Citing mass murder of Christians by Muslims, President Trump has laudably ordered surgical strikes on ISIS strongholds in Nigeria.
This calls for applause, but as my palms were about to strike each other, they were stopped in mid-air. The brakes were applied by a question that popped up in my mind.
How come Trump, who is so concerned about the massacre of some 50,000 Nigerian Christians by the Muslims, doesn’t seem to be unduly bothered by the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Christians by the Russians?
Moreover, he unmistakably takes the side of their mass murderer, Putin. Is it because Nigerian Christians worship according to the Western rite, and most Ukrainians are Orthodox? No, that doesn’t quite work.
I somehow doubt that Trump is overly concerned with such theological conundrums as the double versus single procession of the Holy Spirit. Nor does he probably have sleepless nights struggling with the question of whether the Pope is merely primus inter pares or primus, full stop.
I’ve explored some possible reasons for Trump’s almost maidenly adoration of Putin many times, most recently in my article of 30 August, 2025. Not to repeat myself – and yes, I know that repetition is the mother of all learning – I’d now like to look at this from a different angle.
Every investigation starts from a question, and this one is no exception. The question is: What does Putin want to get out of his invasion of the Ukraine?
All sorts of commentators have offered variously inane answers, most of them prompted by the Kremlin. Putin wants to protect the Russian-speaking minority in the Ukraine, some suggest. Others insist that the Russians couldn’t stand seeing Ukrainian streets named after Bandera and other nationalist leaders of the past.
Still others, and these are in a majority, opine that Putin was bothered by NATO’s westward expansion, which he saw as a strategic threat. This is just about correct, but it raises an attendant question: Why did he feel threatened by mighty powers like Estonia (p. 1.4 million) joining NATO?
Surely, only a clinical imbecile would think that NATO would ever use Estonia (Latvia, Romania, Albania etc.) as a springboard for a massive assault on Russia, and Putin, for all his faults, isn’t stupid. This brings me to the previous question: Why did he attack the Ukraine? What are his strategic objectives?
Unlike the nature of Trump’s affection for Putin, answering this question involves no conjecture. Putin himself, along with all his acolytes, has provided an unequivocal answer on all sorts of occasions, from 2007 onwards.
He is out to reverse “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”, the collapse of the Soviet Union. This means reincorporating all the breakaway Soviet republics into Russia, to begin with. The next stage is extending the same domination over Eastern Europe that the USSR had. And – tomorrow ze world.
Essentially, this is the same plus ça change objective declared and pursued by the Soviet Union from its inception. Putin is merely treading in the footsteps of Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and so on, all the way down the list.
Now, what has prevented such ambitions from being fully realised since 4 April, 1949? That was the founding date of NATO, a bloc of civilised countries that came together to keep that barbarian regime in check. They were led by the US, the only Western country to emerge from the war stronger, richer and bristling with moral rectitude.
Understandably, NATO was the object of virulent hatred on the part of Soviet chieftains and especially their dog of war, the KGB. Since then KGB has become FSB, but neither its methods nor its goals have changed. The prime one is to remove that obstacle from its path to pan-European domination.
So yes, Putin did feel threatened by NATO expansion – but not because he feared Western aggression. What he – and Soviet chieftains before him – feared was that NATO would be able to stop the Soviet/Russian aggression against Europe.
Since the FSB, as represented by Putin himself and some 80 per cent of his entourage, now runs Russia, it has dedicated itself mostly if not solely to the task of degrading and destabilising NATO. Ideally, the Russians want to see that pernicious organisation disbanded, a task to which the FSB devotes its considerable skills.
Is there proof that Trump is a Russian agent? No, there is no proof. But there are numerous indications, and one of them is his pursuing exactly the same goal as one so close to Putin’s heart: neutering NATO. This didn’t start yesterday.
In 1987, when Putin was still stuck in a dead-end KGB job, Trump first visited Russia. He was invited by the Soviet ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, and all Trump’s expenses were paid by the Soviet tourist office, Intourist, which is to say by the KGB.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the KGB then tried to develop Trump as an asset – it wouldn’t have been doing its job if it hadn’t. Whether or not the KGB succeeded is open to conjecture.
However, immediately on his return to the US, Trump paid over $100,000 to place a full-page ad in the New York Times, the Boston Globe and the Washington Post. Written as an open letter to the American people, the ad essentially said that America should leave all her defence alliances.
The so-called allies were ripping America off by relying on her to fund their defence, which cost Americans billions and billions. Trump didn’t even call on America’s allies to spend more on their defence – that came later. In 1987 he merely tried to whip up isolationist and transactional passions he knew would find a sympathetic audience.
Considering that America reached unprecedented prosperity in the decades following NATO’s founding, the rip-off must have worked both ways, but that wasn’t the point. Trump was essentially saying that alliances America had formed with her European and Asian partners had become obsolete.
That established his recurrent theme, repeated time and again, especially since 2000, when Trump first dipped his toe in the water of presidential campaigns. Throughout, and here I again refer you to my article of 30 August this year, Trump had extensive commercial links with the Russians.
They, in their turn, were trying to do all they could to bolster Trump’s presidential ambitions. Putin clearly saw Trump’s ascent as a long-term benefit to Russia’s strategic aims. Thus, the Russians threw no-holds-barred support behind Trump’s presidential bid.
The subsequent Mueller investigation revealed nothing illegal, but that could simply confirm that the FSB knows how to cover its tracks. Perfectly legal assistance was bad enough anyway. For example, Trump openly begged Russia to blow the whistle on Hillary Clinton’s infamous 30,000 e-mails, and Putin duly obliged.
When Trump was elected, champagne corks were popping all over Russian government offices, including the Duma. They had much to celebrate: Trump was generous about appointing to key positions people tarred with the FSB brush.
Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser, for example, had been paid vast sums by the Russians to do lobbying work for them and to appear as an advocate on RT and other propaganda channels. At the gala celebration of RT’s anniversary, he sat next to Putin at his banquet table.
Eventually Flynn was indicted for holding secret meetings with the Russian ambassador, but Trump issued a presidential pardon in 2020. Meanwhile, Trump was as disparaging about his European allies as he was effusive about Putin, describing his annexation of the Crimea as “genius” and “savvy”.
All that was merely a rehearsal for Trump’s second term at the White House. He could now afford to throw caution to the wind, and his parroting of the Russian line became blatant.
Under his tutelage, America has withdrawn from NATO de facto, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she soon did so de jure as well. Trump has already said he saw Article 5 as non-binding.
His attacks on America’s European allies have increased in both frequency and virulence – Trump has clearly set out to demolish the post-war order, reorienting America away from an effete Europe and towards muscular tyrannies, mainly Russia and China.
All presidential ‘peace’ plans amount to attempts to blackmail the Ukraine into capitulation. All such plans, manifestly including the notorious 28-point document, were compiled in the Kremlin, transferred to Trump by Steven Witkoff (whose own commercial links with Russia are extensive) and then passed for Trump’s own.
American military aid for the Ukraine has dwindled away to almost nothing since Trump’s inauguration, and ‘almost’ is on the way out. He and his poodle Vance are making fiery speeches about the indolent, sponging Europeans without ever mentioning the massacre of Ukrainians perpetrated by Putin’s frankly fascist regime.
Ukrainian capitulation is vital to Putin because, while the war is going on, Russia has no resources to move in on NATO countries on her border, mainly the Baltics. Equally vital is an enfeeblement of NATO, and there Putin and Trump are working hand in glove.
“Ye shall know them by their fruits,” said the book I doubt Trump has ever read. This isn’t the kind of evidence one can take to court, yet. But there’s no doubt that Trump sees a fascist Russia and not Europe as his natural ally. As Andrew Neil perceptively pointed out the other day, we are on our own.
P.S. Data just published show that hybrid cars are three times as likely as petrol to be involved in fatal accidents. Could this be God’s way of telling us not to play silly buggers with faddish ideologies?
Thanks for another eye-opening article.
1. As it happens, there are a few Orthodox in Nigeria, who like all African Orthodox belong to the Patriarchate of Alexandria. However, some Russian Orthodox who arrived a few years ago to “help” were repudiated by Metropolitan Alexander, and I hope they have also been repudiated by his successor Metropolitan Nicodemus.
https://orthodoxtimes.com/metropolis-of-nigeria-the-russian-presence-in-the-country-serves-specific-purposes-drawn-up-over-many-decades/
2. If Mr Zelensky hopes to save his country, perhaps he ought to offer to rename it Donaldia and its capital Trumpville, if those names aren’t already reserved for Greenland and Godthåb alias Nuuk. Mr Trump’s infantile vanity might be even stronger than his admiration of the KGB.
3. Obviously, if God had intended us to drive electric cars he wouldn’t have given us petrol.
Thank you for 1. — I didn’t know. The problem with 2. is that Putin could beat Zelensky to it by renaming Moscow Trumpograd, Petersuburg Donaldburg and so on. Of course, neither Donbass nor the River Don will even need renaming. And 3. is as true as it’s theologically sound.
I didn’t know either. But it now seems clear that Patriarch Cyril of Moscow is guilty of the same kind of interference in Africa as the interference by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in the Ukraine about which Cyril complains so loudly. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but I’m relieved to learn that Cyril is no more guiltless according to Canon Law than he is guiltless according to common decency. This means that I no longer feel an uncomfortable obligation to defend him. Huzzah!
It may require a council of all the Orthodox Churches to sort the mess out, but such councils are easier to organise than they used to be, and even the Patriarch of Rome might send a couple of legates, thereby making the council potentially Ecumenical. Thus from great evil great good could come.
A real car is better than an electric car, but neither is as much use for fox-hunting or steeple-chasing as a horse. Is it possible that God intended us to prefer horses to cars? I may seek guidance on this subject from St Donald of Ogilvy – the only Donald who has ever been called a saint, as far as I can tell, and one of those exceptionally admirable saints of whom almost nothing is known.
I’m amazed you ever felt an obligation to defend the Moscow patriarch. Many Russians I know switched to the Constantinople patriarchate after The Mitrokhin Archive outed Kirill (Cyril to you) as ‘Agent Mikhailov’, a lifelong KGB operative. Now that the worst-kept secret of his having a secret wife of 50 years has become common knowledge, I expect more of such conversions.
Pope Alexander VI Borgia wasn’t the best Christian ever to sit in St Peter’s Chair, but even Savonarola called him Most Holy Father. Respect is due to the office, not to the holder of the office.
Until today, I felt obliged to defend Cyril against Bartholomew because Cyril’s actions, however nasty, seemed to me to be in accordance with Canon Law, while Bartholomew’s actions obviously weren’t. The discovery that Cyril is as much a breaker of Canon Law as Bartholomew excuses me from any obligation to refrain from joining you, Bartholomew and Metropolitan Alexander of Nigeria (RIP) in putting the boot in to Cyril.
Are your Russian friends living in the West? If so, they can choose their Patriarch the way they can choose their favourite dish from a restaurant menu, just as you and I do. But in the East, Canon Law prevails. Orthodox Christians in the Ukraine may rightly detest Cyril, but they still legally belong to the Patriarchate of Moscow until a council, either of their Patriarchate or of the whole Church, grants them autocephaly. This is much the same rational doctrine as applies to the Uniate Churches associated with Rome, and the alternatives are Donatism or Protestantism.
So we Orthodox urgently need a Council: to depose Cyril, possibly also to depose Bartholomew, and generally to put right quite a few things that have gone wrong.
Pardon my frivolous reply to what started as a serious article, but I could not let the horse vs. car question go unanswered. First, I was under the impression that traditional fox hunting (mounted hunters using a pack of dogs) was banned in the UK. Though I understand one can get around this by declaring the fox an “unidentified wild mammal”. I do not claim to understand the legal arguments for describing an “unidentified” target as a “mammal”.
Second, most people – especially anti-combustion-engine zealots – are unaware that the use of the automobile was originally the “green” alternative. For example, New York in 1880 was home to over 150,000 horses, producing over 500,000 tons of manure and 10 million gallons of urine each year. “Crossing sweepers” were available for hire to clear a path for pedestrians. The use of automobiles solved a number of issues, including freeing up tens of millions of acres of land required for growing the horses’ food supply.
Finally, in favor of horses, the animals paint a more noble picture than the automobile. A statue of a general astride his trusty steed evokes different emotions than that of a general riding in his staff car. I suppose the debate will continue.
You are absolutely right. I often say that replacing every one of the 30 million cars in Britian with a horse would create a much worse ecological problem. It’s also true that hunting qua hunting was banned by the Blair government. It was then replaced by trail hunting, with scent sprayed over the countryside that the hounds and the riders then follow. Our Marxist government now wants to ban even that, insisting that some foxes may still be trampled to death inadvertently. All this is just an aspect of class war, and I know which side I’m on.
Boot on Trump & Russia here scores 100% in my reckoning. Bravo! Well done! America has done the free world no favours, alas! Democracy is dangerous to those who practice it, alas!
PJR: I think you’ll find that many Orthodox Christians in the Ukraine have nothing to do with the Moscow Partiarchate, legally or otherwise — and hadn’t even before it was banished from the country. My Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox friends (and yes, they all live in civilised countries or the US) talk my ear off about the confessional diversity there, and I never retain much of it. But I gather there are three, possibly four, different brands of Orthodoxy there, and only one of them has links wih Moscow. By the way, the Ukrainian Church was proclaimed autocephalous in 1920, similar to the Alexndrian Church. Also, I don’t think canon law ought to come up when discussing a church that’s essentially a department of the most diabolical organisation in history — a church whose priests happily divulge to the police secrets vouchsafed to them at confession, and whose hierarchy are KGB officers to a man. The Moscow Patriarchate, whatever its relation to cannon law, is in my view anti-Christian. Some rank and file priest are fine, but that doesn’t change the overall situation as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m on your side. Have I not just called for Patriarch Cyril to be deposed? But Canon Law is as binding as the Creed, with the difference that Canon Law can be amended.
Here’s how I understand the problem that confronts Orthodox Christians:
The “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” of 1920 was “proclaimed autocephalous” (as you put it) only by itself, and was never recognised as Orthodox by any pre-existing Orthodox Church. Neither was the rival “Kiev Patriarchate” of 1992, until 2018, when Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople astounded everybody by declaring that he was in communion with it. Later in 2018, the UAOC and KP declared that they and two Russian Orthodox priests were now going to be the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine”, but within a year most of the the former hierarchs of the “Kiev Patriarchate” repudiated the union. That leaves three “Orthodox Churches” in the Ukraine, the OCU, the KP, and the Muscovites, unless there’s another one I haven’t heard about. Of these three, the first is official, the second of uncertain status, and the third outlawed.
Of fourteen pre-existing autocephalous Orthodox Churches, only three (Constantinople, Alexandria and Greece) are in communion with the OCU, none are in communion with the KP, and all but Constantinople are willing to be in communion with Moscow, though Patriarch Cyril has separated himself and his Church from the Churches of Alexandria, Greece and (for trivial reasons) Cyprus, and seems to be well on the way to separating himself and his Church from all Orthodoxy. But at this moment it remains a fact that in the Ukraine it’s illegal for Orthodox believers to worship in the only Church recognised as Orthodox by most other Orthodox Churches. In other words, obedience to Canon Law is illegal in the Ukraine.
This is not a small problem, and not only Canon Lawyers suffer from its consequences.
In all this unedifying mess, there are recognisable historical parallels with Donatism and Protestantism. Were the Donatists right to separate themselves from clergy who had assisted their persecutors? Was Elizabeth I right to execute clergy whom she perceived (with some justification) to be agents of a hostile foreign power?
Few Orthodox remember anything about the Donatists, and most would regard Elizabeth I and Edmund Campion as having indistinguishably erroneous opinions. But they need to learn about such questions in order to work out how to answer them, and they need to learn fast.
If Trump is a Russian asset why doesn’t he stop fracking? If he had done in 2017 Europe would have been in real trouble now as we would have few alternatives to Russian gas.
I can’t help feeling that Trump laudably kept up fracking for domestic economic reasons, not out of his urgent desire to bail Europe out. Domestically, some of his policies make sense, such as this one. It’s his foreign policy that gives rise to ugly suspicions.