Inside the KGB: An Interview with Oleg Grechenevsky

The KGB is often considered an organisation which operated solely within the USSR and an organisation whose sole purpose was to run the unions internal operations. The full extent of their reach however, is still very much unclear, and the destruction of classified documents along with the alleged ‘silencing’ of informed individuals has blurred the lines between fact, fiction and conspiracy theories which slot somewhere in between. One man who knows more than most is KGB expert, conspiracy theorist and political scientist Oleg Grechenevsky.  Mr Grechenevsky has lived within the borders of the USSR, the now Russian Federation, his whole life and has lived in Saint Petersburg, formerly Leningrad, since before the 1980’s. He has dedicated his life to studying the KGB and what he describes as the so-called ‘mafia’ operations which they enacted. Having agreed to answer my questions regarding the past of the KGB, the full extent of their operations, and the continued involvement which they have in global events, I set off on my journey to explore the inside of the KGB and the conspiracy theories which surround it.

The KGB was formed in 1954 at the end of Georgy Malenkov’s stint as President and was designed as an official state security agency to replace the like’s of the much feared Cheka. Its motto ‘Loyalty to the party – loyalty to the motherland’ signifies the absolute opposition which any threat to the stability of the USSR was to face. When asked whether or not the KGBs loyalty to the motherland was responsible for the longevity of the USSR Mr Grechenevsky responded negatively, “The KGB are certainly not responsible for the greater duration of the Soviet Union – which we must also consider lasted only seventy years, a normal human lifespan”. Instead Mr Grechenvsky believes that the organisation perpetrated its own downfall and was in part responsible “for the premature death of the Soviet empire”, as a result of its social intervention and eventual coup d’etat against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.

Upon being pressed further on whether or not he believes the KGB made a positive contribution to Russian society, Mr Grechenevsky revealed a fragment of his own cynicism; “ the main and only valuable contribution made by the KGB to Russian society? The elimination of the totalitarian Soviet Empire.”Unsure of how he came to this conclusion, Oleg clarified for me, that while he believed his own democracy was still entirely under KGB control it was clearly better than the old totalitarian ‘socialism’ pre-1991: while he recognises that the improvements are mainly for intellectuals such as himself, you would be hard pressed to deny that there has been a reduction in material deprivation for the working classes in the Russian Federation.  Yet the influences of the KGB on Russian society were not simply upon what are considered to be ‘social’ factors; they were in fact much more far-reaching than most would believe. So far-reaching in fact that they are often credited with providing former KGB captain Vladimir Putin with the power to achieve the office in which he currently sits. Yet Grechenvsky would dispute this. He in fact believes that the highlight of Putin’s career was “not only as a former KGB lieutenant but also as a secret KGB foreign intelligence officer in Dresden”. In reality, he argues, the USSR manufactured far more powerful and far more dangerous men than the current president and his role is exaggerated not only for the use of Western media, but also as a propaganda tool for the President himself. A badge of honour to show his love for the motherland.

Vladimir Putin as an operative in Germany

Grechenvsky goes further than to diminish the role of Putin: not only was he a much smaller cog in the mechanics of the organisation than some would believe, conspiracy theorist Oleg believes that the KGB employed Putin to take advantage of his “homosexual tendencies”. Clarifying further, he tells me that gay men were made to be specific targets of the KGB for the simple reason that, in a country where homosexuality is illegal, they could be “made to fulfill even the most criminal orders of his superiors”. A logical explanation at the very least, a disgusting culture of sexual exploitation at the most, Grechenevsky offers an insight into what many conspiracy theorists consider to be the most reasonable explanation for the employment of many young men into the CHEKA and subsequently the KGB.

Having spent a period of time discussing the negative aspects of the KGB and their operations, I ask Oleg if he believes the KGB were a necessary force to counteract the espionage incoming from the West. Unsurprisingly his position is clear. “The struggle against espionage and other professional work has always been of less importance to the KGB” instead the acquisition of great sums of money and their underground takeover of the Soviet empire took much greater precedence. He goes on to provide me with the details I have been waiting for; the reach of the KGB beyond the realm of the political, into the world of the criminal. The biggest profits for the organisation, he tells me, came from their involvement in European drug trafficking, arms smuggling, prostitution and racketeering. In a manner similar, he also informs me, to that proliferated by the CIA and MI5. As someone who would not profess to be a conspiracy theorist at first I’m taken aback by his words, but the more I consider the history of relations between the United Kingdom and the United States the more I start to believe that Mr Grechenvsky’s conclusions may not be all that far-fetched.

The criminal activities of the KGB during the Soviet era are not widely disputed, and while they were a state organisation their activities were not considered, at least by the west, to be entirely legal. The question remains however, as to whether or not the KGB continues to exist as an unofficial entity in Russia and across the world. Oleg seems to believe so, which has lead to him attributing them the title of ‘The KGB Mafia‘. When I asked him if the KGB were still active and if the murder of ex Cheka/KGB agent Aleksandr Litvinenko was evidence of this, his answer was short and harrowingly simple. “Yes. Of course.” Mr Grechenevsky, like myself and many others, believes that the infamous Litvinenko murder came as a result of internal struggle within the remaining KGB mafia factions.  However he didn’t stop there, instead he went on to make some significantly sweeping accusations. Grechenevsky believes that the CIA and MI5 are also involved in similar mafia-like criminal activity, in order to secretly seize power in other countries; he provides the Blair-Bush Iraq war as one such example of this.  He argues that while they may not have orchestrated the event “the government of America knew about the preparation for 9/11 – and willfully failed to prevent the massacre, to have an excuse to seize the oil field’s of Iraq”. If this accusation was original it may seem absurd, yet unfortunately it is not.  Grechenevsky believes that a large proportion of the rank and file operatives of the CIA, similar to the KGB, do not know of their illicit activities and instead they are confined to the cabinet meetings of the upper echelons. Not dissimilar, he argues, from the hierarchy of the USSR’s secret service.

The two world trade centres are hit. 9/11

It is clear that Oleg Grechenvsky is a conspiracy theorist, it is also clear that he is an expert on the inner workings of the KGB, the Cheka and the Russian government: does this mean that he is automatically correct in regards to all of the claims he makes? Certainly not. But in my eyes, and the eyes of many others, it certainly gives credence to the claims which he and many others have reiterated across the years.

Will the KGB ever come forward and reveal themselves as an influence on global events? Will the CIA and  MI5 ever reveal themselves as having some involvement in illicit activities in an attempt to clean up their act? In all honesty probably not. They are called secret services for a reason and that much has always been clear. What can be said however is that while men like Oleg Grechenevsky seek to expose the truth or a particular version of it, these organisations are far from disappearing into the mist.

Many thanks to Oleg Grechenevsky for agreeing to answer my questions for this article, his book “On the Origins of Our Democratic Regime” while in Russian, may make a very interesting read for those of you interested.

SPASIBO!

National Development: Self-Development vs External Aid

There is a common belief in contemporary society that the development of the so called “third world” is dependent solely on the governments and people of those countries, and that the external aids which exist (such as developed countries) have no responsibility or moral obligation to aid in that development.  However I would argue that within human nature is the intrinsic desire to help others whether this is through aid, trade or governmental development.

It is a saddening fact that in the 21^st Century 1% of the world’s population owns more than 40% of the world’s total wealth, while the bottom half of the population owned barely 1% of the global wealth.  This disparity is a fundamental cause of poverty in developing countries such as Zambia, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Uganda which suffer from some of the worst standards of living in the world, with low rates of literacy, poor life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality. It’s no wonder that the question of “who’s responsible for economic growth in these countries” is a one which causes high levels of debate.  Yet I would like to argue that it is not the sole responsibility of these developing countries, but the intrinsic responsibility of those countries that are wealthier to help their fellow humans reach the same standards of living.

One reason that I believe ourselves and other wealthy nations are partially responsible for the development of such countries is due to the ever widening and perpetual cycle of poverty that engulfs these countries.  By cycle of poverty I am referring to Poverty feeding poverty, just as wealth feeds wealth.  These countries are buried in their poverty, leading to an inability to develop national infrastructure; such as roads and hospitals; which leads to the difficulty of transporting people, goods and raw materials around the country, which subsequently causes poor development of trade in and out of the nation, causing low employment, low living standards, and of course more poverty. How can a country stuck in this continuing cycle of poverty possibly help itself? How can they break this cycle by themselves? Well the simple answer is, they can’t.  Intervention is required, intervention from developed countries and charitable organisations such as The Red Cross, to provide aid, training or responsible trade to help these countries develop.  Organisations such as fair-trade are a clear step in the right direction, where a group of people who recognise their responsibility to help others trade with local farmers in developing countries, to not only provide them with money for basic living, but help them to increase their production while ensuring that they are not exploited by large multi-national organisations.  By removing one of the links in the cycle of poverty we can slowly but effectively reduce the number of people who are living in horrific conditions, way below the bread line. However simply providing aid is not the answer, and without sounding horrendously cliché or embarrassingly misquoting “give a man a fish he can feed himself for a day, give a man a fishing rod he’ll feed himself for life”. Training, and increased trade (without exploitation) are two of the main ways in which wealthier nations can try and have a hugely positive impact on developing countries.  By allowing farmers, and workers in other areas to learn new skills, to practice their skills and to benefit from them monetarily, not only provides an incentive for the people to become involved in developing their country but ensures that they can become more self-sustained in the long run.

Another reason that I believe there is a responsibility for other countries to participate in the development of developing nations is the unfortunate yet very real situation of corruption.  With some of the poorest and most undeveloped countries in the world being those under a dictatorship, or falsely democratic government, it is impossible for anybody to deny a clear correlation between the two. Zimbabwe for example, is a country which I hope most of you know has been under the rule of Robert Mugabe since 1987, with his false democracy having a clear impact on the country. In 1980 the Zimbabwean dollar was worth more than the American dollar and the average income was US $950, however by 2003 the average income was less than US $400 and the economy was in an absolute free fall with inflation rates at 231 million %. There is a clear cause and effect here. The cause? Governmental corruption. The effect? Poverty, inflation and low living standards. It is clear that a country whose government is so corrupt cannot be solely responsible for its own development and that in situations such as Zimbabwe it may be imperative for international legislation to be imposed to begin aiding these countries to allow development.

To conclude I will say that this is not a clear cut debate and the wording of the motion greatly changes the arguments that must be posed.  One cannot argue convincingly that developing countries are SOLELY responsible for their own development, when there is the undeniable problem of the poverty cycle and possibly even government corruption.  It is the joint responsibility of developed and developing countries to ensure that the latter of these are able to reduce their levels of poverty, and thus increase their standard of livings. This isn’t a question of government or individual responsibility, but a question of morality and seeing that it is intrinsically right for us to help developing countries.