Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games

by Tennent H. Bagley

Chosen by William Safire in the New York Times to be the publishing sleeper-seller of the year for 2007.
In this rapid-paced book, a former CIA chief of Soviet bloc counterintelligence breaks open the mysterious case of KGB officer Yuri Nosenko’s 1964 defection to the United States. Still a highly controversial chapter in the history of Cold War espionage, the Nosenko affair has inspired debate for more than forty was Nosenko a bona fide defector with the real information about Lee Harvey Oswald’s stay in Soviet Russia, or was he a KGB loyalist, engaged in a complex game of deception?
As supervisor of CIA operations against the KGB at the time, Tennent H. Bagley directly handled Nosenko’s case. This insider knowledge, combined with information gleaned from dozens of interviews with former KGB adversaries, places Bagley in a uniquely authoritative position. He guides the reader step by step through the complicated operations surrounding the Nosenko affair and shatters the comfortable version of events the CIA has presented to the public. Bagley unveils not only the KGB’s history of merciless and bloody betrayals but also the existence of undiscovered traitors in the American camp. Shining new light on the CIA-KGB spy wars, he invites deeper thinking about the history of espionage and its implications for the intelligence community today.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Espionage, Audiobook, War, Russia, Biography

336 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2007

Reviews

[AC · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating look at KGB spy methods written by the man who was Nosenko's handler. Bagley was (and remains) convinced that Nosenko was a plant. The CIA eventually overturned this position, and (according Bagley) smeared his handlers in the process. So Bagley wrote this book to clear his name and 'prove' that he was right all along. And he makes a very convincing case for himself. In the process, the CIA is convicted of incompetence, self-delusion, and of being seriously outplayed by the KGB all during the Cold War. I'm in no position to judge, but the book was strongly argued, and offered a detailed glimpse into the 'games', 'moles', and other devices used by the KGB -- from 1917 onwards. This book, I must add, is timely given what has occurred in the US in the past couple of years.

[Paige · Rating 1 out of 5]

1.5/5

I picked out this book thinking it was a comprehensive history of Cold War era espionage and counterintelligence. That isn't entirely what I got.

The thing about this book is that it's quite specific. It's about one agent (the author), his history leading up to joining the CIA, and someone called Noshenko, who defected from the Soviet Union. Eventually, the author had some aspersions cast on his honor or something, and he either resigned or was fired. (Honestly couldn't tell you, since I didn't make it to the end of the book).

The Noshenko defection does sound like it was a big deal at some point in time, but I had no previous knowledge of it, so I was mostly wondering why I should care.

Disorganized would be a mild way to put things. The narrative flipped and twisted and veered through time and space, and it was difficult to understand or retain things because as soon as I got the hang of what was going on, there was another tangent.

Bagley comes across as a bitter, angry, disillusioned grouch with a superiority complex and "told you so" attitude. The audiobook version I had was read by the author, and I decided to give up around the time he started chuckling while maligning the reputation of another former agent.

Another thing, and this may just be splitting hairs but... WHO USES THE WORD "PENETRATE" THAT OFTEN??? It was completely unnecessary and honestly distracting.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is rather a convoluted pathway that has led me to this book. Initially I must confess to my rather obsessive interest in the political assassinations of the 1960's, particularly the JFK case. In reading of Kennedy's killing I was studying John Newman's multi volume series, ('Into the Storm' Vol III). Newman was investigating the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA 'dangle' when he defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 in an attempt to flush out a mole within CIA. I communicated with Newman over the internet to ask him what had convinced him that there was a mole within the U.S. intelligence agency. He referred me to the late Tennent Bagley's publications, this one and 'Spymaster', published in 2013, which I have yet to read.
'Spy Wars' (2007) has its focus on the Soviet KGB defector Yuri Nosenko, who 'came out of the cold' in early 1964. Among the many implausible snippets of information that Tennent 'Pete' Bagley detected while debriefing the Soviet spy was the claim that he was personally involved with Oswald when he had supposedly defected in '59. Bagley held the opinion that Nosenko was a KGB 'plant', however, after years of interrogation and CIA reviews, the agency as well as the FBI chose to believe the Russian.
Bagley served decades in Soviet Bloc counterintelligence for CIA and 'Spy Wars' contains not just a fascinating memoir of Cold War intrigue, but a very interesting and informed history of aggressive Soviet counterintelligence and security services which began in 1917.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Golitsyn, Nosenko. Nosenko, Golitsyn. Who to believe? Are both of them double agents? Is our intelligence community riddled with Soviet moles to this day? Did the Cold War ever end? I'm not sure how much of this to believe, but apparently the Cold War is like one of those MC Escher staircases that has no discernible beginning or end, and in fact actually loops around all over itself through space-time until your head explodes. This book is a great read if only because it is frighteningly paranoid, and seemingly justified. Tennent Bagley was a CIA agent who spent a lot of time with the legendary (for multiple reasons) James Jesus Angleton. Anyone who saw and enjoyed The Good Shepherd or the recent TNT mini-series The Company should really read this book, and revel in the real-life characters parts of those movies were based on. Whether you buy the author's claims or not doesn't matter; it is a startling insight into the games played by intelligence agencies regardless of its veracity. The truly scary part is that either this is true, and these people play these games, or the story isn't true, and Bagley is playing these games right now trying to distract us all. Either option is unnerving.

NC

[Sarah · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are so many things wrong with this book, I'm not sure where to begin. I guess the worst thing about the book is that it's very hard to follow. The author throws out a lot of names and dates in rapid succession and I just couldn't really follow all of it. A lot of the time I felt like I was just skimming the text, something I never do. But I pressed on hoping that it would all come together in the end. Unfortunately all that was revealed in the end was that the author is a bitter former CIA agent who has been accused of being paranoid and delusional and he has written this book in a (poor) attempt to vindicate himself. I think maybe the only people that could follow what he's talking about would be his accusers, but I'm sure they already know more details than he provided in the book. Which leads me to my other point, that I'm never pleased when a book is trying to persuade me of a side of things and its obvious to me that they are skimping on telling me the other side of the issue. This immediately turns me off and makes me doubt their version of the story.

Instead of reading this book, I recommend reading Spycraft: The Secret History of the CIA's Spytechs, from Communism to al-Qaeda (Hardcover).

[Zack · Rating 3 out of 5]

This may be the most oozing of bitterness book I have ever read. I have no idea if Yuri Nosenko was a bonafide defector or a double agent. I think the truth to that is either lost to history or locked away deep in some SVR/GRU vault somewhere and unlikely to ever come out.

But this book seemed primarily to exist to lash out at Bagley's colleagues and those who came after him and disagreed with his view.

The fact that Nosenko never "broke" after years of detention in what amounted to solitary confinement should maybe have made Bagley reassess his convictions. Bagley even admits they planned to tell Nosenko he failed the first polygraph, regardless of what happened, to try to throw him off balance. Since the polygraph is a bunch of bullshit anyway, trying to do things like add the "brain wave reader" on top of going into it with their minds made up would seem to me to make it even less reliable than to start with. He notes that Solie's follow-up discounted the polygraph results due to the above, and Bagley seems somehow shocked the results and Bagley's reading of them were not accepted as gospel.

Page 214 claims that evidence against Nosenko was removed from the file as part of a cover-up. That seems a bit far-fetched. There is a footnote linking to another book to read about this, but it seems impossible to know if things taken were actually "original" evidence or simply the narrative of officers that was perhaps based on inappropriately done investigations. On the next page, Bagley notes that Hart wanted to interview him to know why Bagley claimed eight years prior that bad consequences might flow from Nosenko's release. Bagley refused to meet once he realized that Hart's, "aim was not to get at the truth but to find a way to clear Nosenko." It seems odd to not share your concerns with someone exploring the case. Is it not possible that clearing Nosenko was a path to truth? Bagley seemed to have a deep desire to only meet others with his same confirmation bias. The irony is that the next paragraph has Bagley complaining that Hart did not even interview others who investigated Nosenko and agreed with Bagley's view. You can't refuse an interview and then complain that nobody with your viewpoint is being talked to.

Bagley also has a habit of hinting at our outright claiming that there was an incredibly senior mole at CIA that Nosenko was sent over to distract from. First, to claim that a former Cold War enemy from the KGB would outright admit it seems like a stretch. Page 236 has an unnamed former KGB guy indicating there was a high-level, never uncovered mole at CIA. To not name this person, and giving no indication this person was even named secretly to CIA, seems like a betrayal to Bagley's country.

Bagley seemed to not have a lot of self-awareness. That he could ponder in the Appendix, why "we fall prey to hoaxes, deceptive tricks.... [and]lies....that seem obvious to others less emotional or less involved?" and not recognize that this entire book exists because of his half-century old bitterness at being on the wrong side of a bureaucratic decision is kind of funny. I do hope that writing this all helped Bagley find peace since he passed away not too many years after its publication.

One of my favorite spots in the book was a footnote (#23 for chapter 20) where Bagley notes that in Hart's review of the file, Hart found a hand-written note by Bagley of ways to resolve the issue that included killing Nosenko. Bagley says it was clearly just a way to amuse himself and not to be taken seriously, and he seems very bothered that Hart would discuss then when Bagley was brought up in a congressional hearing. I personally think even joking around about murdering the guy you kept in prison-like conditions for 3+ years is probably worth noting if your objectivity is brought into question.

Ultimately, I think Nosenko was likely a legitimate defector. Even separating Bagley's venom and personal distaste for those who disagreed with him, I do not think this all adds up. Bagley would have you believe there was an extremely highly-placed mole at CIA that has, to this day, never been uncovered. Okay, lets run with that. Lets also assume that CIA, like any large bureaucracy, would want to avoid acknowledging this so as to avoid the embarrassment. So CIA looks the other way and accepts Nosenko's lies, thus causing this unknown mole to be protected. There are some serious holes in this theory. One, to what end? What huge damage was done during this time-frame that is still unaccounted for? Or, lets pretend that this super top secret mole existed to be in place in the event of World War III or something like that, and that is why no action was actually taken. On a practical level, that means the mole was pointless.

But lets give the most generous version to Bagley of this massive conspiracy covering up damage to CIA or American interests writ large. Why would a bum the proportion of Nosenko, in Bagley's descriptions of him, be entrusted for this important role? Bagley seems to imply Nosenko was either a former convict or maybe low level prison guard somewhere in the Soviet Union. He had hastily covered up tattoos and spoke in a manner associated with the lower strata of society, per Bagley. He was ill-equipped to answer the most obvious and basic questions about KGB. If Nosenko's task was so important, and distracting from whatever the real unknowable conspiracy was, why was it entrusted to this dilettante? Bagley even devotes chapters to describing the amazing and aggressive counter-intelligence efforts of the Soviet Union. It is some of the most compelling reading of the whole book. I am supposed to believe that this organization that ran roughshod over Nazi Germany's best spy efforts, that set up entire fake anti-Soviet resistance movements throughout Poland just to catch collaborators, that basically seemed to spare no expense or effort or sacrifice to win whatever point they were going for, I am supposed to believe that this same organization sent out this country bumpkin to protect its super duper crazy important and to-this-day unknown CIA mole? Sounds like a load of bullocks to me.

[Alexander · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a truly disappointing book that I barely got through. I agree with a previous reviewer. It was hard to follow, disorganized, and at the end of the day was one-man's opinion on what happened. I really cannot recommend this book to anyone.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

For a real taste of the world of spies I recommend taking a look at Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games by Tennent H. Bagley. The author is a former CIA member in charge of Soviet bloc counterintelligence and this book is focused on the events surrounding the case of a KGB officer's defection to the United States. Yuri Nosenko approached Americans with potentially useful inside information about Lee Harvey Oswald and his stay in Russia, Soviet espionage against the West, and even names of active Russian spies operating in America. The author, as head of counterintelligence for the Soviet bloc, took this case on personally and immediately found discrepancies in Nosenko's story that seemed to change over time during a series of interviews. Of course the concern was that he may have been an intentional plant by the Russians to act as a double agent to feed back inside information about American CIA and counterintelligence programs. Much of the information he provided was confirmed as accurate but some things that he should have knowledge of because of his position within the KGB he claimed to know nothing about. Despite some inconsistencies in his statements, Nosenko seemed to be protected from higher ups in the CIA to the frustration of the author and others assigned to this case. Today there is still uncertainty about Nosenko's true nature. Excellent look into the inner workings of the CIA, KGB, and counterintelligence operations generally with some behind the scenes details about some well-known spy operations. If you like snooping, and who doesn't, you'll like this book!

[Elena Chavez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall, it was a fun book to read, but I do have to agree with reviewers pointing out that it felt like a collection of facts/incidents/names/dates that were hard to line up in some cases. A lot of context was lacking for me, but I am also new to this genre and know little about the subject. The author came across not as a story teller, but rather a fact reviewer. This was pointed out in the introduction, so no surprises. What the book did though was to spur my interest in this topic, I definitely will be looking up other literature to better understand the Cold War spy networks, etc. For those reasons, I would caution the beginners against picking this book as one's first read.

[Tomasz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bagley's bitterness towards his CIA bosses is understandable, but still he fails to argue his thesis convincingly, tripping over small stuff - ironic, considering what he writes regarding Nosenko. It's astounding that a supposedly fluent Russian speaker and the Yale University Press collaborated in publishing a book with so many spelling errors in Russian words, for instance.

Was Nosenko a plant? Probably, I can't imagine a tattoed senior intelligence officer in the Soviet Bloc. Does this book prove this? Hardly.

[Abby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting. Provides another prospective to the dealings surrounding cia / kgb agents in the 60s and 70s. The author is very intelligent and knowledgeable. I am thoroughly convinced of his reasoning. given that, it is difficult to know at which level the deception starts. It is a very complicated game that relies upon crude gullibility. There is a clear winner here.

[J. P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bagley's account of the true Nosenko case and other stories surrounding it is grossly compelling. As someone who is interested in, but retains little information of, Cold War intrigue and Communist/Soviet Russia, this book is an easy read with potential for deeper academic enjoyment from the extensive appendix and sources. Highly recommend to any fans of the spy genre.

[Steven Yenzer · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a deeply personal story, and as such it provides a perspective I haven't gotten from other nonfiction spy books I've read recently. But Bagley also has a gigantic ax to grind and spends pretty much the whole latter half of the book grinding away, to the detriment of his story.

[Pete Zilla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting story about spy vs spy during the Cold War. Useful look into counterintelligence in action.

[Vincent Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

The books every spy wannabe needs to read. The delusions that they could be a spy satisfies their quest.

In this rapid-paced book, a former CIA chief of Soviet bloc counterintelligence breaks open the mysterious case of KGB officer Yuri Nosenko's 1964 defection to the United States. Still a highly controversial chapter in the history of Cold War espionage, the Nosenko affair has inspired debate for more than forty years: was Nosenko a bona fide defector with the real information about Lee Harvey Oswald's stay in Soviet Russia, or was he a KGB loyalist, engaged in a complex game of deception? As supervisor of CIA operations against the KGB at the time, Tennent H. Bagley directly handled Nosenko's case. This insider knowledge, combined with information gleaned from dozens of interviews with former KGB adversaries, places Bagley in a uniquely authoritative position. He guides the reader step by step through the complicated operations surrounding the Nosenko affair and shatters the comfortable version of events the CIA has presented to the public. Bagley unveils not only the KGB's history of merciless and bloody betrayals but also the existence of undiscovered traitors in the American camp. Shining new light on the CIA-KGB spy wars, he invites deeper thinking about the history of espionage and its implications for the intelligence community today.

[Nativeabuse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Based on the title I thought that this was going to cover multiple spy problems, but it focuses in on one specific Nosenko case. This didn't really bother me much though.

The book itself was turning out to be a pretty rivetting story for the first 50-100 pages(I stopped reading at like 130) But you can just really feel that this guy is being so one sided with this right from the very beginning.

I hate reading about biased history reporting. It is really one of the things that gets under my skin. All historical account books should try and be as unbiased as humanly possible. When reading this you can tell instantly that there is a lot to this story that this guy is leaving out, the rest of the CIA people are not complete morons like he seems to want to imply and they probably have very good reasons for believing him. I feel like the fact that Nosenko can't remember every single date and all of the details exactly is all this guy has to work with, and that could easily be chalked up to this guy just not having the best memory!

Could have been a good book.

[Benjamin Gordon · Rating 2 out of 5]

What could have been a gripping pageturner takes what is on its face a very interesting topic and is instead plodding and difficult to read. I didn't know anything about the Nosenko case before reading it, and liked that the author argued persuasively for his interpretation of the case in his book, and that he went to the effort to make sure his version of the tale was published in the public arena. The book, unfortunately, could use more organization -- less jumping around in CIA and KGB history, and less repetition.

[Alistair Rae · Rating 2 out of 5]

what was pitched as a review of Cold War human intelligence and counter intelligence turned into a polemic on a single, albeit contentious, case.

Bagley seeks to clear his name and puts together a detailed case for his interpretation. in doing so he undermines his position by developing a complex and far reaching hypothesis around the treatment of the KGB by the CIA.

not an easy read, but some illuminating detail on human source handling, and the hall of mirrors that is CI.

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating behind-the-scenes look at spying during the cold war from someone intimately involved in the practice. This would have received five stars had the chronology been a bit more consistent. Otherwise, well written with information previously classified. It almost read as a spy novel and would make an intriguing film.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought the book was interesting, but I had to quit about 50% of the way through it. I kept getting confused with all the names the author was introducing and got frustrated. It could have been because I was listening to it in my car instead of reading it.

[Tom Reynolds · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fairly interesting, especially in light of recent events. It is a difficult and ry read at times, especially with all the names and people introduced, but an interesting piece of history nonetheless.

[Sage · Rating 3 out of 5]

GLBT interest tag - the villain Soviet agent claimed a history of using himself as a honey trap, seducing and then blackmailing American men into spying for the USSR. Which would have made for a far sexier book.

[Baco · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little dry and repetitive, and I wish it covered more than just the Nosenko affair, but there's some really interesting detail here about defections and deceptions, and some stunning detective work.

[Jahan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tired of it

[Karen Rafferty · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is not well written; there is a lot of repetition of information. The. inside peak of the CIA with its infighting and the history of Cold War intelligence was fascinating.

[Rebecka · Rating 4 out of 5]

Would have appreciated even more insight into how we can ensure that our government does not make mistakes like this again.

[Ryan Harvey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting story but too technical for the lay reader to follow. If you work for the CIA you will probably really enjoy this book.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is interesting to hear the stories of what both sides were doing to gather intelligence.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

intersting

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read, nothing too heavy. Easy to follow.