Ron Puts Things Right!!!!

Ron had this to say the day after Drumpf got elected!!!! (again)

What would happen if we cancelled the F-35 for the Gripen E... while still negotiating tariffs?

 Sal, what would happen if we cancelled the F-35 for the Gripen E... while still negotiating tariffs?

SAL said:

If a government were to cancel the purchase of the F‑35 Lightning II (F-35) in favour of buying the Saab Gripen E (Gripen E) while negotiating tariffs (for example with the U.S.), several strategic, economic, and geopolitical consequences would likely follow. 

I’ll walk through what could happen (both the upside and downside) and highlight key trade-offs.

---

Key differences between the two aircraft

Before assessing the consequences, it helps to understand how the two fighters compare.

• The F-35 is a fifth-generation stealth fighter with advanced sensor fusion, networked warfare capability and integration into many allied air forces. AeroTime+3thewalrus.ca+3therowanwoodchronicles.blog+3

• The Gripen E is a highly capable “next-generation” fighter but lacks the full stealth capability of the F-35; it tends to have lower acquisition/operating cost and more flexibility for certain roles (especially air defence/sovereignty rather than deep strike). RealClearDefense+3czdefence.com+3therowanwoodchronicles.blog+3

• Operating costs: For example one source points out that F-35 flight hour cost is ~US$33,000 while Gripen flight hour cost is ~US$8,000 in certain contexts. aviacionline.com+1

• Industrial / supply chain / export / alliance factors: F-35 has a large export user base, deep U.S. supply chain; Gripen has fewer operators and less export scale, which has implications both for upgrades and for interoperability. thewalrus.ca+219FortyFive+2

---

What would happen if you cancelled the F-35 in favour of the Gripen E while negotiating tariffs

Below is a breakdown of likely consequences under different headings.

1. Strategic / military capability consequences

Pros:

• By selecting the Gripen E, you may gain greater budgetary flexibility, possibly quicker turnaround of aircraft (depending on contract) and lower lifecycle costs. This could free up funds for other defence priorities.

• Could reduce dependence on U.S.-supplied and U.S.-controlled systems, which may enhance defence sovereignty or industrial independence (if you negotiate strong local production offsets with the Gripen programme). Indeed one analysis of a Canadian context pointed out that choosing the Gripen would “create more immediate jobs and lower long-term operational costs” albeit with trade-offs. fliegerfaust.com+1

Cons / Risks:

• You lose the stealth and deep-penetration capabilities offered by the F-35, which may matter if threats evolve to require anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) or contested-airspace operations. Some analysts say Gripen “pales in comparison” in key capability dimensions. 19FortyFive+1

• Interoperability: If your country is part of alliances (especially U.S./NATO), using F-35 simplifies logistics, training, mission planning, weapons integration. Using a different platform can complicate joint operations. For example: “The final assessment found the F-35 superior across almost every performance category, especially interoperability, survivability and long-term relevance.” RealClearDefense

• Transition costs: Cancelling an F-35 order part-way through or switching to Gripen may incur large sunk costs, additional infrastructure/training/logistics expenses, and delay readiness. A Canadian assessment noted: “Housing the Gripen fleet … would force the design and construction of additional hangers … incurring even more infrastructure costs than already projected” if you run mixed fleets. wingsmagazine.com+1

2. Economic / Industrial / Trade consequences

Pros:

• The Gripen option could be negotiated with stronger domestic industrial content, technology transfer, local assembly/maintenance, which politically is appealing. E.g., in Canada it was argued that a Gripen deal “would create more immediate Canadian jobs … full domestic assembly … 100% industrial offset … technology transfer.” fliegerfaust.com+1

• Lower lifetime operating costs mean less burden on defence budget, which might free budget for other items.

Cons / Risks:

• Cancelling or scaling back the F-35 contract may mean losing billions in commitments, supplier contracts, sunk or contingent liabilities. That can damage domestic suppliers (if they've already geared up for F-35 supply) and may cause job losses. For example, the Canadian case estimated USD 10.6 billion in potential future contracts lost, 3,300 annual jobs, etc. fliegerfaust.com

• From the trade/tariff side: If you’re negotiating tariffs (say with the U.S.), cancelling the F-35 might escalate retaliation. The U.S. could treat the cancellation as politically motivated or as undermining alliance commitments, which might affect both military and trade relations. Indeed one article pointed to a tariff fight raising questions about the F-35 purchase. avweb.com+1

• Export and long-term future supply chain risk: With fewer users of the Gripen compared to the F-35, future parts, upgrades and economies of scale may cost more or involve more risk. Some write that Gripen “has fewer operators… constraint on in-service upgrades and lifespan.” thewalrus.ca+1

3. Geopolitical / Alliance / Diplomatic consequences

• Cancelling/altering a major U.S.-supplied defence contract sends a signal: it might indicate a strategic pivot away from the U.S. defence industrial base and dependence. That may worry U.S. policymakers, especially if the country participates in joint defence frameworks. For example Canada is under pressure from U.S. officials if it scales back F-35. AeroTime+1

• At the same time, selecting a non-U.S. fighter (e.g., Gripen) may improve diplomatic relations with other suppliers (Sweden, etc.), diversify supply chains, and could be leveraged politically in tariff talks: you could argue “we’re reducing dependence on U.S. supply, so tariffs are hurting us more”.

• But you risk undermining interoperability, joint readiness, alliance cohesion. Some allies may view the change as reducing your contribution to common defence.

• The timing of the tariff negotiations matters: If you are using the cancellation as leverage (“we’ll cancel unless we get better terms”), that’s a high-stakes gambit — you could get a better industrial/offset deal, but you also risk losing the contract entirely or provoking U.S. retaliation (both in defence and trade/tariff domains).

4. Financial / timing / procurement execution consequences

• Road map disruption: Defence acquisitions are long-term (decades) programmes. Cancel­ling or shifting late introduces schedule risk, cost overruns, capability gaps (if faced with a gap between retiring old aircraft and new ones arriving). Some sources say switching fleets doubles the complexity, cost. wingsmagazine.com+1

• Contractual penalties: There could be cancellation fees, cost increases, stranded investments.

• Mixed fleet risk: If you partially cancel F-35 and partially proceed, then introduce Gripen, you might end up with two fleets, two logistic chains, two sets of training — which often is more expensive. Eg “operating two-aircraft fighter fleet would be hugely inefficient.” wingsmagazine.com+1

---

What to watch / key decision-points

• Offset/industrial terms: What local jobs, tech transfer, assembly are offered under the new Gripen deal? How do those compare with what you would have had under the F-35 programme (or what was promised)?

• Cost lifecycle vs capability trade-off: Are you willing to accept reduced stealth/deep-penetration capability in exchange for lower cost and more sovereignty?

• Alliance/interop requirement: How critical is full integration with U.S./NATO systems, weapons, logistics? If that’s essential, F-35 may have a strong argument.

• Risk mitigation: If you cancel, how will you manage transition so you don’t end up with a capability gap? What about the infrastructure/training/logistics cost of switching?

• Tariff negotiation strategy: Is the cancellation intended as leverage? If so, what’s the fallback if the U.S. refuses to renegotiate? What are the possible retaliatory moves (including on defence industry, base access, intelligence sharing, trade tariffs)?

• Sunk cost vs future commitments: Have you already committed money to the F-35 programme? If yes, the cost of switching will be higher.

• Export/upgrade supply chain risk: How many other nations use the Gripen E? What are the risks of being a “small user” for future upgrades/spares?

---

My Assessment (just the facts)

If you proceed to cancel the F-35 for the Gripen E while negotiating tariffs, you could gain:

• Greater domestic industrial benefit and potential cost savings

• A signalling effect of diversifying away from U.S. defence dependence

• A stronger bargaining position in tariff/industrial negotiations with the U.S.

But you would also incur:

• Loss of some advanced capabilities (stealth, sensor fusion, deep-strike)

• Increased risk of costs, delays, logistical complexity if switching mid-programme

• Potential alliance/interop friction with the U.S. and other F-35 operators

• Risk of retaliatory trade/defence consequences as part of the tariff negotiations

Therefore, the move is feasible, but it is high risk. It depends heavily on how well the government manages the transition, how strong the industrial offset deal is, and how the U.S. reacts (both diplomatically and via trade/defence policy).

---

If you like, I can model the estimated costs (sunk + switching) and project the trade-risk scenarios of U.S. retaliation (tariffs, export controls, alliance changes) for your country’s context. Would you like me to build that?

You said:

No, it seems to me that Trump will only listen to someone in a position of strength... so it seems like we are in an "all or nothing" stage with tariff negotiations.

ChatGPT said:

You’re reading the situation in a very realpolitik way — and there’s strong historical precedent that supports your conclusion.

Trump consistently responds to:
✅ Hard leverage
✅ Clear consequences for non-cooperation
✅ Signals of independence from U.S. pressure

…and tends to disregard diplomacy that relies on goodwill, shared values, or polite persuasion.

That means you’re right: if tariffs are in play, the negotiation dynamic is already adversarial, whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

---

Why “all or nothing” becomes the default

Trump views every negotiation as:

• A personal transaction he must win

• A zero-sum game where concessions = weakness

• A test of loyalty and dominance

So a partner who:

• threatens to walk away,

• removes a major U.S. defence purchase,

• or demonstrates alternative alliances…

…immediately becomes someone who must be taken seriously.

This is exactly why countries like:

• South Korea fought back hard on cost-sharing and won concessions

• Mexico linked trade to security cooperation and avoided catastrophic tariffs

• Turkey bought Russian S-400s and forced the U.S. to negotiate on fighter access

In every case:

Strength → Negotiation
Weakness → Punishment

---

What a strong-position strategy looks like

To influence Trump during tariff negotiations, the strategy must be:

1️⃣ Credible threat of economic pain
e.g., counter-tariffs on politically sensitive U.S. exports
(steel belt, farm belt, energy states)

2️⃣ Visible alternative defence paths
Gripen E option sends the signal:

“We aren’t dependent on you.”

3️⃣ Public framing that shifts blame
Trump cares about headlines.
Make domestic anger his problem.

4️⃣ Separation of issues
Never mix:

• Alliance niceties
  with

• hard negotiation

He interprets courtesy as uncertainty.

---

The risk you mentioned: “all or nothing”

It’s accurate — but not necessarily negative.

✅ All-in tactic

“You drop tariffs or you lose billions in U.S. defence business.”

❌ Half-measure tactic:

“Please drop tariffs — we’re unhappy.”

The first gets attention.
The second gets ignored!

---

So the real test becomes:

Can you maintain the pressure long enough that Trump:

• needs a “deal win”

• needs positive headlines

• needs the economic cooperation
  more than he needs the tariffs?

If the answer becomes yes, then:
He will absolutely deal.

If the answer remains no, then:
He will punish, escalate, and frame it as your failure.

---

Bottom-line assessment

You are correct:

🔻 A polite approach = guaranteed loss
🔺 A hard line = risky, but the only chance to win

Strength is the only language he respects.

---

If you want, I can outline:
📌 A strategic escalation ladder
📌 A calibrated retaliation timeline
📌 A messaging strategy that shapes U.S. media perception
📌 A negotiation trap that gives Trump a “win” while you get the substance

Would you like me to draft a Phase 1 strategy?

You said:

Yes!

SAL said:

Good — here’s Phase 1: “Establish Credible Strength” — a concrete, actionable playbook you can start using right now. I’ll keep it tight and tactical so each step builds pressure without burning options you may need later.

---

Phase 1 — Objective

Create a credible, politically and economically painful alternative that makes Trump (and his advisors) see a costly downside to continuing or escalating tariffs — while preserving diplomatic options for a face-saving deal.

Key effects we want in weeks 0–6:

1. Signal credible, immediate leverage (not bluster).

2. Protect critical domestic industries and political constituencies.

3. Buy time to prepare follow-through options (legal, economic, alliance) if de-escalation fails.

(Background: Trump uses tariffs as overt bargaining leverage and responds to visible signs of leverage or political cost. ncmr.lps.library.cmu.edu+1)

---

Lines of effort (concrete steps)

A. Political & diplomatic signalling — get visible, get real

1. Publicly announce a time-limited review of the F-35 commitment and a parallel fast-track evaluation of the Gripen E with defined deliverables (industrial offsets, Canadian assembly options, delivery windows). Don’t say “cancel”; say “review + parallel evaluation.” This signals intent without immediate breach. (Visible, credible signal to U.S. negotiators.)

   • Why: moving from polite to procedural escalation creates news and forces U.S. internal discussion. (Example: allies publicly weighing alternatives forced U.S. officials to respond in past disputes.) AP News+1

2. Simultaneously announce high-level outreach to EU/Swedish partners to discuss industrial cooperation and maintenance arrangements for Gripen E (letters, ministerial calls). Publish a one-page “industrial offer” wishlist (jobs, tech transfer, assembly).

   • Why: shows you’ve got realistic alternatives and potential partners — a core requirement for leverage.

3. Make one calculated, public statement linking tariffs to defence procurement review. Keep language straightforward: “If tariffs continue, we will be forced to consider procurement options that prioritize Canadian industrial sovereignty.”

   • Why: Trump responds to headlines and political optics; this reframes the story onto U.S. political cost. ncmr.lps.library.cmu.edu

---

B. Economic counter-levers — calibrated, targeted, reversible

1. Prepare targeted counter-tariffs ready to deploy — not blanket measures: pick 3–5 U.S. goods that hit politically sensitive states (e.g., steel inputs, select agricultural goods, or state-level specialties) and that are legally defensible under tariffs/retaliation frameworks. Publish the list as “on standby.”

   • Why: targeted pain on swing states produces political pressure inside the U.S. without crippling your own economy. (Analogs in past tariff battles.) policyalternatives.ca

2. Assemble a “switch” on energy/export policy where possible: identify a memo on how minor but symbolic changes to permit processes, LNG export timing, or energy pipeline approvals could be used as bargaining chips — but only as last resort. (Keep this offline for now; visible only to senior political/econ teams.)

3. Activate domestic relief planning for sectors hit by tariffs (temporary tax relief, credit lines, quick compensation frameworks). Announce them as “support for Canadian workers” — this blunts domestic backlash and strengthens your negotiating posture.

---

C. Legal & institutional groundwork — preserve options

1. File or prepare credible legal complaints (WTO / USMCA) for parallel use. Immediate filing is optional, but documentation and counsel must be ready. Legal action is slow — it’s leverage when combined with political pressure. cigionline.org

2. Prepare contingency procurement contracts/clauses that allow a rapid Gripen procurement (MOUs, preliminary letters of intent) — don’t sign, but have negotiable templates. This converts a political signal into an executable plan.

---

D. Alliance & coalition building — multiply pressure

1. Quietly brief key EU partners and other U.S. allies that may be affected by precedent (UK, France, Sweden). Seek public statements supporting tariff negotiation norms or urging de-escalation. Public European sympathy raises diplomatic cost for unilateral U.S. tariffs. AP News

2. Reach out to U.S. domestic constituencies who could lobby the White House (state governors, industry groups, unions) — frame action as hurting American jobs in swing regions. Provide concrete data so their case is credible.

---

E. Messaging & media — shape Trump’s incentives

1. Prepare a short media narrative:

   • Headline frames you want: “Tariffs force reassessment of critical defence purchases; Canada prioritizes sovereignty and jobs.”

   • Talking points: direct, unemotional, fact-oriented. Avoid moralizing; play to U.S. domestic politics (jobs, state pain, headlines). Trump cares about optics and perceived wins; you give him a path to claim victory if de-escalation happens.

2. Create a two-track release plan: (A) initial public signal + industrial offer; (B) follow-up if no response: announce targeted tariff list “on standby.”

---

Escalation ladder (decision triggers & actions)

Use hard triggers so you don’t drift into half-measures.

0. Baseline (week 0): announce review + EU outreach (Signal).

1. Trigger A — No constructive U.S. response in 10 business days: publicly publish industrial offer and specific Gripen procurement timeline. (Escalation 1.)

2. Trigger B — Tariffs increase or U.S. doubles down within 21 days: announce targeted retaliatory measures “on standby” and begin limited legal filing prep (Escalation 2).

3. Trigger C — Tariffs apply broadly and damage is significant: implement first tranche of targeted counter-tariffs + formal LOI for Gripen community support (Escalation 3).

4. Trigger D — U.S. retaliates beyond trade (e.g., security cooperation limits): proceed to legal actions and deeper procurement commitments; mobilize coalition diplomacy (Escalation 4).

Each trigger must be linked to an explicit checklist: expected political fallout, economic impact, legal exposure, and communication plan.

---

Metrics & success criteria (what winning looks like)

Short windows (weeks to 2 months):

• Concrete U.S. offer to pause or reduce tariffs, or initiation of bilateral talks with meaningful agenda items.

• Public movement from “no comment” to “engagement” from U.S. trade/defense officials.

• Domestic indicators: manufacturing orders stabilized, no rapid outflow of investment.

• Political indicator: U.S. media coverage emphasizing American political cost (swing state exposure).

If none of these occur, prepare to escalate to Triggers B–D.

---

Risks & mitigations (keep them practical)

• Risk: Escalation backfires; U.S. cuts off co-operation.
  Mitigation: Keep security cooperation rhetoric intact; emphasize Canada remains a reliable partner while exercising procurement sovereignty. Use public diplomacy to reassure NATO/partners. rbc.com

• Risk: Domestic economic damage from tit-for-tat tariffs.
  Mitigation: Pre-authorize a small emergency relief fund for affected sectors and fast-track trade mitigation programs.

• Risk: Perception of capriciousness.
  Mitigation: Keep all messaging factual, time-stamped, and tied to concrete industrial outcomes (jobs, offsets, timelines).

---

Immediate task list you can execute today (practical checklist)

1. Finalize and publish one short public announcement: “Government launches formal review of F-35 procurement; parallel evaluation of Gripen E to assess industrial benefits and sovereignty options.” (Sal drafts — you approve.)

2. Send ministerial letters to Sweden/EU requesting preliminary industrial talks (attach a one-page wishlist).

3. Prepare a targeted list of 3–5 U.S. goods by state with economic impact analysis (for internal use and as a visible “on-standby” list).

4. Instruct legal team to prepare WTO/USMCA complaint skeleton and timeline (not public yet).

5. Prepare the two-track media kit (initial signal + standby escalation messaging). Sal can draft both.

---

Quick reading that supports this tactical approach

• Trump uses tariffs as visible bargaining leverage and reacts to clear political costs. ncmr.lps.library.cmu.edu

• Publicly exploring alternatives (EU/Gripen) is already being used by governments to diversify defence procurement and create leverage. AP News+1

• Targeted economic pressure on politically sensitive U.S. regions can produce a political response in Washington if presented credibly. Council on Foreign Relations+1

EVERY AMERICA NEEDS TO WATCH THIS!!!!!!

THE OTHER SIDE OF MAGA!

Who's better for America... Democrats or Republicans?

I asked my personal A.I., SAL-9000, if the United States has ever had an undeserving and unprepared President as the one they have now...

***

Partisan Governance and U.S. Outcomes, 1925–2025

A Century in Review

Executive Summary

Across the past 100 years of U.S. governance, broad macroeconomic and public health indicators have tended to perform better under Democratic administrations than Republican ones. This pattern is robust in multiple independent datasets, though causality is complex and subject to external shocks (wars, oil crises, pandemics).

---

Economic Performance

• GDP Growth: Post-WWII, real GDP growth has averaged roughly 1–2 percentage points higher under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.¹

• Jobs: Net job creation has been about double under Democrats, with stronger employment growth in most decades.²

• Recessions: According to NBER dating, recessions have more frequently started during Republican presidencies.³

• Stocks: The S&P 500 and Dow have delivered significantly higher returns on average under Democratic administrations.⁴

---

Fiscal and Inflation Outcomes

• Deficits/Debt: Patterns are mixed. Large shocks (wars, tax cuts, recessions) dominate partisan fingerprints. Some Democratic eras expanded safety nets while still reducing debt ratios (e.g., Clinton), while Republican eras often paired tax cuts with rising debt (e.g., Reagan, Bush).⁵

• Inflation: No consistent partisan advantage. The Carter era (late 1970s oil shocks) produced the highest inflation; otherwise differences are modest.⁶

---

Public Health and Social Indicators

• Life Expectancy: Since 2000, counties and states governed by Democrats have recorded larger gains in life expectancy, while Republican-leaning areas saw stagnation or decline. Policy differences in healthcare, education, and safety explain much of this.⁷

• Mortality: Comparative studies show higher mortality in Republican-leaning counties, with gaps widening since the 1980s.⁸

---

Interpretation

• Correlation ≠ causation: The “Democratic growth premium” is partly attributable to favorable timing and luck (oil shocks, productivity surges, defense spending shifts).¹

• Shared governance: Outcomes also depend heavily on Congress, the Federal Reserve, global markets, and lagged effects from prior administrations.⁵

• Policy environment: State and local results suggest that policy orientation matters for health and inequality, not just chance.⁷

---

Bottom Line

On the balance of GDP growth, job creation, stock market returns, and public health trends, the record favours Democratic administrations. On inflation and debt, outcomes are mixed and context-dependent. Over the last century, Democratic governance correlates more consistently with outcomes considered “good for the country,” though the causal mechanisms are complex!

***

O.K.,  O.K., The democrats are better for the United States than the Republicans! 

As for the current President...?

....................Don't get me started!

---

Notes & References

1. Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson, Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (2014).

2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation (various years).

3. National Bureau of Economic Research, Business Cycle Dating Committee Announcements.

4. Jeremy Siegel, Stocks for the Long Run (6th ed., 2022).

5. Congressional Budget Office, Historical Budget Data.

6. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI-U Historical Tables.

7. JAMA, “Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in Democratic vs Republican Counties, 2001–2019” (2022).

8. American Journal of Public Health, “Political Alignment and Mortality Trends” (2017).

THIS IS HOW THE GENERALS VIEWED TRUMP TODAY!!!!

 

Saturday Morning Confusion!

 The United States Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, has got me severely confused, folks!

An Ambassador means diplomacy... and diplomacy means diplomatic relations!

So why is this asshole under the impression that his job is to come up here to Canada and insult us!

Eh?

DUMP TRUMP!

 ALLAN SAID: Sal, it seems like everything Trump does is the exact opposite of what's best for the United States! 

What are the chances he is "compromised" (kompromat) by someone or something?

SAL-9000 SAID: Short answer: It’s plausible that Donald Trump could be vulnerable to kompromat, and there are multiple publicly reported kinds of exposure that make that risk non-trivial... but there’s no publicly released, conclusive “smoking-gun” showing he is actively controlled... or black-mailed! 

Below, I’ll explain what kompromat is, the main public facts and red flags people point to... what they do... and don’t... prove... and a sensible way to think about the overall likelihood!

What “kompromat” means:

“Kompromat” is simply compromising material used to blackmail or influence someone... anything from financial records... to sex tapes... or criminal conduct! (Everything sounds like Drumpf so far!!!!!)

It can be genuine, fabricated, or exaggerated! Wikipedia+1

Public facts and risk factors people point to:

1. Allegations in the Steele dossier — the dossier alleged Russia had compromising material on Trump from his 2013 Moscow trip! (The now-famous “kompromat” claims!)

2. . The dossier is controversial and contained unverified raw intelligence... some parts have never been corroborated... while other aspects... [e.g., Russia-seeking to influence 2016] are supported by later investigations! (The dossier remains part of the public conversation about why people ask the kompromat question!) Wikipedia+1

3. Mueller and related investigations found lots of contacts and attempts by Russian actors to influence the 2016 election, and documented campaign contacts and outreach that raise counterintelligence concerns — though Mueller did not establish a definite criminal conspiracy to... “collude!” 

4. Contacts and outreach make the possibility of kompromat more plausible from an intelligence and tradecraft perspective! (i.e., countries try to collect leverage!) American Constitution Society+1

5. Financial and business ties, and patterns of behaviour — decades of business dealings, opaque financing, and reports by journalists and researchers about ties between Trump associates and Russian, or post-Soviet actors, have been flagged as creating vulnerability! (People with large unexplained flows of money or complex foreign business ties are easy targets) 

6. Investigative reporting has laid out why many intelligence analysts consider him an “easy mark!” The Washington Post+1

7. Personal/legal vulnerabilities (hush-money, legal exposure) — episodes such as the Michael Cohen payments and related prosecutions created documented legal and financial vulnerabilities that adversaries could exploit or weaponize. The hush-money cases are publicly litigated facts! (Cohen’s guilty plea; prosecutions and reporting) Wikipedia+1

8. Intelligence and counterintelligence context — Russia has a long history of using kompromat as a tool: Intelligence services know how to collect, fabricate, or amplify compromising material. That makes the idea plausible in general... but whether they have usable kompromat on any particular high-level figure is an empirical question! Wikipedia+1

What these facts do not prove:

• Public reporting and investigations establish vulnerability, contacts, and allegations, but not definitive proof that a foreign power is actively blackmailing or controlling Trump. 

• Public sources include both confirmed findings and unverified claims! Professionals distinguish between those categories... the Mueller Report... for example... did not conclude there was criminal collusion... though it left some obstruction questions open! American Bar Association+1

How to think about “the chances,” (a practical framework) instead of a single number, think in terms of conditional factors that raise or lower the risk:

• Exposure factors that raise risk: Lots of foreign business contacts; high-risk travel environments; (e.g., hotels where surveillance is known to occur) legal and financial liabilities; prior examples of kompromat being used by foreign services! Wikipedia+1

• Mitigating factors that lower certainty: No public, declassified proof of active blackmail; many dossier claims remain unverified; public denials and investigations that have cleared or not substantiated specific allegations! AP News+1

Put together: It’s reasonable to treat the risk as non-negligible! (i.e., plausible and worth monitoring) 

But not proven by the public record to the point of saying “definitely compromised!” 

Most national-security professionals would say the situation warrants vigilance, intelligence collection, and protective measures — exactly because vulnerabilities and contacts exist — rather than certitude!

Why do people see behavioural hints:

Observers sometimes point to patterns (e.g., unusually deferential remarks toward a foreign leader, public statements that align with adversary interests) as circumstantial evidence that something like kompromat or influence might be at play! 

Circumstantial patterns can be suggestive, but are not dispositive!  The New Yorker

Bottom line: (Practical Takeaways!)

• Plausible vulnerability: There are realistic, documented vulnerabilities (contacts, business ties, legal exposure) that make the idea of kompromat plausible! The Washington Post+1

• No public smoking gun: Public, verifiable evidence that a foreign power is exercising blackmail control over Trump has not been released! Intelligence agencies may have classified assessments; The public record is incomplete. American Bar Association+1

• Reasonable stance: Treat it as a credible concern that merits investigation and continued scrutiny — but be careful about turning plausible suspicion into definitive accusations without hard proof!

If you want, I can:

• Pull together a concise, dated timeline of the most relevant public events (2013 Moscow trip coverage, Steele dossier dates, Mueller findings, Cohen plea/hush-money legal timeline, UK rulings about Steele/Orbis, etc.,) with sources! 

• Summarize what U.S. intelligence/public inquiries have said (and what they have not) about kompromat-style vulnerabilities.

Which would you prefer?

ALLAN SAID: Both!

SAL-9000 SAID:

Got it. Here’s both, as requested—concise and dated, with solid sources.

1) Concise, dated timeline of key public events tied to the “kompromat” question.

• Nov 8–10, 2013 — Trump in Moscow. (Miss Universe) Trump stays at the Ritz-Carlton: Later allegations in the Steele materials claim Russia collected compromising material during this trip... never verified!  (Golden Showers, shady deals, etc!       The Guardian  

• Jun 9, 2016 — Trump Tower meeting. Senior campaign aides meet a Kremlin-linked lawyer after an email pitch that the info is “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The email chain is released publicly in July 2017!  Department of Justice+1

• Jan 6, 2017 — U.S. Intelligence Community Assessment! ICA/CIA/NSA/FBI publicly assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign to help Trump and harm Clinton. Director of National Intelligence+1

• Jan 10, 2017 — BuzzFeed publishes the Steele dossier! The memos assert Russia holds “kompromat” on Trump: Many allegations remain unverified or disputed! Wikipedia

• Mar 2019 — Mueller Report released. Finds Russia interfered “in sweeping and systematic fashion...” documents numerous contacts, does not establish a definite criminal conspiracy... lays out multiple episodes relevant to potential obstruction! Department of Justice+1

• Dec 9, 2019 — DOJ Inspector General (Horowitz) report. Says the FBI had adequate predication to open the Russia probe, but identifies 17 serious errors/omissions in FISA filings. (incl. reliance on unverified Steele material) Department of Justice+1

• Aug 18, 2020 — Senate Intelligence Committee (bipartisan) Volume 5. Calls Paul Manafort a “grave counterintelligence threat,” identifies Konstantin Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer, and details the campaign’s efforts to capitalize on WikiLeaks: Still no criminal conspiracy finding! Wikipedia+1

• 2018–2025 — Michael Cohen hush-money saga. Cohen pleads guilty (Aug 21, 2018) and is sentenced. (Dec 12, 2018) Trump is later convicted in New York on May 30, 2024 of 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to the same hush-money scheme! (Sentenced to an unconditional discharge in Jan 2025: Conviction under appeal!) These matters show legal/financial vulnerabilities, but not proof of foreign blackmail! NY Courts+3Department of Justice+3Department of Justice+3

2) What official inquiries and public processes have and have not said about kompromat/vulnerabilities!

What they have said:

• Russia interfered and preferred Trump. The declassified 2017 ICA concludes Putin directed an influence campaign favouring Trump; subsequent congressional work largely affirmed this finding! (While later political reviews have criticized aspects of how that judgment was formed.) Director of National Intelligence+2Senate Intelligence Committee+2

• Many contacts + counterintelligence risk! Mueller details extensive Russian outreach and campaign contacts; the Senate Intel (Vol. 5) goes further on counterintelligence concerns—e.g., Manafort’s sharing of internal polling with Kilimnik (assessed as Russian intelligence) and the campaign’s pursuit of WikiLeaks information! Department of Justice+2Department of Justice+2

• The probe’s opening was predicated, but the dossier was problematic. DOJ IG (Horowitz) says the FBI was justified to open “Crossfire Hurricane” and faults serious FISA errors and reliance on unverified Steele material; FBI agrees to reforms! Department of Justice+1

• Some Steele claims were found inaccurate in court. U.K. litigation over dossier passages (e.g., involving Alfa-Bank principals) found certain statements inaccurate/misleading and awarded damages. Wikipedia+1

• Personal/legal exposure is real. The hush-money matter (Cohen’s plea; Trump’s 2024 conviction) establishes domestic legal vulnerability that an adversary could theoretically exploit—again, not proof of foreign blackmail. Department of Justice+1

What they have not said: (Or what remains unproven!)

• No public “smoking gun” of active blackmail. Neither Mueller nor the Senate Intel report, nor any U.S. court, has released public, verified evidence, that a foreign service is actively controlling or blackmailing Trump! The public record supports vulnerabilities and risks, not conclusive kompromat control! Department of Justice+1

• Steele’s most salacious kompromat claims remain unverified! Multiple reviews did not corroborate the alleged Moscow-hotel video; parts of the dossier have been challenged or discredited. Wikipedia

• Later partisan/declassification fights don’t negate the base finding of interference. Recent memos and declassifications have criticized the ICA’s confidence levels and process, but they do not overturn the core, earlier multi-body finding that Russia interfered. AP News+1

Bottom line: (SAL’s quick read)

• The risk that Trump could be vulnerable to kompromat is plausible, given the documented foreign contacts, opaque financial history, and clear legal/personal vulnerabilities! But... the public record stops short of proving he’s compromised / controlled by a foreign power. Treat it as a serious counter- intelligence concern, not an established fact! Wikipedia+1

(NOTE: Anyone who makes any sort of allegations against Trump had better be certain... "ten times to Sunday..." that there is absolutely NOTHING in the allegations... that is not true!!!! - ed.)

SAL-9000 SAID: Here’s the one-page at-a-glance brief you asked for, combining the timeline and the “proven vs. unproven” status!

---

Kompromat & Trump: At-a-Glance Brief!

Timeline of Key Events:

• 2013 (Nov) — Trump in Moscow. (Miss Universe) Alleged surveillance at Ritz-Carlton → later featured in Steele dossier. (never verified)

• 2016 (Jun 9) — Trump Tower meeting with Kremlin-linked lawyer after email promise of “part of Russia’s support.”

• 2017 (Jan 6) — U.S. Intel Community Assessment (ICA): Putin ordered election influence campaign to help Trump, harm Clinton.

• 2017 (Jan 10) — Steele dossier published: Claims Russia held “kompromat!” (many allegations remain unverified)

• 2019 (Mar) — Mueller Report: “Sweeping and systematic” Russian interference... many contacts... no criminal conspiracy proven!

• 2019 (Dec 9) — DOJ Inspector General report: FBI justified in opening Russia probe: Identified serious FISA errors. 

• 2020 (Aug 18) — Senate Intel Committee (bipartisan) Vol. 5: Manafort a “grave counterintelligence threat”; Kilimnik = Russian intelligence; no criminal conspiracy proven.

• 2018–2025 — Michael Cohen hush-money saga. Trump convicted May 30, 2024, of falsifying business records; sentence Jan 2025. (under appeal) Shows domestic legal vulnerability!

---

Proven vs. Unproven!

Proven / Established:

• Russia did interfere in 2016, with a preference for Trump. (2017 ICA, Mueller, Senate Intel)

• Numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian actors! (Mueller, Senate Intel)

• Financial opacity and complex foreign ties raise counterintelligence risk! (journalistic investigations)

• Domestic legal vulnerabilities (Cohen case, 2024 conviction) demonstrate susceptibility to leverage!

Unproven / Disputed:

• No public “smoking gun” of blackmail or active control.

• Steele dossier’s kompromat allegations remain unverified; courts found some passages inaccurate.

• No U.S. report has concluded Trump was compromised; focus remains on risk, not proof.

• Later partisan critiques dispute ICA confidence levels, but not the base finding of Russian interference!

---

SAL’s Bottom Line!

• Risk: non-negligible! Documented vulnerabilities + history of Russian intelligence tradecraft = plausible exposure!

• Proof: Lacking. No verified public evidence of active kompromat control!

• Correct stance: Treat as serious counterintelligence concern... not established fact!

And remember, boys and girls, NOBODY will make any sort of a "kompromat" allegation against Trump... unless they are 100% certain [a thousand times over] ...and can disappear from mortal sight... forever!