How plausible was a fake Sino-Soviet split?

From the CIA itself...

Nowhere in CIA were opposing views on Sino-Soviet relations more sharply exchanged, however, than those between a small special group of senior analysts chosen by the DCI explicitly for their knowledge of Communist theory and Soviet affairs, and a few heretics from OCI, ONE, and other offices. In one such meeting in 1960, the exchanges back and forth across the table took the following form.

The senior experts on Communism:

"You guys who think there's a lot of growing Sino-Soviet discord simply have 19th-century minds."

The heretics:

"What do you mean by that?"

"You think the matter between the Soviet Union and China is one largely of clashing national interests."

"Exactly."

"Well, you're wrong. You don't appreciate the fact that in Communist theory a differentiation is made between what are considered antagonistic contradictions and nonantagonistic contradictions. What we have in the present Sino-Soviet case are non-antagonistic contradictions. That's why you guys with 19th-century minds are wrong."

"Well, at least that's better than having 13th-century minds." 60

As we all subsequently learned, in 1969 these supposedly nonantagonistic contradictions came to include firefights and loss of life along China's borders with the USSR. 61

For some years beyond 1963, a few CIA officers still held that Sino-Soviet discord was a fraud, deliberately orchestrated by Moscow and Beijing to deceive the West. Most of those officers were members of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff, whose chief, James Angleton, had been convinced of such a view by a Soviet defector, Anatoly Golitzyn. That view nonetheless remained a minority interpretation within the Agency.

Okay, I think we all agree in hindsight that the Sino-Soviet split was a real thing. But just how much detachment from reality WAS required to think that it was all a hoax designed to lull the West into a false sense of optimism? Can we immediately write people like Angleton off as lunatics, or was there possibly some justification for at least entertaining the idea that Peking and Moscow were just faking their animosities?

Personally, I'd find it hard to believe that the Chinese and the Russians would be able to dupe as many people as would have to be duped to keep the charade going. In addition to world leaders and the mainstream press, they'd also have to be lying to the leaders of their sister parties around the world. Otherwise, you run the risk of those in the know blabbing it off to everyone else.

I assume that by the time the 70s roll around, it's gonna be pretty hard to continue believing that the Chinese are shipping weapons to Angola for the purpose of killing Soviet-supported fighters(including Cubans), but Brezhnev and his Chinese comrades were just laughing about it behind the scenes.

link
 
What exactly would the benefit of this charade be? You'd hinder bilateral trade between the USSR and China for...best I can come up with are some minor diplomatic/intelligence advantages.
 
What exactly would the benefit of this charade be? You'd hinder bilateral trade between the USSR and China for...best I can come up with are some minor diplomatic/intelligence advantages.

Yeah, I dunno. Maybe the West starts to think China is an ally, shares a bunch of military secrets/hardware with them, and then China turns around and gives it all to the Soviets? As you say, though, to keep up appearances, the Soviets and the Chinese would have to inflict major damage to their trade relations etc.
 
Top