Both the former American President Donald Trump and the current Russian President Vladimir Putin seem to agree on the role of America in world affairs.  

 President Putin, for example, has argued that the world has reached a turning point, where “the West is no longer able to dictate its will to humankind but still tries to do it. And the majority of nations no longer want to tolerate it.” He claims that the Western policies will foment more chaos, adding that “he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind . . . (T)heir goal is to make Russia more vulnerable and turn it into an instrument for fulfilling their geopolitical tasks, (but) they have failed to achieve it and they will never succeed.” Ukraine, he states, is an “artificial state” that received historic Russian lands from Communist rulers during the Soviet times. As such, he opines that the world must admit the war in Ukraine is a civil war—even though he calls it a “special military operation.” The goal of NATO and the US, he argues, “is to make Russia more vulnerable and turn it into an instrument for fulfilling their geopolitical tasks. They have failed to achieve it. And they will never succeed.”1 His many attempts to undermine that success include substantial diplomatic and political actions, to include the subversion of American election campaigns. 

Former President Trump seems to concur with Putin. For he has often argued that America should step back from world affairs and, most especially, withdraw from its role in NATO. His argument for making “America great again” has always centered on isolationism, high tariffs, and abstaining from defense agreements with allied nations. Rather than align with nations that support democracy, he would welcome relations with dictators whom he addresses as “strong leaders,” and finds easier “to deal with.” He even found “love” with Kim Jung Un and declared Vladimir Putin “very strong” and a world leader with whom he often conferred in private phone calls. (In fact, he has been reported to prefer the advice he received from Putin over the import of his intelligence briefings.) While Russia was violently seizing Ukrainian border states, he used Ukraine’s need to defend against invading Russian tanks to bribe its President. He wanted President Zelensky to confirm false claims of nefarious profiteering by Trump’s future election opponent in exchange for defensive weapons against the Russian tank assault. This attempt to misuse the power of his office for personal political gain was the occasion for the first of his two impeachments. Recently, he continued his support of Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by encouraging his advocates in the House of Representatives to defund aid for Ukraine’s defense. In his own words, Putin should be allowed to “do whatever the hell he wants with Ukraine.” 

But is Ukraine Putin’s only target? Or rather, in one analyst’s words, “We must accept the reality—that this war is a Russian attack on the collective West deliberately orchestrated by the Kremlin. Russia has long sought to restore its sphere of influence . . . (as) established at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945. But Russia, under Putin, is not the Soviet Union.”2 In like manner, the United States would not be the United States if Trump should regain the Presidency. For example, what influence would Putin have in a second Trump Presidency? For any of us who read the Mueller Report, the answer to this question is unmistakable.3 Presidential candidate Trump had previously sought both Putin’s favor and his support. Not only did he offer to build a hotel in Moscow—with a presidential suite specifically designed for Putin; but he also accepted Putin’s Ukrainian mole, Paul Manafort,4 as his “volunteer” campaign manager. Mr. Manafort received no pay for his work on Trump’s campaign but was subsequently convicted of multiple felonies including tax and bank fraud. The funds involved in his fraud were kept in Ukrainian banks but traced to Russian sources. (He was also charged with witness tampering, but those charges met with a hung jury.) He was not, however, the only Russian agent involved in the 2016 Presidential election. Concurrently, Prigozhin, one of Putin’s chief acolytes, enacted a plan to overwhelm the internet with false accusations against Trump’s electoral rival. Trump may well feel beholden to Putin for his slim electoral victory despite falling three million votes short of a majority of the votes cast. 

Even before he became President, Trump had already and willfully aligned himself with Putin. Both of Trump’s impeachments remind us that he can and will forgo personal ethics in exchange for power, wealth, or status. Moreover, given his predilection for conducting business on a transactional basis, his diplomacy marries well with Putin’s as they attempt to carve out mutual fields of influence. Certainly, the possible emergence of a new bilateral—or even trilateral world of superpowers should China choose to join—would be more attractive to Putin than the new “Axis of Evil” he is concocting against the West in the form of Russia/Iran/North Korea. For, if America under Trump should capitulate to Putin, he would gain immediate ascendancy over Europe—gradually by means of political subversion or violently by force. Why else do NATO leaders tremble at the possibility of Trump regaining the American Presidency? 

Both Trump and Putin are aligned around a common heresy that favors fascism over any government aligned with the will and needs of its people. Instead, they promise an autocratic regime that exalts nation and often race under their sole governance. If one might wonder what such a regime would look like, I would recommend Thomas Jefferson’s description of “an absolute tyranny” in the second part of his Declaration of Independence wherein he defines “a tyrant, (as). . . unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” I especially appreciate his denunciation of “judges dependent on his (the tyrant’s) will alone for the tenure of their offices,” “giving his (the tyrant’s) assent to their acts of pretended legislation,” (for) “excit (ing) ed domestic insurrections amongst us,” “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world,” and “altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.” When Trump proposed candidates for life-long seats on the Supreme Court, he first secured their intent to overturn Roe v. Wade. He then organized and encouraged an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of executive power and the outcome of a fair election. He consistently imposed tariffs on trade when he was President. And he wants to eliminate what he terms “the deep state” that is, what his nominated Supreme Court judges identify as the institutions our legislators created to provide clean water, unpolluted air, abundant energy, safe drugs, availability of universal public education, scientifically established standards of medical care, and myriad standards for safe travel by air, boat, or vehicle travel. In exchange for this empowerment of our Supreme Court, Donald Trump only requires the Court’s establishment of his dictatorial power by way of “absolute Presidential immunity.” He would then realize what former President Nixon believed when he said, “if the President does it, it is not a crime.” But Nixon’s belief was not his reality for he needed his successor’s pardon. Otherwise, he would have faced trial and likely convictions for several crimes during his presidency. Trump’s plan to convert the Presidency into a dictatorship had to include a Supreme Court willing to grant him absolute immunity. Only then would he be truly equal to Putin and all the other dictators he so admires. This blog will no longer be able to call him “Putin’s mini-me.” For he would have more power than Putin. In fact, only he could grant Putin the very power he has so consistently sought, that is, the elimination of NATO and the restoration of the Soviet empire. Why else would Putin offer so much unprecedented support for the Trump Presidency? 

Putin and Trump are aligned in their quest for power and their threats against all who oppose them. While Putin has persistently quashed all opposition in Russia, he threatens all neighboring states with his nuclear armament. Trump, however, is not yet a dictator. His only obstacle to dictatorship is the laws and norms of a democratic state and its institutions. Until recently, his fight has been against the bogeyman of a so-called “deep state.” If he should regain executive power, he would certainly seek revenge against all who have opposed him. And, as is his wont, he will use surrogates or the power of office to avenge those who continue to oppose him. But recently, it appears “his” Supreme Court is willing to grant him executive immunity for all “official” acts—which apparently5 include whatever he enacts as President. If so, the Supreme Court has just given Donald Trump a “get out of jail free card.” Any American President would now be “officially” above the law. As quoted above, the author of our Declaration of Independence most certainly would not have agreed with this Supreme Court. Its decision nullifies not just the rationale for our war of independence against the absolute rule and so-called “divine right” of kings. But it equates the United States President with any fascist dictator. And it rewards Donald Trump with the same executive authority possessed by the dictators he so admires. Just as Putin’s foes inexplicably throw themselves out of six story windows, suddenly fall to an unexpected heart attack, or are sentenced to hard labor in harsh prison camps, Trump’s future antagonists may find themselves shot by Seal Team Six at Trump’s command, fired without cause from government jobs, or indicted by Trump’s Department of Justice and imprisoned on trumped up charges. 

As a final note: this Supreme Court’s singular decisions on Dobbs, Chevron, and Executive immunity not only eliminates a woman’s freedom to assure proper medical treatment for her pregnancy and her body, but also negates the freedom of lawfully empowered institutions to determine how to best serve the needs of the general population and, perversely, transforms the American President into a fascist dictator. None of these “achievements” reflect the goals of a free democratic state designed to serve the general welfare of all its citizens. Instead, they are the realization—perhaps inadvertently—of Putin’s success in turning an “idiot source” into the President of the United States. His commitment to secretive conversations with former President Trump, to massive internet subversion of the American Presidential election, to spending billions of dollars in campaign “dark” money, and to his permissive support of Russian oligarchs’ purchase of Trump real estate have all returned the success he sought. 

This apparent Trump/Putin convergence spells the death knell for the new world order created after World War II. And it could be the end of America’s democratic republic. This Cassandra-like forecast is at odds with America’s 248th celebration of its independence from tyranny for it may well spell the end of our free democratic republic.  But only if we let America’s demise happen! 

_______________________________________________________ 

1 The above excerpts were taken from President Putin’s speech on 10/27/2022. 

2  Sededin Dedovic, “Putin’s ‘Peace Plan’: Surrender or Die,’” in current edition of Financial World. 

3 Since the Mueller Report determined “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment . . . (it) does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” as quoted in “Conclusion,” The Mueller Report, p. 347. 

4 Trump’s initial campaign manager was Paul Manafort who had previously served Putin in the same capacity for Ukraine’s President, that is, as Putin’s puppet master. Manafort was convicted and sentenced to multiple years in prison but was later pardoned by President Trump. 

5 At this writing, I have not had the opportunity to read the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision. But the distinction between “official” and “non-official” acts must be explicitly defined and, further, the issue of “intent” must be clearly addressed. Any official act could have an illicit intent. If so, the Court’s decision may well result in the end of our democratic republic.