ambassador rudolf v. perina - Association for Diplomatic Studies and ...

Q: Speaking of intelligence, we had spent millions of dollars getting intelligence about
the Soviet Union and yet we did not seem to be able to predict the complete collapse of
the system. Was there anybody you knew who was saying that the Soviet Union would
collapse?
PERINA: No. Nobody that I knew at this time suspected that the Soviet Union was going
to collapse. It seemed so out of the realm of the possible that it was not even part of any
discussion. There was one person whom I knew at this time who told me that the Soviet
Union might come apart, and his name was Paul Goble. He was an expert on Soviet
nationalities and ethnic groups. He was sort of an advisor and think tank person who was
in and out of government but he was probably the greatest expert in the U.S. on
nationality groups within the Soviet Union. He told me that there was a rise of
nationalism among all Soviet ethnic groups and a chance that this could lead to the Soviet
Union splitting apart in the not-too-distant future. Very frankly, nobody believed it, and
Paul got little attention from the government. We were all watching the top, the Kremlin,
and could not imagine that this empire would crack from below.
In retrospect, of course, the Soviet Union came apart from both the top and the bottom,
but we did not pay enough attention to the internal situation, and particularly to the
nationality issues. We focused on Kremlinology, security issues, the economy and so on,
but we clearly missed something vital that was happening within the country and that
made it so vulnerable to the changes Gorbachev initiated. The Soviet dissidents were
more aware of this, but no one took them seriously. After all, Adam Amalrik published
his book Will the Soviet Union Survive until 1984? already in 1970, but we did not see a
collapse coming even in the late 1980’s. Of course, in fairness, this is how history usually
works. If we had seen the collapse coming, the Politburo would have seen it also and
would have tried to so something about it. The collapse was not inevitable at this
particular time in history. To some degree, all momentous events are unpredictable
because otherwise there are always those who would try to stop or alter them before they
become certain.
Q: Where did you find yourself on the Gorbachev debate? Did you see him as a
reformist, a con man or what?
PERINA: My views developed over time. At first, I though he was something in between
a reformer and a con man. The two are not mutually exclusive. But I did not anticipate
that he would do the kinds of things that he did do. I did not think he would set in train
events that would make the Soviet Union come apart. Of course, he did not expect to do
those things also. But when the time came, he allowed them to happen and made the right
decisions. That is what counts. In retrospect, I think he’s an enormously important
historical figure, among the most important of our time.
Q: What about the views of Ronald Reagan on the subject? They seem to have evolved as
well.
46