The Conundrum of Cui Bono in Contemporary Politics
There is a phrase that has gained a particular traction among conspiracy theorists: cui bono? Translated, it means “to whose benefit?” This rhetorical question serves as a lens through which we can analyze unexpected or significant events. When faced with a perplexing situation, it’s prudent to ask: who stands to gain from it? Often, they may hold some responsibility for the occurrence. This maxim has resurfaced with vigor in the aftermath of the extraordinary developments over the past week, particularly following Donald Trump’s contentious interaction with Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office, alongside the controversial suspension of military aid to Ukraine. This was further compounded by Trump’s grand declaration that Zelensky was prepared to negotiate and that Moscow was “ready for peace.” So, who really benefits from this situation? The answer is clear: Vladimir Putin.
Ergo, to employ another Latin term, we might conclude that Russia is somehow implicated in these events. But how so? Let’s explore a relevant Russian term: kompromat, which refers to compromising information. This brings us back to the infamous “pee tape.” It’s worth noting that discussions about this tape have resurfaced, as people across social media platforms, in casual conversations at pubs, and around office water coolers, are reviving the old theory that Russian intelligence possesses damaging material on Trump—material so scandalous and embarrassing that it compels him to act in accordance with Moscow’s wishes. Could he be a Kremlin operative in the White House?
The narrative surrounding the pee tape first emerged into mainstream discourse eight years ago, in early January 2017. Following Trump’s unexpected election victory—one deemed improbable by most pundits and media commentators—he was preparing to assume the presidency. Just ten days before his inauguration, BuzzFeed published a groundbreaking article detailing an “intelligence dossier” that suggested Trump had deep ties to Russia. Central to this revelation was a tantalizing allegation: a video allegedly recorded years earlier at the Ritz Carlton in Moscow, purportedly showcasing Trump in a compromising position with prostitutes, engaging in a sexual act referred to as a “golden shower.” This became known as the pee tape.
The Steele dossier, named after its compiler Christopher Steele, a former MI6 agent, ignited a media firestorm and a frenzy of legal inquiries. Could the newly elected President of the United States truly be a puppet of Putin? The hunt was on to validate or invalidate the allegations within the dossier. During this time, I was employed as an investigative reporter at the BBC. We assembled a dedicated task force of journalists with invaluable contacts in Moscow and within the security establishments across Washington and other NATO countries.
Our clandestine meetings took place in the basement of an unassuming office building in central London, a site that provided security for journalists venturing into conflict zones. We would press the buzzer, navigate past stacks of flak jackets and gas masks, and descend the stairs. Out of an abundance of caution, we locked our phones in specially designed pouches to prevent eavesdropping. Our paranoia was palpable. Were the Russians aware of our efforts? What about the Americans?
We endeavored to substantiate the dossier’s claims. I traveled to Kyiv to meet with a well-connected arms dealer and flew to the capital of a NATO member state, which I cannot disclose, to speak with high-ranking spies who might illuminate the situation. A colleague ventured to Istanbul to meet an individual who claimed to have actually viewed the pee tape. Ultimately, no such tape has ever been uncovered.
When Robert Mueller, the former FBI director, released his report in May 2019, it confirmed that Moscow had indeed interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, it found no evidence that Trump, or his campaign, colluded with Russia, nor did it substantiate claims that Trump was acting as a Kremlin agent. It later surfaced that one of Steele’s primary sources was a Russian residing in the United States, and much of the dossier’s information was based on “word of mouth and hearsay” or “conversations had over beers.” If the pee tape ever existed, as of now, no one has come forth to confirm its existence.
So, why has this seemingly far-fetched story resurfaced now? Individuals often gravitate towards conspiracy theories during turbulent times when events appear to spiral out of control. The 2016 U.S. presidential election was one such instance. However, the current situation is far more grave.
Since 1945, the United States has been viewed as the ultimate guarantor of European security. At that Oval Office meeting last week, alongside Trump’s subsequent actions, he effectively signaled his intention to undermine this crucial alliance. America has historically championed the dual values of democracy and freedom across the globe, despite a somewhat checkered history. However, this commitment seems to be fading.
Understanding Trump’s Affinity for Putin
Why would Trump seek to align himself with a leader like Putin, an authoritarian kleptocrat with a background in the KGB, the Soviet intelligence agency and a longstanding adversary of the United States? There’s another phrase frequently invoked by conspiracy theorists that proves useful in this context: Occam’s razor. This principle posits that the simplest explanation is often the most likely. There’s no need to concoct a convoluted plot involving spies, illicit activities, and scandalous sexual encounters. The truth may be much more straightforward: Trump has a notable admiration for Putin. He has publicly praised him on numerous occasions, describing him as “smart,” “savvy,” and “a genius.” These are precisely the kinds of accolades Trump wishes to receive himself.
In Putin, Trump sees a leader who has aggressively invaded neighboring territories and is now negotiating from a position of power, which he finds appealing. In Trump’s perspective, democratic checks and balances are merely obstacles.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this situation is that millions of Americans share this viewpoint. The individuals who cast their votes for Trump are convinced that their country’s unparalleled wealth and prosperity have been siphoned away by a financial and cultural elite, leaving their lives stagnating. In many respects, they are not entirely wrong. They perceive the American dream as having become a mere illusion, eroded by a corrupt establishment. For many, America’s support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia symbolizes this betrayal, fostering animosity towards Zelensky and a troubling tolerance—if not admiration—for Putin.
In reality, Trump has not forged a new alliance with Russia. The more pressing concern is that he has disrupted the longstanding alliance between the United States and Europe, an alliance founded on shared interests and values that has maintained peace on the continent for eight decades. Currently, America seems to operate solely based on one set of interests and values: those of Donald J. Trump.
