Trying to explain Trump’s obvious sympathy with Putin’s Russia, some naysayers have claimed that Donald Trump is a Russian agent, codename ‘Krasnov’.
Those less susceptible to conspiracy theories have suggested that Putin may be blackmailing Trump with kompromat, obtained courtesy of Epstein or otherwise.
Still others have opined that Trump genuinely likes his friend Vlad and envies, hoping to emulate, the kind of power the latter enjoys.
Those more cynical have insisted that Trump is driven exclusively by pecuniary interests and hence sees Russia as a more lucrative long-term trade partner than the Ukraine can ever be.
I myself have sided with some of those versions, stopping just short of giving credence to the ‘Agent Krasnov’ theory. However, over the past couple of days, something else has dawned on me: Trump identifies not just with Putin but with Russia – as she is, historically has been, and I dare say always will be.
His reaction to the setback he suffered at the hands of the US Supreme Court leaves little room for doubt: Trump’s Weltanschauung isn’t that of an American president, nor even of an American, full stop. It’s that of a Russian, specifically of a Russian leader, be it tsar, Secretary General or president.
Russians in general, and their leaders in particular, have always held a particular view of the country’s interchange with the world. The view was nothing short of paranoia: the whole world hates Russia and conspires against her.
The country is surrounded by enemies united in their fiendish plots to enslave Russia, rob her of her riches, erect a barrier in the way of Russia’s holy mission to save the world from itself. That mission may be expressed in the terms of Third Rome, Third International or Second Coming – nomenclature doesn’t matter because Russians have that sacred mission in their blood, and no one else can possibly understand it.
Since Russia is encircled by foes, essentially defined as all countries that aren’t Russia, the country has to fight a permanent war against the world, and also against all domestic enemies, those vipers who are traditionally branded as ‘enemies of the people’, ‘spies’, ‘traitors’, ‘foreign agents’ and some such.
Looking at the deranged rant Trump delivered in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, I suddenly realised: he sees America’s place in the world exactly like Putin (Stalin, Lenin, Nicholas II, Alexander I, Ivan IV et al.) sees Russia’s.
Granted, being a Westerner, Trump has more strings to his bow than your average Russian chieftain. His mentality isn’t only that of a Russian leader but also that of a Mafia godfather.
In the latter capacity, he spewed hatred at the justices who broke the unwritten law of the underworld: they accepted the godfather’s favour without pledging undying loyalty in return.
The favour was spectacular: Trump put three of those vermin on the Supreme Court, thereby empowering them for a lifetime. Those who remember the opening scene of The Godfather know what the usual quid pro quo is supposed to be.
Vito Corleone agrees to grant Amerigo Bonasera’s request, but stipulates that one day he may call upon Bonasera to do a service for him in return. Bonasera accepts: he knows how things work.
For Vito, read Donald – he did a huge favour to those justices, and he expected a service from them whenever he needed one. Yet those ingrates proved no match for Bonasera: just when Vito-Donald expected a favour in return, they refused to grant it.
Should that have happened to Vito, he wouldn’t have slipped into a madcap harangue. He would have talked to his lieutenants in that half-whisper of his, and within hours a tragic accident would have befallen Amerigo.
Alas, Trump can’t order a hit on the six justices who voted against him. He can’t even sack them because the constitution doesn’t allow it. All he can do is rave and rant, and these modes of self-expression come naturally to our hero.
Those justices were “disloyal”! He was “ashamed of them”! So should their nearest and dearest be: they are an “embarrassment to their families”! They are “fools”! They are “lap dogs”!
That last invective bridges the gap separating a Mafia godfather from a Russian chieftain. “Lap dogs” to whom exactly? Whom are they “disloyal” to? To the Donald, naturally. But, and there the Russian chords are struck, they are also disloyal to their country. They are “unpatriotic”!
They have been “swayed by foreign interests”! Now we are talking, or rather now the Russians are talking. Those nine Supreme Court justices, well, okay, six of them, are traitors, foreign agents, enemies of the people.
I get it. But traitors don’t just betray their country in a vacuum. They betray it to other countries, those fiendish foreigners plotting against America. All those double-dealing scum who “have been ripping America off” since time immemorial.
Granted, those enemies of America have only conspired to swindle the country out of its wealth, not to enslave or annihilate it. But then that Latin phrase mutatis mutandis comes to mind – changing minor details without affecting the main point.
Russian history has conditioned the populace to think of foreigners as potential invaders, and fair enough, Russia has indeed been invaded a few times in the past 500 years. Americans, on the other hand, have never been invaded by foreign enemies – but they have been “ripped off”.
Those perfidious, sweaty foreigners aren’t out to rob America of her territory or sovereignty – they are after America’s money, which to Trump amounts to the same thing or even worse.
That’s why he lashed out in a manner close typologically to the usual reactions of Russian leaders. The whole world is against America, especially those so-called allies feigning friendship while reaching for America’s wallet.
Trump had tried to grab them by their wrists, declaring (trade) war on the world, but those Supreme ingrates didn’t let him. What does that make them? Correct: traitors, enemies of the people, foreign agents, you name it.
This shows how out of touch I am with the country I used to call my own. When I lived in the US (I left in 1988), I didn’t witness anything resembling this obscene show. This though just about every president during my American sojourn, from Nixon to Reagan, had quarrels with the Supreme Court.
Neither do I recall any Americans, never mind US presidents, who exhibited siege mentality, claiming the whole world was out to get them. If anything, the Americans I remember were more likely to believe all Europeans liked them more than they actually did.
The country must have changed tremendously during these measly 38 years for a US president publicly to accuse Supreme Court justices of treason – and get away with it. Or will Trump get away with it? We’ll see.
There have been some other Russian presidents and leading politicians in the US. President Barack Huseinovich Obama publically chastised justices of the Supreme Court. Senate majority leader Chuch Shumer threatened some of them while addressing the public just outside of the Supreme Court. Illegal mob “protests” near the justices’ residences followed. Not unlike their Russain counterpart, presidents Obama and Biden weaponized the justice system as they tried to take their key challenger, Trump, out. The Biden administration jailed nearly 1500 people for a protest that partly turned riotous – they called it an armed insurrection. Should one mention massive government censorship of digital media under the Biden administration.? What a Russian thing to do! Oops, what a British thing to do (is Starmer Russian by any chance?) Well, having lived outside of the US for 38 years one should not be expected to know any of this. Yet, the pathos — or should I say outrage? – of this article is curiously selective.
You are right, this article is selective. I selected one subject to write about: Trump’s savage and Russian-like response to that Supreme Court ruling. I did mention in passing that other presidents had problems with judicial rulings, but I wrote specifically — and selectively — about Trump’s typological similarity with Russians in general and Putin in particular. I didn’t write a comparative study of other presidents or British PMs — not a word about either Obama or Biden or Starmer, nor even about FDR, LBJ, Chamberlain or Blair. But I’m familiar with your line of thought. Whenever Trump admirers detect any criticism of their hero, they respond with what used to be called the ‘so’s your Aunt Tilly’ argument. Obvious non sequiturs never seem to bother them. By the way, if you wish to know what I’ve written about Obama and Biden, tap their names into the SEARCH feature above.
Where I see a non sequitur is in your logic. Consider: You asked if Trump was Russian. You then concluded that he was. Yet, based on the criteria that you have used, nearly every American leader in recent history, and many European ones, could be deemed Russian. Well, if everybody is Russian, nobody is, because this descriptor does not point to a “differentia specifica” when applied to a “genus proximus,” such as modern western leaders. You may want to brush your Aristotelis up a little bit before throwing a “non sequitur” at your opponents.
I didn’t say Trump was Russian. I said he was typologically Russian — big difference. I didn’t say that nearly every American leader in recent history is Russian too — you did, meaning you are arguing with yourself. I simply said that accusing of treason everyone who refuses to accept Trump’s deranged ideas, in this case the US Sureme Court, is something new, and it’s not the kind of news civilised people should welcome. Yet you seem to expect me to run some sort of comparative test, dellivering a litany of US presidents who weren’t up to scratch. That bears no relation to the subject of my article, which indeed makes it a non sequitur. That’ a shame because I’ve heard exactly the same ‘arguments’ from MAGA chaps, who, unlike you, can’t tell their arse from Aristotle. Any ideological, especially idolatrous, zealotry can make even an intellligent man sound, well, less so. I’m convinced that wearing a MAGA cap lowers one’s IQ at least 20 points. But this doesn’t mean I’m a fan of any post-war US presdient except Reagan, or any post-war Brirish PM except Thatcher, both with qualifications.
The public image we have of Trump is one of an all-knowing tyrant. One wonders if any of his advisors mentioned any of the economists mentioned here two days ago. Or if they have attempted to describe the Consumer Price Index. He makes his decisions – based on what, exactly? – and damned be anyone who disagrees. His tantrums are immature and embarrassing. That’s not leadership. I do not enjoy having him as my president, but then, I have only had a favorable opinion of one since I came of voting age. We don’t need innovators in government. We have enough laws. (In fact, we could take a few off the books.) At this point, all we need are caretakers. It is similar to the role of the pope: protect the magisterium.
Let me guess. Reagan? The elder Bush? I believe that we need not a strong leader but a strong society buttressed by just laws. It’s only when society is weak and laws seem either unjust or feeble that the need for strong leaders arises.
I wasn’t going to divulge, but yes, it was Reagan. I agreed (and still do) with the vast majority of his policies and he was more likeable and down-to-earth than anyone since. Being quick with a joke, even at his own expense, was a big part of that. Imagine Trump, Biden, or Obama indulging in a little self-deprecating humor to lighten the mood? I cannot imagine anyone listening to Reagan’s Myth of the Great Society (1965) or Morality Gap (1966) speeches and not being moved to vote for the man. I heard them long after, of course, when many of the evils predicted had already befallen us.
I forgot to mention that Reagan seemed to be just what we needed after the debacle of the Carter years. I have searched in vain for the televised debate in which Reagan said something along the lines, “My esteemed colleague sees every problem as an opportunity to start another government department.” (See the Departments of Energy and Education.)
Everything you say about him is true, in spades. I actually worked on the Reagan campaign for the Republican nomination, one he lost to Ford. And no, I know what you’re going to say, he didn’t lose because of my participation. He was an immensely likeable man and a great debater. When Carter repeated the usual Democratic mantra about WWIII starting within days after Reagan’s election, the Governor chuckled and said, ‘There we go again.” Everyone laughed — at Carter and with Reagan. And when in the next election Mondale brought up the issue of age, Reagan smiled and said, “I promise not to hold my opponent’s youth and inexperience against him.” Priceless! Unfortunately, his second term was marred by his senility, but James Baker was a competent stand-in.
Oh, yes, I remember the line to Mondale. Even he had to laugh. I wonder if such a friendly, disarming, but brutally truthful style would work in today’s world of caustic politics, us against them, to the death, with never any middle ground? I do not know. My gut tells me people would find it refreshing. Pierre Poilievre was a breath of fresh air, but he lost in the end.