What did Trump show them though? That he's a populist? That's not useful for any foreign power unless they can reliably sway the American public.

Trump didn't show any strong ideological positions, it's not like there's a straight line running through 40 years. Trump is a wild card. You might argue that having a President that might do anything and everything in office is weakening the US, and that therefore strengthens other powers, but I'm skeptical that they're fine with "oh yeah, well, there's a 30 percent chance he watches an unfavorible documentary on Russia and goes into all-out Cold War mode".

I don't think Trump is too predictable beyond a) Trump wants what's good for Trump and b) Trump will do what American corporations and the generic establishment wants (aka strong military, only favorable trade deals, no international cooperations that might lead to having to change behavior the US profit from). That's essentially rolling the dice. You might win a car, you might lose your life. How many leaders of aspiring or former world powers are going to roll that dice?

> That's not useful for any foreign power unless they can reliably sway the American public.

It's useful if it pushes the US away from Europe and weakens its sphere of influence, which is exactly what happened.

Sure, if that is what they correctly predicted. If the Chinese did that, well, it kind of didn't work, because they also got a trade war and generally unfavorable development. If the Russians did it, they also got a nice proxy war going that they probably didn't want, with their local client state in the area losing ground and the US ally next door annexing part of it.

Rolling the dice is great, you can win big (or bigly?), but it's a dice. Unless you've manipulated it and made sure it can only show whatever side you want, there's a good chance you'll lose.

> Sure, if that is what they correctly predicted.

I mean, I personally predicted in mid-2016 that if Trump were elected, he would push isolationist policies. That was pretty obvious to me and pretty much everyone I'd talked to at the time, and if I could see that, I'm sure the Chinese and Russian governments could have predicted that.

And no, it probably hasn't turned out exactly as either of them potentially could have wanted, but it's not bad. The US has drifted from Europe, and has reduced its presence in military engagements where Russia has gained influence. China has possibly been hurt by the trade war, but it's hurt the US as well, likely just as much. I think Trump really wants to hurt China (which, in our hypothetical scenario, would have been a miscalculation on China's part), but I don't think he's competent enough to do so without inflicting harm on the US as well.

I'm not buying the idea that Trump is just an unknown. He has talked with Putin multiple times without aides, he has many business ties with Russia. The bi-partisan senate report pretty much proves that this isn't just chance.

Russia isn't in a position of power. Any amount of generated chaos is a positive - the proxy war in the middle east is irrelevant to Europe - Putin would make that trade any day of the week.

Russia isn't directly supporting only Trump - it's likely they are supporting left wing candidates as well. It isn't for "policy" it's for division and sowing chaos. The US is its own worst enemy right now - and that limits it internationally.

So it's "Russia is controlling Trump" after all! That would make it more dependable, at least if it's the president that runs the course, and not primarily a giant apparatus of employees, lobbyists and bureaucrats. That kind of unlikely, as presidents have changed while policy by and large remains the same. If it's indeed the establishment that carries the power, and you're trying to install your obvious puppet as president, wouldn't that make it extremely risky?

> Any amount of generated chaos is a positive - the proxy war in the middle east is irrelevant to Europe - Putin would make that trade any day of the week.

And lose their Mediterranean naval base (the only one they have that's not in or right next to Russia, depending on how you view Crimea) and their influence in the region? Hard to believe, especially for a guy like Putin that strikes me as chess player rather than an emotional brawler without long-term plans.

Sowing chaos is what I meant: rolling the dice. Might turn out great, might be your downfall. Doesn't sound like a KGB agent to me.

You seem to be missing the third option - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There doesn't have to be "control." Simply agreement in which action to take.

You're arguing with yourself. You assume that he is either controlled or not - but you never consider the fact that they may be allies.