Title: The Spy and the Traitor
Rating: 4 Stars
This tells the story of Oleg Gordievsky. Born in the Soviet Union to a KGB father, he was destined to join the service. While still young, he became horrified by the building of the Berlin Wall and the crushing of the Prague uprising. Believing that the USSR system was fundamentally rotten, he resolved to do what he could to bring about change. While stationed in Denmark, he allowed himself to be recruited by the English MI6.
While still spying on behalf of MI6, he rose through the KGB ranks. Not only did he provide valuable information to the West regarding KGB structures and systems, he made some key political contributions as well. He communicated the paranoia that Soviet leadership felt regarding the West’s first strike intentions (specifically Reagan’s bellicosity). He provided advice to the early summits that Western leaders had with Gorbachev.
He was just about to be take over as head of station of London (and possibly be promoted to be a KGB general) when he fell under suspicion. Called back to Moscow, he underwent severe interrogation, including being injected with some kind of truth serum. Never confessing and with the KGB not possessing enough evidence / confidence to convict him without it, he lived in a state of suspension in Moscow.
He used this time to execute an escape that MI6 had long planned for him. Despite traveling vast distances and a couple of close calls, he was able to escape to Finland, and ultimately to London.
This is all interesting, and at times, thrilling stuff.
Along with that story is an abbreviated tale of Aldrich Ames. He was a CIA spy. Deep in debt, stalled in his career and bitter about it, alcoholic, he actively sought out the KGB to spy on their behalf. He had no notions of a higher calling. He wanted money and lots of it. Even with his mediocre career, he was in a position to view all Soviet counterintelligence agents. He was able to provide the names of all assets that the CIA had in the Soviet Union. Many were caught, tortured, and executed. Gordievsky probably missed that fate by a matter of days.
Although this book focused significantly more on Gordievsky than Ames, it does bring about an interesting question. The book is called The Spy and the Traitor. That implies that one is the spy and the other is the traitor. Which is which? Macintyre clearly makes a bid that Gordievsky is the spy while Ames betrayed his country.
The book would have been more interesting if that question had been treated a little more seriously. I would have loved to have read a more fleshed out biography of Ames. Macintyre puts his thumb on the scales by portraying Gordievsky as a principled hero and Ames as the mustache twirling villain. By doing so, it makes the story much more of a conventional one of good triumphing over evil.
If you read a bit between the lines, I would say that reality is a bit more complicated. Both Gordievsky and Ames first married to advance their careers and then later discarded their wives and married for love. They both actively took steps to betray their country that they swore an oath to. By the time of Gordievsky’s escape, he was nearly continually drunk. Although Gordievsky ostensibly betrayed his country to destroy the socialist system, the fact is that MI6 started a savings account in his name and added to it. After he escaped to London, he was put up in a house with constant security. This continues today even into his 80s. He was treated with great respect and was consulted by powerful people. For someone that apparently had no ambition beyond destroying a system, he seemed to have landed in a pretty profitable spot.
The Soviet Union fell. Gordievsky is living a comfortable life in retirement. Ames will die in federal prison.
History is written by the victors. This has never seemed more true than while reading this. It’s clear that Gordievsky cooperated extensively with Macintyre. His statements and actions are presented in the best possible light while Ames is presented at best as a two dimensional character.
As usual, whenever I read a spy history, I walk away from it wondering if spying is really worth it. Certainly a country needs a robust security apparatus to protect its own secrets. What is the benefit of sending spies out to steal other countries’ secrets or to try to double up other countries’ spies? It seems as if this complexity leads to ruin. While Gordievsky was a treasure to the British, he was a nightmare for the Soviets. Similarly, Kim Philby was a treasure to the Soviets and a nightmare for the British.
It’s still not clear to me that spies are a net strategic positive for any country.
dorkenstein 