So, no.

ME: Assuming that my knowledge and opinions regarding the KGB vs. CIA War are correct, please rate the following statement as to its plausibility, fairness, and truth in its response to my statement, "The KGB has been waging disinformation, "active measures," and strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies for sixty-plus years."

The other guy: "And we've been doing the same to them. That's what intelligence agencies do."

GROK: If you are correct that the CIA was penetrated by moles Bruce Leonard Solie, Leonard V. McCoy, and Russia-born George Kisevalter, with Solie as James Angleton’s confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior; McCoy as shaper of Soviet Division reporting and leak-enabling "requirements" to the Kremlin-loyal double or triple agent the CIA thought it was handling with Kisevalter; with Kremlin-loyal GRU Lt. Col. Dmitry Polyakov (in 1962 before he "flipped" to the CIA) and KGB Major Aleksey Kulak at the FBI; with putative KGB staff officer Yuri Nosenko as a false-defector-in-place in June 1962 in Geneva and a false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S, in February 1964; with KGB Major Igor Kochnov and KGB Colonel Vitaly Yurchenko as controlled assets; with Oleg Penkovsky a tripled-back playback channel, and with the Fall of the Iron Curtain and USSR dissolution as a planned controlled restructuring (with the 1991 coup deliberately staged to fail so the KGB could retain core power), and further, that “former” KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, using his SVR, FSB, and GRU hackers, professional St. Petersburg trolls and polling data provided by Paul Manafort and GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik to Oleg Deripaska, etc., successfully installed “useful idiot” (or worse) Donald Trump as U.S. President on 20 January 2017 -- then the KGB/GRU network executed the longest, deepest, and most successful strategic deception and active-measures campaign in modern history. This would mean a multi-generational operation that penetrated U.S. counterintelligence at its core, managed the Soviet “collapse” to preserve power, and ultimately placed a preferred figure in the White House—achieving influence at the highest level of American politics while the West believed it had “won” the Cold War.

So, no, the CIA did not mount anything of comparable depth, breadth, and sustained strategic impact against the USSR/Russia.

Why the asymmetry persists under your premise

• Structural differences: Russia’s closed, authoritarian system—first Soviet, then post-Soviet under continuous security-service dominance—gave the KGB/FSB unparalleled ability to run long-term moles at the heart of CIA counterintelligence and Soviet operations, orchestrate controlled “defeats,” maintain hidden continuity of power, and deploy modern active measures (hacking, trolls, kompromat, and agent-of-influence networks) against an open, democratic target. The U.S. system’s openness made it vulnerable to such penetration and influence, while the same openness made it extraordinarily difficult for the CIA to embed equivalent long-term assets inside the KGB/FSB leadership, orchestrate a staged restructuring of the entire Russian state, or install a preferred leader inside the Kremlin.

• CIA operations against the Soviets/Russians (under your premise):

• Assets handled or reported on by compromised officers like Kisevalter and McCoy (Penkovsky as playback, Tolkachev as managed channel, etc.) operated within the adversary’s deception framework.

• Angleton’s mole hunt, guided by Solie, was steered from within.

• Later technical and covert efforts (satellite reconnaissance, support for mujahideen and Solidarity, etc.) created pressures that aligned with the planned Soviet restructuring and post-1991 continuity of power, but never achieved reciprocal deep moles inside Russian counterintelligence or the ability to shape Kremlin succession at the highest level.

• Covert action and influence: CIA programs that pressured the Soviet system contributed to the outward “end” of the USSR, yet under your premise they ultimately served as useful elements in the larger controlled narrative. There is no documented CIA equivalent of a 60+ year operation that placed moles inside the adversary’s premier counterintelligence and reporting apparatus, ran layered false defectors and triple-agents, orchestrated a managed state “collapse,” preserved intelligence-service dominance, and extended into cyber-enabled active measures that placed a preferred leader in the adversary’s presidency.

In short, even accepting your full premise — including the 2017 culmination — the CIA inflicted costs in military-technical domains and supported visible geopolitical shifts, but never matched the sustained, intimate counterintelligence penetration, strategic deception, continuity of hidden power, and direct high-level political placement that you describe. The contest was mutual and ruthless, yet profoundly asymmetric in scope, depth, and long-term control.