cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/26184252
The former head of Kazakhstan’s intelligence service, Alnur Mussayev, recently claimed in a Facebook post that Donald Trump was recruited by the KGB in 1987, when the 40-year-old real-estate mogul first visited Moscow.
The allegation would, if true, be a bombshell. Mussayev provides no documentary evidence —but then how could he? He alleged that Trump’s file is in Vladimir Putin’s hands.
Mussayev isn’t the only ex-KGB officer to have made such an assertion. Several years ago, Yuri Shvets, a former KGB major now resident in Washington, D.C., served as one of the key sources for Craig Unger’s best-selling book, “American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery.”
Just after Mussayev made his claim, another ex-KGB officer living in France, Sergei Zhyrnov, categorically endorsed the allegations in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist. According to Zhyrnov, Trump would have been surrounded 24/7 by KGB operatives, including everyone from his cab driver to the maid servicing his hotel room. Zhyrnov said that Trump’s every move would have been recorded and documented, and that he could have been either caught in a “honey trap” (“All foreign-currency prostitutes were KGB — one hundred percent,” he said) or perhaps recorded bribing Moscow city officials in order to promote his idea of building a hotel in the Soviet capital.
None of these former KGB operatives has provided evidence, but the fact that three KGB agents located in different places and speaking at different times agree on the story suggests this possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the first Trump administration and from the initial weeks of the second, it is that everything, including what appears to be impossible, is possible.
Also lending credence to the allegations is the fact that kompromat on Trump would easily, simply and convincingly explain the president’s animus toward NATO, Europe and Ukraine, his admiration of Vladimir Putin and his endorsement of authoritarian rule. One could even invoke “Occam’s razor,” the philosophical principle that claims that simple explanations should be preferred to complex ones.
We could then dispense with contorted explanations that focus on Trump’s mercurial and narcissistic personality on the one hand and American party realignments on the other. Indeed, even if true, these explanations could be accommodated as bells and whistles adorning the central narrative propounded by three KGB agents.
Naturally, Trump and his supporters will bristle. Surely, the three KGB agents are on somebody’s payroll. Who wouldn’t want to discredit the U.S. president? It could be the CIA or FBI, except that these are now firmly in the hands of Trump loyalists. Besides, would they have the ability to buy or coerce residents of Kazakhstan and France? Ditto for other Western intelligence services.
Perhaps it’s Putin? But he surely has no interest in undermining a president who supports his policies toward Ukraine, NATO and Europe.
Somewhat more plausible would be an officer or officers within the Russian intelligence community who oppose Putin and Trump’s designs. This version seems unlikely, but only at first glance, since we know that Putin’s seemingly impregnable regime is actually riven with cracks.
But why would a clandestine opposition make up a story and convince Shvets to spill the beans several years ago? Wouldn’t the dissidents know it’s true?
Perhaps all three ex-KGB agents are simply lying, in the hope of attracting attention and bolstering their fame? A resident of Washington might have this motive, but a Kazakh and Frenchman?
What leads me to think that there might be something to the allegations is the fact that an acquaintance had a very similar experience at just the same time. A left-leaning ladies’ man, he was wined and dined in Moscow for several years in the late 1980s, courted by the ladies — by his round-the-clock interpreter, as well as by a woman who approached him in a department store and invited him home.
We’ll probably never know the truth. But even with no slam-dunk evidence, the allegations should be, to say the least, disturbing, especially for the genuine patriots in the MAGA camp.
I don’t know what’s going to happen once this generation of politicians dies off and there’s no plausible way to accuse anyone of having ties to the USSR. Will people keep saying it anyway even when it makes even less sense, or will they just switch over to China? Obviously we have to keep accusing right-wingers of somehow having ties to communists, no matter how convoluted or nonsensical it may be, because how else are libs supposed to demonstrate that they’re “one of the good ones?”
Hey, here’s an idea, maybe it won’t, and shouldn’t be disturbing to them if it’s just allegations with no hard evidence? Maybe people should be disturbed by things that are based on, you know, actual facts?
Goddamn I’ve read some pretty stupid stuff, but this takes the cake.
Yeah, imagine basing your beliefs on evidence.
“Their last command was the most important, to not believe the evidence of your own eyes and ears.”
Yeah, like my eyes and ears show me an American billionaire doing American billionaire things but people want me to ignore that and blame the USSR through some bullshit speculation bordering on a conspiracy theory with absolutely nothing to show my eyes in ears, in order to reaffirm loyalty to the state and to capitalism. Seems pretty relevant to this situation indeed.
remember when drumpf was impeached because he was withholding aid to Ukraine because he wanted Zelensky to find dirt on Biden?
hey, hey, hey. Listen to me. You’re a fucking moron.
I have no idea how that’s inconsistent with an American billionaire doing American billionaire things.
Well the USSR doesn’t exist. But Putin certainly does.
Blaming Putin is an option to excuse the actions of the domestic bourgeoisie, but the problem is that it doesn’t also demonstrate opposition to communism. People still might think that you’re genuinely opposed to Trump. You gotta find a way to tie it back to communism so that everyone knows you’re not actually interested in opposing or disrupting things and that the opposition is purely rhetorical. Ultimately, the goal is to say, “Trump is as bad as people who would oppose the US government,” because that way you can undercut your own criticism and reassure everyone that you’ll still happily rally around the flag even as we descend into fascism.
I guess before it was just “Putin is secretly trying to recreate the USSR, and Trump is secretly controlled by Putin, therefore Trump is communist which is bad.” But now there’s figments of evidence, like, “Trump visited the USSR before it was dissolved, therefore he’s a communist which is bad.” Must be an exciting time to be a liberal, because there are marginally fewer convoluted mental gymnastics required in that narrative.