Oleg Gordievsky, Britain's most valuable Cold War spy inside the KGB, dies at 86
Born in Moscow in 1938, Mr. Gordievsky joined the KGB in the early 1960s, serving in Moscow, Copenhagen, and London, where he became KGB station chief.
He was one of several Soviet agents who grew disillusioned with the USSR after Moscow's tanks crushed the Prague Spring freedom movement in 1968, and was recruited by Britain's MI6 in the early 1970s.
Advertisement
The 1990 book 'KGB: The Inside Story,' co-authored by Mr. Gordievsky and British intelligence historian Christopher Andrew, says Mr. Gordievsky came to believe that 'the Communist one-party state leads inexorably to intolerance, inhumanity and the destruction of liberties.' He decided that the best way to fight for democracy 'was to work for the West.'
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
He worked for British intelligence for more than a decade during the chilliest years of the Cold War.
In 1983, Mr. Gordievsky warned the U.K. and U.S. that the Soviet leadership was so worried about a nuclear attack by the West that it was considering a first strike. As tensions spiked during a NATO military exercise in Germany, Mr. Gordievsky helped reassure Moscow that it was not precursor to a nuclear attack.
Soon after, President Reagan began moves to ease nuclear tensions with the Soviet Union.
In 1984, Mr. Gordievsky briefed soon-to-be Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ahead of his first visit to the U.K. — and also briefed the British on how to approach the reformist Gorbachev. Gorbachev's meeting with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was a huge success.
Ben Macintyre, author of a book about the double agent, 'The Spy and the Traitor,' told the BBC that Mr. Gordievsky managed 'in a secret way to launch the beginning of the end of the Cold War.'
Advertisement
Most senior Soviet spy to defect
Mr. Gordievsky was called back to Moscow for consultations in 1985, and decided to go despite fearing — correctly — that his role as a double agent had been exposed. He was drugged and interrogated but not charged, and Britain arranged an undercover operation to spirit him out of the Soviet Union — smuggled across the border to Finland in the trunk of a car.
He was the most senior Soviet spy to defect during the Cold War. Documents declassified in 2014 showed that Britain considered Mr. Gordievsky so valuable that Thatcher sought to cut a deal with Moscow: If Mr. Gordievsky's wife and daughters were allowed to join him in London, Britain would not expel all the KGB agents he had exposed.
Moscow rejected the offer, and Thatcher ordered the expulsion of 25 Russians, despite objections from Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe, who fared it could scuttle relations just as Gorbachev was easing the stalemate between Russia and the West.
Moscow responded by expelling 25 Britons, sparking a second round in which each side kicked out six more officials. But, despite Howe's fears, diplomatic relations were never severed.
Mr. Gordievsky's family was kept under 24-hour KGB surveillance for six years before being allowed to join him in England in 1991. He lived the rest of his life under U.K. protection in the quiet town of Godalming, 40 miles southwest of London.
Death not being treated as suspicious
In Russia, Mr. Gordievsky was sentenced to death for treason. In Britain, Queen Elizabeth II appointed him a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George in 2007 for 'services to the security of the United Kingdom.' It is the same accolade held by the fictional British spy James Bond.
Advertisement
In 2008, Mr. Gordievsky claimed he had been poisoned and spent 34 hours in a coma after taking tainted sleeping pills given to him by a Russian business associate.
The risks he faced were underscored in 2018 when former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned and seriously sickened with a Soviet-made nerve agent in the English city of Salisbury, where he had been living quietly for years.
The Surrey Police force said officers were called to an address in Godalming on March 4, where 'an 86-year-old man was found dead at the property.'
It said counterterrorism officers are leading the investigation, but 'the death is not currently being treated as suspicious' and 'there is nothing to suggest any increased risk to members of the public.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In African universities, Russia's war against Ukraine finds new supporters
The halls of academia have long been considered sanctuaries of critical thinking, intellectual discourse, and the pursuit of truth. Universities across the globe pride themselves on fostering environments where diverse perspectives can be examined, debated, and understood through the lens of scholarly rigor. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has exposed a troubling trend within certain African academic institutions: a marked bias toward Russian narratives that undermines the very principles of academic integrity and intellectual honesty that universities claim to uphold. This bias is not merely an abstract concern about geopolitical alignment; it represents a fundamental betrayal of the educational mission that universities exist to fulfill. When academic institutions abandon objectivity in favor of political positioning, they fail their students, their communities, and the broader pursuit of knowledge that defines higher education. The stakes could not be higher as universities shape the minds of future leaders, policymakers, and citizens who will navigate an increasingly complex global landscape. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. Across various African universities, a concerning pattern has emerged since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rather than maintaining the scholarly distance necessary for objective analysis, numerous institutions have embraced narratives that closely align with Russian state propaganda. This manifests in multiple ways: academic conferences that present one-sided perspectives on the conflict, research publications that uncritically amplify Moscow's justifications for the war, and classroom discussions that frame the invasion through the lens of Western imperialism rather than examining it as a clear violation of international law. Read also: Ukraine must look beyond the EU for its agricultural future The roots of this bias are complex and multifaceted. Historical ties between the Soviet Union and various African nations during the Cold War era have created lingering sympathies that some academics appear unable to separate from contemporary realities. Additionally, legitimate grievances about Western colonial history and ongoing concerns about neocolonialism have been exploited to create false equivalencies between Russian aggression and Western influence. Some academics have conflated criticism of Western policies with support for Russian actions, creating a dangerous intellectual blind spot. Economic factors also play a role. Russian investment in African educational infrastructure, scholarship programs, and research partnerships have created institutional relationships that some universities appear reluctant to jeopardize through objective analysis of Russian actions. This economic dependence has compromised academic freedom, creating situations where financial considerations override scholarly integrity. The influence of Russian state media and disinformation campaigns cannot be overlooked. RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik have specifically targeted African audiences with sophisticated propaganda operations designed to shape public opinion. Unfortunately, some academics have proven susceptible to these narratives, either through genuine belief or through a misguided sense that amplifying Russian perspectives represents intellectual diversity. When universities abandon objectivity, the consequences extend far beyond the ivory tower. Students who receive biased education are ill-equipped to understand complex global issues, make informed decisions as citizens, or contribute meaningfully to policy discussions. They graduate with skewed worldviews that may influence their professional and personal choices for decades to come. The credibility of African scholarship suffers when institutions are perceived as politically motivated rather than academically rigorous. This damages the reputation of African universities in international academic circles, potentially limiting collaboration opportunities, research partnerships, and the mobility of African scholars. When African academics present papers at international conferences that uncritically repeat Russian talking points, they undermine their own credibility and that of their institutions. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. Perhaps most importantly, bias in academia contributes to the broader information warfare that authoritarian regimes wage against democratic values and international law. Universities that should serve as bastions of critical thinking instead become unwitting participants in propaganda campaigns designed to undermine global stability and human rights. The situation becomes particularly problematic when considering the humanitarian dimensions of Russia's war against Ukraine. Hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure have been deliberately targeted by Russian forces, creating a refugee crisis that has displaced millions of people. When universities fail to acknowledge these realities or attempt to justify them through geopolitical frameworks, they implicitly endorse violence against civilians and violations of international humanitarian law. African universities must recommit to their fundamental mission of pursuing truth through rigorous scholarship rather than serving as vehicles for political propaganda. This transformation requires several concrete steps. First, universities must establish clear guidelines for faculty regarding the difference between legitimate academic analysis and political advocacy. While scholars should be free to examine controversial topics from multiple perspectives, they must do so within frameworks that respect evidence, logic, and established principles of international law. Second, African universities must diversify their funding sources and partnership arrangements to reduce dependence on any single country or ideological bloc. The current situation, where some institutions appear reluctant to criticize Russian actions due to financial relationships, represents an unacceptable compromise of academic independence. Read also: Hiding in plain sight — how Russia's cultural centers continue to operate in US, Europe despite espionage claims Third, universities must invest in media literacy and critical thinking education for both faculty and students. The susceptibility of some academics to Russian disinformation campaigns reveals significant gaps in the ability to evaluate sources, identify propaganda techniques, and distinguish between credible and manipulated information. Fourth, African universities must strengthen their commitment to international academic standards and peer review processes. When scholars publish work that fails to meet basic standards of evidence and argumentation, it reflects poorly on the entire African academic community. Rigorous peer review can help ensure that African scholarship maintains the quality necessary for international respect and collaboration. The pro-Russian bias evident in some African universities represents more than just a misguided political position; it constitutes a surrender of intellectual independence to foreign propaganda. This is particularly ironic given that many of these same institutions pride themselves on their commitment to African independence and self-determination. True intellectual independence requires the courage to analyze situations objectively, regardless of political pressures or historical sympathies. It means acknowledging uncomfortable truths about allies while maintaining the ability to critique opponents fairly. Most importantly, it means refusing to sacrifice scholarly integrity for political convenience. African universities have a proud tradition of intellectual leadership, from their role in anti-colonial movements to their contributions to post-independence development. This legacy is endangered when institutions abandon their commitment to truth in favor of political positioning. The current moment represents a critical test of whether African higher education will live up to its historical role as a force for enlightenment and progress. The stakes extend beyond the immediate question of how to analyze Russia's war against Ukraine. Universities that compromise their integrity on this issue signal their willingness to subordinate academic standards to political considerations more broadly. This has implications for everything from scientific research to economic analysis to social policy development. African universities stand at a crossroads. They can continue down the path of political bias, sacrificing their integrity for short-term political or economic gains, or they can lead by example by recommitting to the principles of scholarly objectivity and intellectual honesty that define higher education at its best. The choice is not merely about how to analyze one particular conflict; it is about the fundamental purpose and character of African higher education. Universities that choose bias over objectivity risk becoming irrelevant to serious academic discourse and ineffective in their mission to educate future leaders. The world needs African universities that can contribute meaningfully to global conversations about complex issues. This requires institutions that maintain high scholarly standards, resist political pressure, and commit themselves to the pursuit of truth regardless of where it leads. Read also: Can South Africa lead the charge for nuclear safety in Ukraine? Submit an Opinion Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent. We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
6 youngest NATO countries as of 2025
NATO is one of the most important security partnerships in modern history. The group standa as more than just a military alliance; it is a collective security guarantee in an unstable global context. Business Insider Africa presents the youngest NATO countries. This list is courtesy of Global Firepower. Sweden is the latest country to join the 76-year-old coalition. Article 5, a collective self-defense clause, is important to the alliance because it specifies that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. This strong commitment deters aggression and reassures weaker nations under NATO's cover. In a period of rising geopolitical tensions, cyber threats, terrorism, and assertive military actions by powers like as Russia and China, NATO offers its members strategic depth. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, albeit targeting a non-NATO state, demonstrated to member nations how important NATO's security structure is. The eastern flank countries, including Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania, feel more confident knowing they are not alone in the issue. NATO also facilitates joint military training, intelligence sharing, and rapid response by coordinating defense plans. For smaller governments with limited defense expenditures, NATO membership provides access to advanced capabilities, technology, and logistics that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. Beyond defense, NATO aims to promote unity among democratic states. It represents a shared commitment to stability, the rule of law, and peace. As the world evolves, NATO's ability to adapt by addressing hybrid warfare, cybersecurity, and space security shows its continued relevance. For its members, NATO represents solidarity, protection, and influence in global security issues. Its significance today is not only military, but also political: guaranteeing that democratic states stand together in the face of common difficulties. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed on April 4, 1949, in the aftermath of World War II. Its founding was a watershed moment in international relations, establishing a military alliance dedicated to safeguarding peace, stability, and collective security in a rapidly divided world. With that said, here's a list of the oldest NATO countries according to data from Global Firepower. 6 youngest NATO countries as of 2025 Rank Country Date joined Years as a member state 1. Sweden March 7, 2024 1 2. Finland April, 4, 2023 2 3. North Macedonia March, 27, 2020 5 4. Montenegro June, 5, 2017 8 5. Albania April, 1, 2009 16 6. Croatia April, 1, 2009 16
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
NATO Seeks to Include Ukraine Funds in New Spending Target
NATO allies will consider allowing contributions to Ukraine's defense to be included in the new spending target alliance members are expected to adopt at a leaders' summit later this month. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will also propose working toward eliminating defense trade barriers, according to a preliminary draft of the summit declaration seen by Bloomberg. The draft will likely change before the final version is agreed to at the meeting in The Hague.
