Geopoliticusblog-img

Is Trump Russia’s Manchurian Candidate? No. Here’s Why

Author:  Clint Watts
March 6, 2017

Is Trump Russia’s Manchurian Candidate? No. Here’s Why

 

“Is Trump a Manchurian Candidate?” The Trump as “Manchurian Candidate” scenario has been a constant query for my colleagues and I since we published our warnings in August and November last year about Russia’s influence campaign on the U.S. presidential election. This loosely plays along the plot line of the 1959 novel and follow up 1962 movie where a communist conspiracy tries to install a dictatorial president in the U.S. In the most dire conspiracy theories today, Donald Trump is portrayed as a covert Russian operative ceding control of America to an ascendant Vladimir Putin. Trump’s supporters instead see the inverse – a new populist president focused on “America First,” seeking to make deals and secure peace through a worldview and foreign policy similar to Russia. Evidence for either of these scenarios remains scant, and conspiracy theorists on both sides of the political spectrum should consider that reality likely rests somewhere in between. Trump’s Russia connections and Putin’s overt support for “the Donald” should be evaluated not as dichotomous positions, but as the ends of a spectrum of four possible scenarios (Figure 1).

 

Scenario #1: “Natural Ally”

President Trump and many of his supporters contend that the new administration represents nothing more than the natural alliance between two men seeking their own country’s interests through toughness. Trump’s affinity for Russia dates back to the late 1980s by some accounts, and his business pursuits in the country have been well documented.

 

The “natural ally” explanation for Trump’s Russian affinity would only make sense if the president had an enduring worldview and foreign policy stance over several electoral cycles that justified and explained why an alliance with Russia would be both good for America and put “America first.” President Trump may know business, but foreign policy is not his bailiwick. Prior to his jump into the presidential race, Trump didn’t espouse any clear foreign policy stances suggesting his national security views in general, particularly in regards to Russia. On rare instances where Trump stated foreign policy views prior to his presidential run, he often contradicted himself (i.e. U.S. invasion of Iraq). Trump’s alignment with nearly every Russian foreign policy objective grew in increments, eerily coinciding with the entrance of key aides and advocates into his campaign, not through his own study.

 

Scenario #2: “Useful Idiot”

Russian influence of Trump most likely falls into the category of what Madeleine Albright called a “Useful Idiot” – a “useful fool” – an enthusiast for Putin supportive of any issue or stance that feeds his ego and brings victory. Russian intelligence for decades identified and promoted key individuals around the world ripe for manipulation and serving their interests. Trump, similar to emerging alternative right European politicians, spouts populist themes of xenophobia, anti-immigration, and white nationalist pride that naturally bring about a retrenchment of U.S. global influence. By spotting this early, Russia could encourage Trump’s ascension and shape his views via three parallel tracks. First, Russia led a never before seen hacking and influence campaign to degrade support for Hilary Clinton and promote Trump among a disenfranchised American populace. As a “useful idiot,” Trump not only benefited from this influence effort, but he urged Russia to find Hilary Clinton’s missing emails – a public call a “Manchurian Candidate” (see Scenario 4 below) would not likely make. Trump even fell for false Russian news stories citing a bogus Sputnik news story at a presidential rally – a glaring and open mistake that would reveal a true “Manchurian Candidate.”

 

Second, political operatives of other Russian campaigns mysteriously surfaced as close advisors whispering Kremlin lines in Trump’s ear, modifying his world view, sliding in Russian foreign policy positions as mainstream American positions, and even altering the Republican platform to support a Russian position over a Ukrainian ally. Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager who previously worked in Ukraine on behalf of Russia, mistakenly cited a debunked Russia false news story about a terrorist attack on Incirlik airbase in Turkey as a final show of Russian influence before being fired. Carter Page, a Trump campaign linkage, denies being an agent, but has waffled on his meetings with Russian diplomats. The ex-MI6 agent’s dossier alleged secret meetings between Trump officials and Russian agents, but these have yet to be confirmed.

 

Third, Russia used overt influence and ultimately compromised key Trump advisors and appointees. The former MI6 officer’s dossier noted Russia’s deliberate attempts to sway Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Trump’s first National Security Advisor retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. This verifiable claim surfaced in the lead up to the presidential election with Flynn’s paid attendance at an RT event and the fact that he sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin called into question the zealous general’s allegiance in his vengeful rants against an Obama administration that fired him. Flynn then lied about his conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to the inauguration which lead to his resignation. Now, Attorney General Sessions has potentially lied during confirmation hearings about meeting this same Ambassador Kislyak during the presidential campaign resulting in his recusing himself from all issues regarding Trump’s ties to Russia. Trump aides have also allegedly been pushing for a back channel deal between Ukraine and Russia, a maneuver between liaisons more typical of a “useful idiot” rather than “Manchurian Candidate” scenario. This sort of meddling provides the Kremlin plausible deniability and still achieves Russia’s objectives: breaking up the European Union, dissolving NATO, and weakening of American influence.

 

Scenario #3: Compromised

President Trump has been bullish on ISIS, China, and Iran, but has curiously been quite amenable to Russia. One explanation put forth regarding his toughness on all American enemies except Russia is that he is compromised – vulnerable to blackmail by the Russian government due to sexual compromise or financial entanglements. Under this scenario, President Trump would not be doing the bidding of Putin on a day-to-day basis, but would bend as needed to a Russian foreign policy position in order to protect himself from public disclosures and the resulting political backlash.

 

The former British intelligence officer’s dossier made salacious claims of sexual misconduct by Trump during a visit to St. Petersburg. But rumors of sexual compromise have yet to bring forth any real evidence of misbehavior. Furthermore, Russia would have a hard time sexually compromising a president who has been married three times, who may have bragged about his sexual prowess while posing as his own publicist, and who was caught using misogynistic speech in a leaked video. President Trump compromised himself in this fashion, and the voters didn’t seem to care. Should Russia release the alleged provocative video tape now, they would only confirm their meddling and achieve nothing – the dossier leak and U.S. government discussion of the dossier likely inoculated the president from any compromise on a sexual basis if anything even existed.

 

Trump claims no financial ties to Russia, but these allegations still remain open due to Trump’s refusal to show his tax records and the media’s failure to show any discernible financial ties to Russia. This situation may change in the future and could damage the president. More recently, President Trump’s son appears to have received $50,000 from a pro-Russia group in the weeks leading up to the election. This revelation, alongside absent tax records, suggests that President Trump and his family might be currently or in the future financially compromised through business interests that have not been properly divested by the president – business interests tied to or manipulated by Russia without the full knowledge of the First Family.

 

Scenario #4: Manchurian Candidate

On the other end of the spectrum, those most traumatized by Trump’s victory have questioned if the U.S. has fallen under the command of the world’s most cunning authoritarian: Vladimir Putin. A “Manchurian Candidate” Trump would be a deliberate plant commanded by the Russian government, aided during the campaign with both a hacking-influence campaign – equipped with key Russian advisors – and funding to help him take the White House.

 

This scenario is unlikely to be the case for several reasons. Trump’s behavior and policy positions sway with the wind. The famous former British intelligence officer dossier argued that Trump’s behavior in the lead up to the election caused unease amongst Kremlin leaders backing him. Trump openly discusses Russian connections and seems to be unaware of his closest aides ties and contacts to Russian diplomats and intelligence assets. Even Trump’s unfounded tweet storm about the wiretapping of Trump Tower would pose a threat to Russia under the “Manchurian Candidate” scenario. A Russian-directed U.S. president would be more deliberate in policy positions and would conceal rather than discuss connections with Russia. To date, no direct financial or physical contacts and communications can be directly tied to President Trump.

 

Most importantly, a Manchurian Candidate scenario, if it came to light, would likely result in direct war between the U.S. and Russia. The Russians started their second Cold War with the U.S. years ago, and they are winning. They don’t need a Manchurian candidate; that’s higher cost and higher risk to their efforts. They prefer systematic, indirect, asymmetric engagements that incrementally achieve their goals rather than provoking the U.S. into a direct clash militarily and economically – a fight the Kremlin would likely lose.

 

 

What are the implications of these Russian connections for Trump and America?

Regardless of President Trump’s relationship to Russia, the repeated disclosure of Russian influence and connections to his campaign and staff have created considerable turmoil in the White House and America as a whole. Trump’s loose style of alliances and tactical actions make him ideally suited for the “Useful Idiot” scenario of Russian influence as he takes on advisors and positions based on perceived loyalty, yet without a clear understanding of his advisors connections to Russia. Any traditional politician would have sensed the danger implicit in surrounding oneself with people so closely connected to Putin’s intelligence agents.

 

More importantly, President Trump appears strongly influenced by those in his inner circle. So if they have connections to Russia, whether President Trump knows it or not, he will, at times, be Russia’s pawn on foreign policy issues.

Tags: , , , ,



14 thoughts on “Is Trump Russia’s Manchurian Candidate? No. Here’s Why”

  1. I fully agree with Scenario 3. He is a damn fool n idiot that can be used by Russia’s FSB. After all they have video on his nefarious activities in Russia when he was on business. Of course they will deny.

  2. I agree with useful idiot. And on collusion, when we get there, I expect we’ll see:
    1. Stone was (as he as boasted) in touch with WikiLeaks. I could see him facing a conspiracy charge (and deservedly so, on what we can see today). If that’s it, then that’s it. But it’s hard to imagine that Roger Stone had the discipline to refrain from giving Trump a play-by-play. I think Stone will chose to die in jail rather than to confess to discussing with Trump.
    2. Carter Page. I think the Dossier is basically 100% accurate on Page but omits one key thing — he was a nobody, and when he was speaking with the Russians he was freelancing. Or more precisely overpromising, exceeding his authority in the hopes that all the balls would land in the right place.
    3, Manafort is the hard one. It’s possible he’s innocent. It’s also possible that he was compromised this time last year and was sent by the Russians to get close to Trump. And the timing was incredibly lucky because at that exact moment Trump’s adult children were looking to ditch Corey. But then he overplayed with the RNC platform change, and the children (not knowing how right they were) got rid of him.
    4. Michael Cohen. This one’s hard, too. He seems like an utter moron. If the NYT reports are right that European intelligence has evidence of Trump camp meetings with RIS, don’t be surprised if it’s Cohen.

  3. I think you’re being overly generous by saying “Trump may know business.” The guy has gone through 6 bankruptcies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/fact-check-has-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/?utm_term=.0ae208042a9a). Also, just because he may not have properties in Russia does not mean he doesn’t have strong financial ties to Russia. Besides getting a cool $50M cash injection directly from one of Putin’s buddies (http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/27/news/donald-trump-russian-deal-mansion/) hes previously heavily used (and abused) Deutsche Bank (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/16/how-donald-trump-became-deutsche-bank-biggest-headache), known for its links to Russia and Russian money laundering (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/investing/deutsche-bank-us-fine-russia-money-laundering/).
    I think this all pushes things pretty strongly toward the “compromised” end of the scale, and while I’m fairly optimistic that the Senate Intelligence Commitee will produce a bipartisan report on the effects and efforts of Russian interference in our election I’m much less optimistic of their chances of fairly investigating Trump, his campaign, or transition team.
    This is really concerning, because I think we really need all three branches of our government aligned if we’re going to combat this misinformation campaign.

  4. I wonder what you think of the fifth possibility: that of Opportunist. It is similar to the Useful Idiot, except with the added twist that at some point the quid-pro-quo between the Russians and Trump’s campaign became explicit and they knowingly accepted their help?
    If the dossier claim about their being an explicit discussion about Rosneft shares being given to Trump is true, that would fall under Opportunist rather than merely Useful Idiot, right?

  5. Analyses (the whys as well as the whats of things) — especially in connection to intent and motivation — are critical to understanding the question of collusion, past, present, and future. Here’s a handy blueprint e.g. of above:

    -gov’t deregulations
    -climate change denial
    -melting permafrost
    -newly opened Northern trade/shipping routes
    -oil, banking and other US/Russian business ties
    (aka, “follow the money”)
    -appointment of oil and other corporate CEOs
    -possible Rosneft payoffs
    -potential lifting of Russian sanctions
    -profits (also power)

  6. I’m wondering if Russia infiltrated Bernie Sanders campaign also. We know Ted Devine, his campaign mngr, has strong ties to Russia. Sanders has a lot in common with Trump regarding his populist views. His attacks on Hillary went further than usual in a primary, causing lasting damage to her. It has been proven that Russian Trolls posing as Bernie supporters spouted anti Hillary propaganda all over the internet and Facebook. Sanders and Trump also both used the whole rigging narrative, harming Americans trust in our democratic system, which was s goal of Putin.

    1. Bernie spoke forcefully and often in anti-Russian terms. As an “anti-establishment” outsider candidate he was perhaps more appealing then Hillary Clinton. But the suggestion that he would not have been a proponent of increasing sanctions on Russia is to belie his words on the campaign trail and present assertions in Congress. Trump on the other hand has been a transactional patsy of Russia for a long time. Jill Stein also took 45K and has never forcefully been anti-Russia.

  7. “Missing” from this analysis is the KGB/FSB use of Melania. Raised in Communist Yugoslavia where the KGB operated freely and “selected” for assignment in the US as a mole to find and develop KGB contacts within the NYC business world, she was funded into the NYC highlife on a faked “work” visa. Donald was an obvious target as a long-time womanizer and grifter. She is now able to back off her clandestine mission despite the apparent inability to set up that “secret” backchannel communications system using the Russian/FSB network.

  8. “Natural Ally” makes more sense if you posit that Trump is primarily still concerned about his business and the U.S. as an engine to generate income for his family, first and foremost, and that his interests don’t involve policy or the U.S. as a country. So we have “natural allies” in the sense that Trump’s goals are personal and financial.

  9. American Intelligence picked up many, many conversations in 2015 — a year BEFORE trump announced his candidacy — from Russians closely tied to the kremlin about a trump candidacy. That’s not “conspiracy theory,” that’s fact. Do the math!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *