Trump and Russian Intelligence

When a historical and major state is led by a president with security experience like Russian President Vladimir Putin, no researcher can overlook the “security and intelligence inclination” in this president’s diplomacy. Conversely, leading a state considered an adversary to Russia by someone whose experience is limited to gaining financial benefits with a touch of ruthless capitalism may make the latter a potential prey for the former.

Observing the nature of American President Donald Trump’s attitudes toward countries worldwide, including his nation’s historic allies, reveals a disconnect in his relationships with Russia. The threats he poses to Europe, his disruption of NATO, aspirations to acquire Greenland from Denmark, attempts to take over the Panama Canal, and even threats to his Middle Eastern allies, alongside a confrontational stance against China, paint a challenging picture for leaders of significant nations like Britain, France, and Germany. Yet, in stark contrast, he maintains a friendly stance toward Russia and seeks to draw his allies into negotiations with Russia regarding Ukraine, suggesting that what he advocates is European submission to Russia.

Shouldn’t all of this raise questions about the contradictions in Trump’s policies? Does he have intelligence ties with the Soviet KGB (now the FSB) that Putin was part of during his extensive spying on NATO for nearly a decade and a half? Isn’t the pursuit of financial gain, building real estate empires, and his weakness towards femininity a “soft target” for the wizards of major intelligence agencies?

If we add to this the legal pursuits that have followed Trump since his emergence on the political scene, most notably allegations of “suspicious ties to Russia” and Russia’s role in his initial electoral success, it becomes a matter worth studying through the countless references, books, and journalistic reports that overwhelm the reader with details.

Is what former Russian intelligence agent Yuri Shvets stated—claiming that Donald Trump has been a Russian asset for 40 years and a repetition of the British espionage pattern that delivered secrets to Moscow during World War II and early Cold War—true?

In Craig Unger’s book titled “American Kompromat”, which spans 352 pages and was published in 2017, vital details are mentioned regarding Trump’s relations with Russia and his connections with the dubious businessman Jeffrey Epstein. The author is clearly based on the testimony of Yuri Shvets, who was sent by the Soviet Union to Washington in the 1980s, noting that many students are recruited and then pushed to attain significant positions, which was the case for Trump himself.

Shvets was a senior officer in Soviet intelligence, operating under the guise of a journalist for the Russian news agency TASS during the 1980s before moving permanently to the United States in 1993 and obtaining American citizenship. He later worked as a corporate security investigator and was a partner of Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in London in 2006.

Unger explains how Trump first connected with the Russians in 1977 through a relationship with a Czech model named Ivana Zelníčková, who eventually became Trump’s first wife. During that time, coordination between Czech and Soviet intelligence aimed to leverage Trump in their activities took place. What arouses suspicion is the rapidity with which Trump transitioned into wealth over three years, culminating in the opening of his first major real estate project, the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York near Grand Central Station, where he acquired 200 televisions for the hotel from a Soviet immigrant, Semyon Kislian, who owned a company called Joy-Lud Electronics linked to Soviet intelligence.

According to the book, the deepening of the relationship began in 1987 when Trump and his Czech wife visited Moscow and St. Petersburg. During this time, Russian intelligence shifted to a new approach by planting the idea of “venturing into the political world” in Trump’s mind after analyzing his character’s vulnerabilities, especially three traits that formed the basis for his recruitment: intellectual weakness, psychological instability, and excessive pleasure in flattery. Notably, these traits align with the essence of a 2017 report by American psychological and social science experts on Trump’s mental state. The book emphasizes that Soviet intelligence primarily focused on implanting the idea in Trump’s mind that “he should be President of the United States,” as they viewed individuals like him as qualified leaders for global leadership, significantly stroking his narcissism.

Upon his return, Trump sought to deepen his ties with the Republican Party, starting to hold meetings and campaign rallies along with placing advertisements in prominent American newspapers, notably the New York Times, which questioned the effectiveness of NATO and relations with Japan. The connections with Russia continued until the 2016 elections, where Trump emerged victorious, fulfilling the Russian plan and becoming President of the United States.

Following his victory, which Russia was quick to welcome, a wave of direct and implied accusations arose regarding a potential dubious relationship between Trump and Russia. However, Special Counsel Robert Mueller was unable to prove a conspiracy between Trump’s campaign members and the Russians. Still, the Center for American Progress, which stood behind the Moscow project initiative, indicated that Trump’s campaign team had communications with the Russians (estimated at around 272 interactions) and held meetings with Russian agents (estimated at 38 meetings).

Mueller’s report, released in March 2019, consists of two volumes totaling 207 pages, titled “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.” The first volume presents factual findings from the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with Trump’s campaign. The volume is divided into five sections: the first describes the scope of the investigation, while the second and third detail the primary methods used by Russia to interfere in the election. The fourth attempts to identify links between members of the U.S. government and individuals associated with Trump’s campaign, and the fifth outlines the prosecutorial decisions reached by the special counsel.

The second volume of the report focuses on the president’s actions toward the FBI, as well as his responses to the special counsel’s investigation, including the considerations that directed the investigation into the allegations.

Notably, the nature of the plaintiffs is significant; they are entities with weight in society and the state. In June, the Democratic National Committee publicly announced that Russian hackers had breached its computer network. Subsequently, reports began to surface attributing the breaches to the Russian government. This led to further revelations in July through WikiLeaks, with additional releases in October and November. In late July 2016, shortly after WikiLeaks released the stolen documents, a foreign government contacted the FBI regarding a meeting in May 2016 with Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to the foreign government representative that the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that they could assist the campaign by anonymously releasing information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. This led the FBI to open an investigation on July 31, 2016, to determine whether individuals linked to Trump’s campaign were coordinating with the Russian government in its interventionist activities. Subsequently, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed recent breaches of emails from American individuals and institutions, including American political organizations,” aimed at influencing outcomes in the U.S. election.

After the elections, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia for its interference in the elections, and by early 2017, several committees in Congress were examining Russian interference. Moreover, the executive branch decided in May 2017 to impose additional sanctions on Russia based on the previous findings.

Despite the report containing pages with blacked-out content (suggestive of sensitive and classified information), the issue of Russian interference was taken seriously enough for the U.S. government to enact punitive measures against Russia, especially as the report reveals meetings and communications between Trump’s team, particularly Jared Kushner and others, and Russian parties or their agents. It is noteworthy that the report distinguishes between conspiracy and collusion under U.S. federal law, ultimately concluding that it was not proven that the described communications in the first volume, section four, constituted an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law, including foreign influence and campaign finance laws. Consequently, no individual associated with Trump’s campaign was charged with conspiracy to commit a federal crime or any other offense.

If we consider all other entities supporting the notion of a relationship between Trump and Russia (such as the Christopher Steele dossier, various press reports, especially those from the New York Times or Washington Post in 2017, reports from the FBI, some congressional reports, or personalities supportive of Trump or businessmen linked to him), the situation merits serious contemplation, as it seems implausible that all this information lacks a solid foundation.

In conclusion: It is not easy to make definitive assertions in such a case, but it opens the door to exploitation by the deep state in America. If Trump strays too far in his undisciplined decisions or attempts to pursue policies that appear biased in favor of “Russia,” the discontent from Europe or other allies of America will likely not impact Trump, given the substantial public support he demonstrated in the elections. This implies that the only outlet for the deep state—if Trump persists in his actions—might be reopening files like his connections with Russia, paving the way for potential legal accountability and renewed impeachment proceedings, especially as President Nixon’s precedent strengthens that possibility, though it does not make it certain… perhaps.