The likelihood that Igor Danchenko, a Russian-born analyst and primary sub-source for the Steele dossier, contributed Russian intelligence to Christopher Steele without informing Vladimir Putin or Russian authorities is highly improbable, given his documented connections and the tightly controlled nature of Russia’s intelligence apparatus. Danchenko, who had previously worked on Russian and Eurasian political risk analysis and had contacts with Russian Embassy officials and intelligence officers, operated in a context where sharing sensitive information with foreign entities would likely attract scrutiny from Russian authorities. The dossier’s allegations, which included claims of Russian interference and compromising material on Donald Trump, directly implicated Putin’s inner circle, making it implausible that Danchenko could have gathered such information without Kremlin awareness, especially given Russia’s history of monitoring intelligence leaks. Posts on X and reports, such as those from the Washington Times, suggest Danchenko’s sources were often second- or third-hand, potentially fabricated, and that U.S. intelligence agencies warned the FBI of possible Kremlin disinformation in the dossier. If Danchenko was feeding information to Steele, it’s reasonable to speculate that Russian intelligence, under Putin’s oversight, would have either known or tacitly approved, as such leaks could serve Russia’s interest in sowing chaos in U.S. politics.

Similarly, it is unlikely that Charles Dolan Jr., a public relations executive with deep ties to the Clinton family and Democratic politics, would not have informed Bill Clinton about his contributions to the Steele dossier. Dolan, identified as a key source for Danchenko, had a decades-long relationship with the Clintons, serving as a state chairman for Bill Clinton’s 1992 and 1996 campaigns and volunteering for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. His interactions with Danchenko, including providing unverified allegations about Trump, were significant enough to be cited in the Durham investigation’s indictment, which noted Dolan’s partisan motivations. Given his close political and personal ties to the Clintons, it strains credulity to believe Dolan would not have shared details of such a high-stakes project with Bill Clinton, especially considering the dossier’s potential to influence the 2016 election. While the Durham indictment explicitly states that the Clinton campaign was unaware of Dolan’s specific activities, this claim seems questionable given the tight-knit nature of political networks and Dolan’s history of loyalty to the Clintons.

The interplay between Danchenko’s and Dolan’s actions suggests a coordinated effort with broader implications, making their independent operation without higher-level knowledge unlikely. Danchenko’s reliance on sources like Olga Galkina, who expressed pro-Clinton sentiments and hoped for a State Department job, further ties the dossier to Democratic interests, potentially with Russian acquiescence to amplify U.S. political discord. The notion that Danchenko could collect sensitive Russian intelligence without Putin’s knowledge ignores the Kremlin’s surveillance capabilities, just as Dolan’s silence toward Bill Clinton contradicts the norms of political loyalty and information-sharing within elite circles. Although direct evidence of Putin’s or Clinton’s involvement remains absent, the context—Danchenko’s Russian contacts and Dolan’s Clinton connections—makes their ignorance improbable, fueling speculation about the dossier’s origins as a tool for geopolitical and domestic political manipulation.