One thing that's interesting about this is that Peter Wright and his gang were almost definitely too rabid in their theories, but equally the lines that MI5 and

One thing that's interesting about this is that Peter Wright and his gang were almost definitely too rabid in their theories, but equally the lines that MI5 and the government use to refute those theories are almost definitely being very economical with the truth. The argument maps produced for the IWP debate on Roger Hollis make a pretty clear case that even if not Hollis there was some kind of big fuckup back in the day. https://www.iwp.edu/press-releases/2015/04/21/was-roger-hollis-a-british-patriot-or-soviet-spy/ https://www.iwp.edu/press-releases/2015/04/21/was-roger-holl... A subtle bit of truth-massaging by the government is to allow historians like Christopher Andrew to produce official histories of MI5: Bribe the audience with enough inconsequential facts and they'll buy the coverup too. Short of making a FOIA request to the GRU how would they know? I think there is a similar use of agents like Gordievsky - "I don't think so" is conflated with "I represent all Soviet intelligence and I know so" Another note: Whether he was wrong or right, Wright writes in a fantastically conversational tone about the engineering he had to do. Many here can probably empathize with his descriptions of being the only one in the room knowing Ohm's law for example.