The Epstein case: Intelligence agencies, "kompromat", and irreparable damage
An exclusive interview with the Russian analyst Igor Danchenko about a defused “time bomb” and what the Epstein files mean for the West.
Dear readers,
The Epstein files are like a gaping wound running through the media, politics, and society in various Western countries. Holding the perpetrators accountable and protecting the victims must be a priority. However, the damage that has been done to the West is “irreparable”, as my interview partner analyzes.
Why a newsletter about Jeffrey Epstein and his possible connection to Russia now?
Because I already researched on the so-called Steele Dossier almost ten years ago. The Steele Dossier was a collection of intelligence-style reports on possible links between the entourage of then US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russia. It was compiled in 2016 by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who worked through his company Orbis Business Intelligence.
It was initially commissioned by a conservative US media outlet. Later, a law firm took over the financing on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign team and the Democratic National Committee.
Among other things, the dossier stated that Russia had collected compromising material on Trump and that members of Trump’s circle had had contacts with Russian actors. While the dossier was disparaged, especially by Trump and the Republican Party, it became clear in the years that followed that some of its key points were accurate. For example:
Russian interference in the elections: US intelligence agencies and the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed that Russia conducted a comprehensive campaign to interfere in the 2016 elections in order to favor Donald Trump – as was also claimed in the dossier.
Contacts between Trump associates and Russians: Investigations (including the Mueller Report and a bipartisan Senate report) documented numerous contacts between individuals from Trump’s campaign team and individuals with ties to Russia, consistent with the dossier’s general claim about interactions.
And now back to Epstein. Just over a week ago, Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent mentioned above, gave an interview to British radio station LBC in which he said:
“My sources in America tell me that the American government, the American intelligence services assessment was that Epstein was recruited as early as the 1970s by Russian organised crime figures in New York and that his information was being used, his operational techniques were being used from that point onwards.”
In other words, an Epstein-Russia connection is considered likely. The only question is how extensive it was.
Interview with Igor Danchenko
I wanted to find out more about this, so I spoke to someone who knows a lot about it: Igor Danchenko.
Danchenko is an analyst and researcher of Russian origin who worked for many years in Washington in the world of think tanks and risk analysis.
He became internationally known when he was identified as the central source behind parts of the Steele Dossier. As a political risk analyst with a broad network of contacts in Russian and international circles, he spent years gathering information from informal conversation and exile networks, assessing its credibility, and incorporating it into geopolitical analyses.
Media profiles describe him as a methodical networker who was able to bring together and classify information from different milieus – a skill that made him equally relevant to investigators and analysts. FBI officials described Danchenko as a “very valuable source” because his reports were used in numerous investigations and situation assessments and offered insights into Russian circles that were difficult to access.
“The overall damage to the West is irreparable”
Philipp Sandmann: You argue that there was Russian involvement in the Epstein case, but relatively late in the day. What led you to that conclusion?
Igor Danchenko: The assumption is that Russian intelligence would have been aware of Epstein well in advance, as would most major intelligence agencies – and that’s before his first conviction. After that conviction, however, I think Russia moved into a more active operational posture. That’s when you start to see serious Russian operatives appearing in his orbit, in some cases almost in plain sight.
What do you mean by “in plain sight”?
One example is Maria Drokova, who at one point served as a PR adviser to Epstein. She was publicly very pro-Putin and extremely outspoken – to the point of being ridiculed in Russia. She had been involved with the pro-Kremlin Nashi movement and even publicly praised Putin in very theatrical ways. All of this was well documented. Yet this same person later moved to the West and became part of Epstein’s press operation.
In itself that might not have been unusual, but she was connected to many individuals across different networks: some former colleagues had also moved West, others remained in Russia, some were wealthy, and some had ties to the Russian presidential administration. Those connections would have been known. Even unintentionally, someone in that position could end up relaying information to multiple contacts about what they were learning – and they would have been learning a great deal. She’s just one example among several.
“If you’re assessing risk, that’s a significant red flag.”
You’re referring as well to the Russian models linked to Epstein?
Yes. They came from varied backgrounds. Some were simply young women with no obvious ties to anything. But others appeared to have family connections to senior figures in Russian security services. If you’re assessing risk, that’s a significant red flag. There were enough cases like that to suggest that Russian services were not only aware of what was happening but were also in a position to gather sensitive information.
Do you think the intelligence agencies actively used that information, or simply collected it to see how events unfolded?
Like other intelligence services, the Russians likely collected and held onto it. The expectation would be to use it later for influence operations. Israel would have been doing the same, and U.S. intelligence agencies were certainly aware as well. In effect, multiple major services were collecting compromising material and kept it quiet while building increasingly detailed dossiers. What has happened since then is that much of that material has been devalued through public exposure.
Devalued for everyone, not just one side?
Exactly. Once information like this is widely known, its leverage diminishes. The potency is reduced because too many agencies hold similar material, and much of it has entered the public domain. From that perspective, exposure becomes a logical outcome.
What do you mean by that?
If too many people risk being publicly implicated, disclosure becomes almost inevitable. When you can’t fully control a process, sometimes you try to lead it. To some extent, a major “time bomb” of compromising material has been defused by bringing parts of it into the open. That said, there are still smaller risks – for instance, individuals who were victims but also possess information.
The damage that has been done is immense when you think about how and in what light the people on the files are now seen, some of whom were once considered respectable. It’s a major blow to the West and to the elites exposed.
Yes. But again, in order to diffuse this big bomb of compromising materials, all of these people were sacrificed. At this point, to protect a small number of people, such as, well, you know who, and others. They were ready to throw in not just the names of victims to intimidate them, but also people like Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky, Deepak Chopra and others. They want to broaden it to make it seem like we are all ‘in it together’. This minimizes damage by dispersing responsibility. It distracts from political and economic elites and shifts the focus to otherwise popular figures. It is like collateral damage.
“You might be able to protect a few people in U.S. leadership, but at what cost? At the cost of the reputation of the whole West.”
So basically, as opposed to cherry-picking and throwing just a few people under the bus, which might not be sufficient, the approach becomes: throw everyone under the bus. Then hope that, in due course, people will forget, people will move on or focus on other things. By doing so, people will lose interest.
But yes, the overall damage to the West is irreparable. You might be able to protect a few people in U.S. leadership, but at what cost? At the cost of the reputation of the whole West. And if you look at the Russian narrative, as you can see, there are no Russians in those papers – at least no abusers or individuals close to today’s elites.
Lastly, how do you think Putin views the situation? Does he see it as the U.S. damaging its own image?
From that perspective, the Kremlin really doesn’t need to do very much. Russian messaging can simply point to the scandal and portray it as evidence of moral decay among Western elites. That’s a significant propaganda advantage. The reputational damage could linger for decades and haunt the elites. In that sense, it represents a moral and informational victory for Russia, China, and other major powers that have been challenging the Western dominance as the West-centric world is becoming more multipolar. In this multipolar world interconnectivity and interdependence remain. And the Epstein network is an example of such complex networks.
“An important task going forward is not only to identify, prosecute and hold accountable those directly responsible, and to support victims, but also to methodically dismantle any remaining informal networks that enabled wrongdoing.”
Could you elaborate what you mean by “complex networks”?
A network of individuals that appears to be connected by informal relationships that facilitate the sharing of information, influence decision-making and shape behavior. These ties resemble the kind of longstanding, mutually protective bonds often depicted in films – groups bound by loyalty and secrecy. Such dynamics seem to have persisted even after the death of Jeffrey Epstein, who is widely understood to have acted as a central facilitator of these relationships, alongside his associate Ghislaine Maxwell. The effects of those connections are likely to linger for years to come.
An important task going forward is not only to identify, prosecute and hold accountable those directly responsible, and to support victims, but also to methodically dismantle any remaining informal networks that enabled wrongdoing. Much of this work will be painstaking and largely unsensational, requiring careful investigation and discretion. Some links appear to have weakened following partial public exposure, but others may remain and will require sustained scrutiny.
Thank you, Igor Danchenko, for taking the time.
Philipp Sandmann