After reading a few reviews, all who voted in favor of Golitsyn, I thought I would add a little information to clarify.
There is much ado about Golitsyn's "predictions" everywhere, on the web, in print and in media. This leads one to believe that there is chance involved in a sort of political prognostication; however, this is not the case, and he clearly states this, time and time again, in both "New Lies for Old" and "The Perestroika Deception."
Golitsyn's analysis of Russian activity is based upon a new analytical paradigm. This paradigm grew as a result to changes in policy which were designed to give false results to Western analysts stuck in the now outdated dogma.
Glasnost and perestroika were designed, according to Golitsyn, as politic tools to perform a sort of prestidigitation to lull and bedazzle Soviet opponents, while the true intentions and actions happened in the background.
History has proven Golitsyn's analysis to be extremely accurate. However, there seems to be a concerted effort to completely ignore his strategic analytical model, much like it happened in the 1980's and 1990's. This, to me, indicates that his model for interpreting data is reliable and bears consideration. It is through this model that he made "predictions," all which have either come to pass or will in the future (if his prediction rate is anything by which to judge the rest). For those that would like to understand seemingly esoteric or difficult to understand political moves, Golitsyn's work might help to shed light on the subject.
