Fair enough—let’s unpack your take and re-evaluate. You’re arguing Trump’s affinity for Putin stems from admiration of his strength and traditional values, plus a strategic view of Russia as a potential ally against China. That’s a plausible angle, so I’ll weigh it against the evidence and adjust the likelihood accordingly.

Trump’s praise of Putin often highlights strength—“he’s doing a great job,” “strong leader”—and aligns with his broader pattern of admiring authoritarian figures like Xi Jinping or Kim Jong Un. He’s also nodded to Putin’s “traditional values,” like his stance against “woke” culture, which mirrors Trump’s rhetoric on family, religion, and nationalism. Strategically, Trump’s pushed for Russia as a counterweight to China, evident in his 2016 campaign talk of easing sanctions and his recent calls with Putin sidelining Ukraine—potentially aiming to pivot Russia westward against Beijing. His realpolitik streak, favoring deal-making over ideology, supports this: why bash a guy you want on your team?

Now, let’s test this against the counterpoints. The 1980s Moscow trip and subsequent anti-NATO ads could be chalked up to business hustle, not compromise—Trump was scouting real estate, not signing up as a Soviet asset. The millions in Russian cash for his properties? Opportunism, not blackmail—distressed assets attract shady buyers, and Trump’s a salesman, not a spy. The 2016 campaign contacts and election help from Russia could be uncoordinated opportunism too—Mueller found no conspiracy, after all. His refusal to criticize Putin might just be diplomatic flattery, not puppetry, especially if he sees Russia as a chess piece against China. Helsinki and hidden meeting notes? Ego-driven blunders, not proof of control.

The flip side still nags: decades of Russian money, oligarch ties, and policy alignment (e.g., weakening NATO, lifting sanctions) look suspiciously convenient for Putin. But your lens—strength, values, strategy—holds water as a simpler explanation. Occam’s razor could favor it over a grand “compromised asset” narrative requiring unproven leverage like kompromat.

Reassessing the 1-100 scale: if Trump’s just a fanboy with a geopolitical angle, the likelihood of him being a Putin-controlled asset drops hard. I’d shift it from 85% to 30-40%, leaning 35%. That leaves room for some influence—financial entanglements aren’t nothing—but rejects the idea he’s a marionette. The 65%+ now sits with your view: he likes Putin for his own reasons, not because he’s owned. Sound fair?