Last week, the New York Times broke that sensational story that Russia’s military intelligence arm, the GRU and its Unit 21955, paid $100,000 bounties to the Taliban for killing US and allied troops in Afghanistan. The story attributed the deaths of three marines last year to these GRU bounties. Those revelations created an instantaneous double figure political earthquake reading on the Richter scale. Both Republicans and Democrats demanded to know what did the president know and when did he know it. The president’s immediate response was predictable: twitter first and find out later. “Fake news and a hoax” Donald Trump immediately bellowed. A White House memo subsequently argued that the intelligence could not be confirmed with “high confidence” as the National Security Agency responsible for signals and electronic snooping “strongly dissented.” In any case, this story may be more complicated in getting to the “truth.” What would motivate Russia to stage such a risky operation? It would seem inconceivable that Russian President Vladimir Putin, both a former KGB officer and its one-time head, did not know or approve of setting bounties if the reports prove correct. Of course, Henry II’s plea to rid him of “that meddlesome priest” could have been misinterpreted by his intelligence services. If there were a Russian side of the story, it would have Trump as Bligh and Putin as Christian. Here Trump/Bligh is the aggressor. And Putin/Christian has no option other than to retaliate In the White House, why did such a potentially explosive report not receive greater attention? While the bandwidth of any White House is limited, did the president’s reluctance to confront Putin stifle presenting him with conflicting reports? Or could the bounty story be a “false flag” operation by a third party? A GRU plot however is plausible. The GRU attempted to assassinate a former Russian double agent, Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England last year. After losing the Afghan War in 1989 in which 15,000 Soviet soldiers died, many because of American aid to the Mujahedin, thirty years later revenge could be a motive. In 2018, former International Assistance and Security Force Afghanistan (ISAF) commander General John (Mick) Nicholson testified that Taliban were being supplied with Russian weapons but did not state by whom. History offers warnings. In August 2001, the Bush White House ignored intelligence suggesting a possible terrorist attack. A year later, the same White House manipulated intelligence declaring with “slam dunk” certainty that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. And during the Vietnam War, the CIA had its own Unit 21955 called Operation Phoenix that eliminated 50,000 suspected Viet Cong and North Vietnamese agents. This bounty story is not over. Interestingly, the term led me to think about another Bounty, His Majesty’s 90 foot sailing bark with a crew of 44 and the mutiny that took place in April 1789. The protagonists were Bounty’s 33 year old captain, Lieutenant William Bligh, and his executive officer, Fletcher Christian. During the long cruise to Tahiti to obtain breadfruit plants, Bligh’s brutality towards the crew led to the mutiny. Rather than killing Bligh, Christian set him and 18 of the crew adrift in a long boat. The cause celebre was allocating precious water to the breadfruit and not to the crew. In an unprecedented feat of navigation, Bligh piloted his life boat to safety 2500 miles away. In later life Bligh was promoted to vice admiral. In a mental exercise, suppose the GRU story is accurate and imagine Vladimir Putin as Captain Bligh, Donald Trump as Fletcher Christian and HMS Bounty a metaphor for the U.S.-Russian relationship. For much of the cruise, Christian was loyal to and supportive of the captain no matter what Bligh did. At some stage, Bligh’s action would force Christian to mutiny. The question is this: is there anything that Putin/Bligh could do to cause Trump/Christian to take decisive action? If there were a Russian side of the story, it would have Trump as Bligh and Putin as Christian. Here Trump/Bligh is the aggressor. And Putin/Christian has no option other than to retaliate. As a trained spy, instead of provoking an outright mutiny, Putin/Christian relies on clandestine and non-attributable actions—hence a different form of bounty. This hypothetical diversion may be a bridge too far. But how else to explain the bizarre relationship between the two leaders? Some argue, without evidence, that Putin has leverage over Trump possibly through blackmail-like information. Others believe that Trump wants to improve relations with Russia as leverage vis a vis China. Hence the president is unwilling to challenge Putin too publicly. If the report of GRU bounties proves correct, despite dissension in the intelligence community, how will this affect relations with Russia and the attitude of the president towards Putin? Perhaps the mutiny aboard HMS Bounty becomes strangely more relevant. The writer is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist. He is Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council