Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

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

#51

Post by cafard »

petesergeant wrote: post #19
ahartmetz wrote: post #5

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.

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.

In the early and middle 1950s, my parents (and eventually I) lived in Washington, DC. My father later said that it was not hard to spot CIA employees at parties. When asked what they did, they'd get a slightly embarrassed look and say, I work for the government. (Now I wonder whether the looks were all slightly embarrassed: I'd have supposed that some of them were smug.)

The CIA did try to recruit him--it had geologists--it had more or less everybody. But it was known for cheaping out on technical staff, offering them a GS-x, then, when the scientist had left the old job and was in town, saying that the budget had been cut--which never, ever, happened in those days--and offering instead a GS-(x-2).

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

#52

Post by mathieuh »

emmelaich wrote: post #11

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

I think there is a semantic difference.

To me, "How to explain the..." is a statement of fact. "I'm going to tell you how to explain...". The "I'm going to tell you" is unwieldy for the title of an article, so it's omitted.

"How do you explain the..." is a question. Saying "I'm going to tell you how do you explain the..." sounds ungrammatical.

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

#53

Post by wink »

Daub wrote: post #9
ahartmetz wrote: post #5

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).

Queue 30min monologue about single malt whisky.

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

#54

Post by antifa »

bearmode wrote: post #46
atoav wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most anglosphere communists I know have a term for such people: tankies. And they hate them: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tankie

Maybe if you're talking about anglosphere 'communists' who follow people like Vaush online. Nothing communist about them.

No true Scotsman. V**sh is cursed/cringe/etc., but we can't exclude his fans from the label merely on the basis of his ideology being garbage/wrong/anglocentric.

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

#55

Post by eastbayjake »

boh_grey wrote: post #26
mhoad wrote: 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

And can't recommend enough Legacy of Ashes itself for people who are interested in the CIA, 20th century US history, and modern statecraft.

If you don't have time for a 20-hour read, Adam Gopnik's New Yorker piece "Are Spies More Trouble Than They're Worth?" is a good 15-minute synopsis: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/02/are-spies-more...

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

#56

Post by bearmode »

antifa wrote: post #54
bearmode wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if you're talking about anglosphere 'communists' who follow people like Vaush online. Nothing communist about them.

No true Scotsman. V**sh is cursed/cringe/etc., but we can't exclude his fans from the label merely on the basis of his ideology being garbage/wrong/anglocentric.

We can exclude his fans on the basis that they don't believe what communists believe.

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

#57

Post by ImHereToVote »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #44
riversflow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I trust these interviews with clandestine operatives as being factual?

You gotta trust someone, at some point.

Why? You have to make choices regardless of trust anyway.

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

#58

Post by HKH2 »

mathieuh wrote: post #52
emmelaich wrote: post #11

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

I think there is a semantic difference. To me, "How to explain the..." is a statement of fact. "I'm going to tell you how to explain...". The "I'm going to tell you" is unwieldy for the title of an article, so it's omitted. "How do you explain the..." is a question. Saying "I'm going to tell you how do you explain the..." sounds ungrammatical.

Yes. The problem is that the article title has a question mark after a statement.

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

#59

Post by rvba »

rippercushions wrote: post #7
ahartmetz wrote: post #5

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.

A friend of mine is a diplomat, and apparently in diplomatic circles it's common knowledge who on the other side is a spy. In Soviet times, the lowest-ranked, blandly-named "member of delegation", typically an older gentleman with a military crewcut, was invariably KGB, while in many embassies including the US the "cultural attache", a position that has minimal qualifications and has almost no real responsibilities,…

In Russian/Soviet embassy everyone is a spy, starting from the cleaner. Even most wives of random personnel are spies too.

Only the truly political functions (ambassador and his wife) are not spies per se, but in Soviet times they came from the party and in current times they come from the mafia-services clique.

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

#60

Post by rvba »

ggm wrote: post #27
monero-xmr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Mitrokhin Archive gives multiple examples of spies who became spies by rejecting their former ideology and doing a 180 degree turn. You think that those people changed, while in reality this is textbook method used by russians. Cambrige five did the same thing, they supposedly rejected their old ways. But it was all a lie.

KGB made whole fake right wing organizations to fish out real right wingers in Russia.

On a side note, it is quite clear that UK conservatives are on GRU / FSB leash. UK is now cutting military expenses due to Brexit. Someone in Moscow probably received a medal for that.

Post reply on HN