Donald Trump has undermined history’s most successful defence alliance. He is engaged in an all-out trade war with America’s closest neighbour and ally. He is threatening to take control of the territory of another ally. His tariffs have destabilised the world trading system. His repeated attacks on American elections have damaged confidence in one of the cornerstones of US democracy. He is crude, rude and politically divisive. He has cut support for democratic Ukraine while repeatedly accommodating authoritarian Russia. And finally, he has embroiled the United States in a Middle East war that is pushing up energy and food prices around the world.

If the aim of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping is to weaken the power of the United States and the Western alliance, it is difficult to imagine that they could have asked for a more disruptive occupant of the White House.

Donald Trump claims that the Mueller Report exonerated him of allegations of collusion with the Russians. That is false. Robert Mueller concluded that his investigation “did not establish” that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its interference in the 2016 election. He also documented numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russians, confirmed that the Russians did interfere and concluded that Moscow expected to benefit from a Trump victory while the Trump campaign expected to benefit from material stolen and released through Russian efforts.

Trump refused Mueller’s request for an in-person interview and instead provided written answers which Mueller later described as inadequate and incomplete. Given everything that has happened since Mueller, it is worth re-examining the allegations and asking the question: Does Moscow have kompromat on Donald Trump?

Kompromat is Russian shorthand for “compromising material” and has entered the vocabulary of intelligence agencies around the world. To ask whether an intelligence service has kompromat on someone is to ask whether it possesses damaging information—true, exaggerated or fabricated—that can be used to blackmail, pressure, manipulate or otherwise exert leverage over that person.

According to the Steele dossier, the Russians possess kompromat on Donald Trump. The details are hazy. The compromising material could involve sex, questionable business dealings, or both.

Republicans frequently say that the Steele dossier has been “debunked.” That is too sweeping. Many of its most sensational allegations have never been substantiated, and some were weakened or contradicted by subsequent investigations. But the broader context in which the dossier was written was very real. Russia interfered extensively in the 2016 election, Trump associates had numerous contacts with Russians, and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee later concluded that Paul Manafort’s position in the Trump campaign created opportunities for Russian intelligence to exert influence and obtain confidential information.

None of that proves that Moscow possesses kompromat on Trump. But neither does it make the allegation disappear. And when Trump’s subsequent record repeatedly coincides with important Russian strategic interests, the question becomes harder—not easier—to dismiss.

A key figure in the Steele dossier was Paul Manafort. He was Trump’s campaign chairman when he met Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukrainian-Russian political operative whom the Senate Intelligence Committee assessed as having close links to Russian intelligence. Manafort and Kilimnik discussed a pro-Russian peace plan for Ukraine which Kilimnik hoped a future Trump administration would support, and Manafort shared confidential Trump campaign information with him. Steele alleged a broader understanding under which Trump would soften US opposition to Russian policy in Ukraine while Moscow helped his election campaign, but that alleged bargain was never established.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, which also investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election, concluded that Manafort’s proximity to Trump created opportunities for Russian intelligence to obtain confidential information and exert influence. Manafort’s willingness to share information with Kilimnik, said the committee, represented a “grave counterintelligence threat.”

Mueller’s investigation led to Manafort’s conviction for tax fraud, bank fraud and failure to report foreign bank accounts. He also pleaded guilty to conspiracy against the United States and conspiracy to obstruct justice, charges connected in part to his work for pro-Russian Ukrainian interests. Manafort was sentenced to a total of 7½ years. He served about two years before Trump pardoned him in December 2020.

Manafort, the Steele dossier and the Mueller Report are all past history. In political terms they might almost be considered ancient history, much of it predating Trump’s first term in office.

But the central question raised by the dossier has not gone away. When Donald Trump’s subsequent record is set alongside Russia’s strategic objectives—his hostility towards NATO, his pressure on Ukraine, his repeated accommodation of Vladimir Putin and his willingness to challenge long-standing Western policies—the allegation that Moscow may possess some form of leverage over the American president becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”