Conversation so far:
Who criticized Richard Pipes' approach?
Criticism of Pipes's interpretation of the events of 1917 has come mostly from "revisionist" Soviet historians.
Who was Richard Pipes?
The writings of Richard Pipes have provoked criticism in the scholarly community, for example in The Russian Review.
What was notable about his approach?
Pipes' critics argued that his historical writings perpetuated the Soviet Union as "evil empire" narrative.
How did Pipes answer his critics?
Pipes, in his turn - following the demise of the USSR - has charged the revisionists with skewing their research.
What was Pipes' advice regarding the USSR?
He has also stated that their attempt at "history from below" only obfuscated the fact that "Soviet citizens were the helpless victims of a totalitarian regime.
How did the CIA view Pipes?
CANNOTANSWER.
How did others in the CIA view Pipes?
CANNOTANSWER.
Are there any other interesting aspects about this article?
Among members of this school, Lynne Viola and Sheila Fitzpatrick claim that Pipes has focused too narrowly on intellectuals as causal agents.
What was the result of this narrow focus on intellectuals?
Peter Kenez (a one-time PhD student of Pipes') argued that Pipes has approached Soviet History as a prosecutor.

Question: What else can you tell me about Peter Kenez?
Self-contained rewrite: Aside from the fact that he's a one-time PhD student of Richard Pipes what else can you tell me about Peter Kenez?