4 ms·

> A dirty little secret within the world of clandestine operations is that the majority of official-status officers (diplomatic or military cover) are known by

> A dirty little secret within the world of clandestine operations is that the majority of official-status officers (diplomatic or military cover) are known by the host country intelligence services. Do you have a citation that would support this?

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
Nope, that's why it's a "dirty little secret."
- EdwardCoffin 11y ago
  ... so how do you know, and why should I believe you?
  - tacos 11y ago
    The most valuable information never comes with a citation. Thus the derogatory term "book smart."
    - theworstshill 11y ago
      Upvoted this. Not all cases require a rush for citations to support what you're saying.
    - irl_zebra 11y ago
      It's easy to say your information is true when you say I can't look at the information and see if it's true. Not a tenable position, sir.
      - tacos 11y ago
        I didn't say "the most accurate information."
Spooky23 11y ago
Try Google. This is pretty widely known phenomena, as in anyone who has read anything about cold war espionage is aware of it. This article confirms it through a source from the former KGB. Here's a 1985 NY Times article detailing Soviet use of this ruse in Mexico: http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/23/world/mexico-city-depicted-as-a-soviet-spies-haven.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/23/world/mexico-city-depicted... Here's a 1983 NY Times article "Soviet Orders US Vice Consul Expelled as Spy": http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/13/world/soviet-orders-us-vice-consul-expelled-as-a-spy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/13/world/soviet-orders-us-vic... Key quotes from the 1983 article: >"The Soviet action against Mr. Augustenborg followed a pattern set twice earlier this year. In March, when Richard Osborne, a first secretary in the embassy's economic section, was expelled, and again in June, when Louis Thomas, an embassy attache, was ousted on spying charges, the Soviet announcements were issued promptly and said the men had been caught in the act on Moscow streets. Previously, such announcements had often been delayed or not made public at all." >"...no American diplomat had been publicly expelled since 1977, and in that case, involving Martha Peterson, a vice consul at the embassy, there was no Soviet statement until 11 months later, after the United States had announced the arrest of two Soviet employees of the United Nations caught picking up documents on antisubmarine warfare." >"The recent Soviet actions against Americans come at a time when Western counterintelligence services have stepped up their actions against Soviet agents. Nearly 100 Russians have been expelled for intelligence activities around the world ... Also in April, the United States expelled three members of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, including a military attache, Lieut. Col. Yevgeny N. Barmyantsev, who was reportedly caught retrieving what he thought were stolen American military secrets from beneath a tree in rural Maryland."
- EdwardCoffin 11y ago
  Unless I missed something, those articles just give specific examples of agents being uncovered. Nothing is given to indicate how many remained uncovered. Its a pretty long jump from examples of such to the general statement that "the majority of official-status officers" being known by their host countries.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
omni_wisdumb 11y ago
Almost all of the official covers (covert) are known. Hence they have a safety net of simply being persona-non-grata'd. It's the non-offical clandestine covers who really get screwed.
gwern 11y ago
One submission on HN a few months ago, IIRC, was a history of how the USA dealt with a subtle bugging of all the typewriters in the US embassy. Given penetrations like that, it's not much of a surprise if the USSR had known most/all of the US's spies... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray makes an interesting claim https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons-the-mi6-story-is-a-lie/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons... : > 3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our “diplomats” in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them. (I quickly tried to look it up, but there are so many mutual expulsions it would've taken too long.)

AndrewKemendo 11y ago

Nope, that's why it's a "dirty little secret."

EdwardCoffin 11y ago
... so how do you know, and why should I believe you?
- tacos 11y ago
  The most valuable information never comes with a citation. Thus the derogatory term "book smart."
  - theworstshill 11y ago
    Upvoted this. Not all cases require a rush for citations to support what you're saying.
  - irl_zebra 11y ago
    It's easy to say your information is true when you say I can't look at the information and see if it's true. Not a tenable position, sir.
    - tacos 11y ago
      I didn't say "the most accurate information."

Spooky23 11y ago

Try Google. This is pretty widely known phenomena, as in anyone who has read anything about cold war espionage is aware of it. This article confirms it through a source from the former KGB. Here's a 1985 NY Times article detailing Soviet use of this ruse in Mexico: http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/23/world/mexico-city-depicted-as-a-soviet-spies-haven.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/23/world/mexico-city-depicted... Here's a 1983 NY Times article "Soviet Orders US Vice Consul Expelled as Spy": http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/13/world/soviet-orders-us-vice-consul-expelled-as-a-spy.html http://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/13/world/soviet-orders-us-vic... Key quotes from the 1983 article: >"The Soviet action against Mr. Augustenborg followed a pattern set twice earlier this year. In March, when Richard Osborne, a first secretary in the embassy's economic section, was expelled, and again in June, when Louis Thomas, an embassy attache, was ousted on spying charges, the Soviet announcements were issued promptly and said the men had been caught in the act on Moscow streets. Previously, such announcements had often been delayed or not made public at all." >"...no American diplomat had been publicly expelled since 1977, and in that case, involving Martha Peterson, a vice consul at the embassy, there was no Soviet statement until 11 months later, after the United States had announced the arrest of two Soviet employees of the United Nations caught picking up documents on antisubmarine warfare." >"The recent Soviet actions against Americans come at a time when Western counterintelligence services have stepped up their actions against Soviet agents. Nearly 100 Russians have been expelled for intelligence activities around the world ... Also in April, the United States expelled three members of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, including a military attache, Lieut. Col. Yevgeny N. Barmyantsev, who was reportedly caught retrieving what he thought were stolen American military secrets from beneath a tree in rural Maryland."

EdwardCoffin 11y ago
Unless I missed something, those articles just give specific examples of agents being uncovered. Nothing is given to indicate how many remained uncovered. Its a pretty long jump from examples of such to the general statement that "the majority of official-status officers" being known by their host countries.
- Spooky23 11y ago

omni_wisdumb 11y ago

Almost all of the official covers (covert) are known. Hence they have a safety net of simply being persona-non-grata'd. It's the non-offical clandestine covers who really get screwed.

gwern 11y ago

One submission on HN a few months ago, IIRC, was a history of how the USA dealt with a subtle bugging of all the typewriters in the US embassy. Given penetrations like that, it's not much of a surprise if the USSR had known most/all of the US's spies... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Murray makes an interesting claim https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons-the-mi6-story-is-a-lie/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/06/five-reasons... : > 3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our “diplomats” in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them. (I quickly tried to look it up, but there are so many mutual expulsions it would've taken too long.)