several ex Revolutionary Communist Party (extreme trotskyist) advisors. Sometimes, if you want a job done, these are the people who know how to get things done.

Bannon used to be a performative maoist?

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#28
Traffic analysis but applied to leave, advancement and record keeping. Second order effects indicative of first order function.

If you can obtain the telephone directory and track it over time and it has job titles you can probably reconstruct the history of IBM, which party is in power, whatever, for the institution which publishes it. And what the role and career progression is for the longterm players. What does it tell you about the short term players? Maybe as much if they come and go. I bet you could identify McKinsey hires coming and going from top 10 institutions by their name as they are attached to the CEOs office and move between roles, if you can get the phone book.

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#29
post #16

For 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…

I can't believe you left out the interview with Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes: https://youtu.be/wGeqoQeJj8Y

Hadn’t seen it myself yet, thanks for the recommendation!

Re: How to explain the KGB's success identifying CIA agents in the field (2015)

#30
post #9

So... 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).

"Why yes. I'm a big fan of slipping LSD into people's drinks and then interrogating them for hours. Say, have you tried the punch bowl yet?"
Post reply on HN