This is my latest article in Christian Today – you can get the original here
One historic press conference, two bad Messiahs and three great truths
We live in a world dominated by memes and soundbites. Often presented to us in such a way that we immediately have an emotional reaction. If anyone dares to try and go beyond those or even question them, they are soon met with ridicule, abuse and a display of anger that would make the Incredible Hulk green with envy! For many, offering an opinion or even asking a question in this divided and bitter world is too risky.
But let’s take that risk.
An historic press conference
This past week we saw one of the most extraordinary press conferences in modern times. Some are suggesting that it was a historic event which is likely to cause a realignment in global geo-politics. Trump, Zelensky, Vance, Starmer and others gave a press conference which was supposed to be a formality – a getting together before signing the already agreed minerals deal. Instead, it turned into a somewhat angry and bitter negotiation/spat which resulted in the deal not being signed, and the US suspending all military aid to Ukraine. In commenting on this I find that, a bit like the ending of the press conference, things soon begin to degenerate, with tempers quickly flaring as discussion gets out of hand.
However there has been some brilliant, as well as some bizarre, commentary. On the secular side, the Scottish journalist Iain McWhirter is always worth reading or this perceptive piece from Christopher Caldwell. From a Christian perspective Glen Scrivener has provided some really helpful insights, and RR Reno explains how ‘just war theory’ fits into the situation.
But is there a particular Christian perspective on this?
Perspective is the key term here. When I saw the four-minute segment which was doing the rounds on social and news media I was horrified and disgusted. It looked like a couple of bullies picking on the plucky wee Ukrainian leader – which then turned into an unseemly shouting match. But then I looked at the whole 49 minutes – and you get a different perspective: the first 40 minutes were quite civil and friendly. So, what went wrong?
If you broaden out to a wider perspective then there is the question of the minerals deal which had been agreed; go even wider and you have the past three years of a brutal war after Russia invaded Ukraine; you could go still wider and reflect on the war since the Russians reclaimed Crimea or the 2004 US aided “Orange Revolution’; or the break-up of the Soviet Union and the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine – with promises of security for Ukraine; or the Second World War and the Ukrainian Nazis; or Stalin’s brutal starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the Holodomor famine from 1932-33; or the Ukrainian Soviet war 1917-1921, or go even further back to the founding of modern Russia through the Rus of Kiev in 988. The trouble is that there is always a wider perspective. But for the Christian there is an even greater one – the eternal perspective. Kingdoms rise and kingdoms fall. None of them – whatever their National Anthem proclaims – lasts forever.
But let’s come all the way back to the present day and contrast the main protagonists.
Two bad saviours
There are some who regard President Trump as the saviour of the US and indeed the Western world – the man who is turning back the woke tides and making America great again. Others look upon President Zelensky as the saviour of Ukraine, the EU and the whole of Western liberal democracies – the man who stands up to tyrants and fearlessly takes on the enemies of democracy.
Both men have strengths and faults – as was evidenced in their conversation.
President Trump wanted the end of war, and the money used to rebuild Ukraine. Surely a noble aim. He praised the Ukrainian soldiers as being unbelievably brave. And pointed out the futility of a long war as well as expressing fear about World War Three. He even defended Zelensky’s dress sense!
But then the narcissism stepped in. He claimed to have stopped many wars and that if he had been president the Russian invasion would never have happened. Trump could never be accused of being meek and humble! His recent posting of an AI video in which Gaza was reimagined as a Mediterranean paradise complete with a giant golden statue of himself was nauseating – a reflection of Nebuchadnezzar’s arrogance (Daniel ch.3), rather than the humility of Christ.
Vice-President Vance, while understandably annoyed at some things that were said (there is a clear animosity between him and Zelensky), did not conduct himself well either. He showed little empathy and understanding and let his frustrations get the better of him.
President Zelensky spoke well, despite English not being his first language, and made the not unreasonable point that Putin could not be trusted, and Ukraine would need security guarantees somewhat greater than Trump’s assurance that Putin would honour any deal. He gave examples of Russian mistreatment of prisoners, including several pastors. To me he came across really well.
His mistake was when he decided to directly interrogate Vance and then claimed that Ukraine had been standing alone. While Zelensky does not manifest the same public narcissism as Trump, and has shown enormous courage in his leadership against a malevolent foe, he too faces questions over his leadership and financial dealings (e.g. he and the head of his security service are alleged to have operated a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus and Belize, with extensive property portfolios including in London).
When Trump said at the end that this was going to be ‘great television’, he spoke the truth. The irony is that both Trump and Zelensky are TV stars. While I have never watched Trump’s show, The Apprentice, I was an avid fan of Zelensky’s Servant of the People where an unlikely history teacher becomes President of Ukraine. It seems to me that both men know how to use and manipulate TV. I fear that to some degree both are playing a role. Both are responsible for the show we watched.
Keir Starmer spoke publicly in support of Zelensky after this press conference. Yet he was careful not to criticise Donald Trump. There is a sense in which talk is cheap. EU leaders talk big in public, while hoping in private that Trump ends this as soon as possible. There is no way that Europe will be able to send troops to defend Ukraine, not least because while this might be the fantasy of some European politicians who see themselves as latter-day Churchills to Putin’s Stalin, their populations are already bitterly divided and will not want war. The view of some in Europe of ‘Peace through Victory’ is a fantasy that politicians indulge, but populations despise.
The supreme irony here is that while Starmer and the EU leaders talk about putting in a peace keeping force, it will only be used if Trump’s peace deal is accepted. The most likely outcome is that there will be a ceasefire with a de facto permanent partition of Ukraine – with the Donbas and Crimea remaining with Russia. It is unjust. It is unfair. But it is what happens in war. The alternative would be much worse. There is no absolute salvation on this earth.
But as a Christian, I can’t leave it there.
Three great truths
One of the great things to admit is that in all our analysis we could be wrong. I listened to one well known commentator assure us that no matter what happened, US military aid to Ukraine would not be suspended. Within a week it was.
We may all have opinions, but they are always limited because of our own filters, our uncertain knowledge and ever-changing circumstances. So, what can we do? We can shout our opinions as absolute truth and regard everyone who disagrees as a blasphemer. Or we can give up on truth altogether and decide that only cynical disinterest and crossed fingers work.
As a Christian I can’t go there. I know only a limited amount of what happened in the past. I’m not sure I understand what is happening now. And I certainly don’t know what is going to happen in the future. But I do know three great truths, which both give me hope and help me to understand.
1. Christ is King – He is sovereign. He is the King of Kings. All kings (Putin, Trump, Zelensky, Starmer, Macron etc) will bow down to him. His name will endure, not theirs; the whole earth will be filled with his glory (Ps 72). That’s why I respect them but love and serve Him.
2. Christ is Returning – He will come back as the judge. “He will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed” (Acts 17:31). If you don’t accept that there is a judgement day then the temptation is, especially if you have any kind of political power, to think that you can bring judgement and a ‘brave new world’ on this earth. And then you double down – no matter what the cost. The Christian accepts that while we do what we can, we cannot bring absolute justice in the present, but we know that The Day is coming.
3. Christ’s Word is the Truth – I recently started a bible study with a group of teenagers who are concerned about knowing truth. In a world full of spin, misinformation and lies it is wonderful to be able to point them to the truth that is eternal. “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 25:35). The Oval Office press conference was historic and will be talked about for years to come. But give it a bit more time, like a couple of decades, and it is likely it will be forgotten. Meanwhile the words of Christ will still be with us.
“Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69).
Indeed, ‘Just As I Am’, by the late Billy Graham, was his memoir which included the late preacher’s visits to trouble spots. In Egypt-Israel-Jordan he saw no solution in turf or tribe: finding spiritual truth was the only way for African, Arab or Israeli to find peace.
I agree with your three great truths that you have neatly expressed at the end. They echoes the words from Ps 146 quoted by Strafford on the scaffold in 1641 “Put not your trust in princes”. Particularly bearing in mind the readiness of so many to claim Christian endorsement for their political preferences, it is important to get across the reminder, and to repeat it in season and out of it, quite how adamant scripture is that salvation cannot be found and is not to be sought in politics or heroes. Of the kings of Judah and Israel, very few were not complete disappointments. Even the better ones are strikingly blemished. When it comes to the New Testament, the position is even more striking. Who were the people who sent Jesus to the cross and persecuted the evangelists? Not one political figure in the New Testament comes out well from being there, not the Chief Priests, not the Sanhedrin, not Pilate, not any of the assorted Herods, not the Roman Emperors, and not the various assorted Roman governors scattered around the eastern Mediterranean, not one.
However, I would query something you allege in this article. You may be right, but are you sure Starmer was present at this notorious press conference? I’m prepared to be persuaded otherwise but I have not seen any evidence anywhere else that he was, or that he was within 3,500 miles of it. Everything I have been able to find so far has suggested that, like Macron, he was back home by then.
Furthermore, you criticise him for being there and not saying anything. Even if he had been, would it have been legitimate for him, a bystander from a foreign government, to have butted into such an event? There has been some criticism that by the normal conventions that govern such occasions, even Vance was speaking out of turn and getting above himself by opening his mouth.
I’m no fan of Keir Starmer. He’s been better than some but as is so with most politicians, there are plenty of genuine grounds under which one can find fault with him. But without evidence that is different from anything I have been able to find, I query whether this is one of them.
You are absolutely correct and I am really sorry. I was conflating two different press conferences. I have amended the article – and I really appreciate you pointing out my mistake…
Yes, I agree with quite a lot of this. There’s no doubt that Trump is crude, bombastic, egotistical: qualities we don’t like to be thought of as having and shy away from in others. But, as against this, it seems to me his faults are mostly on the outside as it were, because he has no filter or self-consciousness and just says whatever enters his head. I would add that he has a sense of humour, often self-deprecating, and brilliant comedic timing.
And he’s not stupid, by any means. He just blurts things out but they’re often essentially true, however he exaggerates the particulars. The European states have been living in a sort of fantasy land, infantilised by years of sheltering under the US umbrella. This has to stop. And there have to be some real peace talks to put a stop to the death and destruction in Ukraine and Russia. The relentless warmongering state propaganda in the U.K. is most disturbing. And from the BBC too. It’s all very Orwellian. Putin is of course an unprincipled authoritarian ruler but he’s not the new Hitler. We’re being whipped into a frenzy of anti-Russian hysteria with little of the historical perspective you have supplied (except it was 2014 I think not 2004 when the President of the Ukraine was deposed in a US and EU-sponsored insurrection, and that was for practical purposes the real start of the conflict). All I can think of is “gallant little Belgium” and the nauseating sentimental claptrap of 1914, and we know where that led. We must always beware of a foreign policy consensus of the Left and Right, united in their tinpot rhetoric about historic moments and so on. The eastward expansion of NATO from the late 90s on was needlessly provocative. But the last straw for the Russians as a whole was the thought of a NATO member state not in their back yard but crouching at Russia’s soft underbelly, with missile launch sites. These are rational concerns. Think Cuba 1962.
No the Maidan Revolution was not sponsored by the EU or the US. It was the agency of Ukrainians themselves who revolted against a President who broke agreements to orientate towards the EU and moved towards Russia.
States freed from Communism and the Warsaw Pact also have agency and are free to choose which defensive alliance to be part of. They have chosen NATO.
And if Putin wanted to avoid NATO bordering Russia (though Norway, Poland and the Baltic States already did) he has scored a massive own goal with the accession of Finland.
Thats a rather simplistic view of the so called ‘Maidan Revolution’….its not a case of either/or but both/and. There is no doubt that many Ukrainians were involved – just as there is no doubt that the US and EU were involved. I’m glad you see that countries have any right to belong to whatever defensive alliance they want to….which is why you would support Cuba joining the Warsaw pact and having Russian nuclear missiles? Life isn’t as simple as you seem to suppose!
The main foreign country involved, by far, was Russia. The US had very little involvement. The main engagement by the US was to broker a deal by which Yanukovych would stay on but he got cold feet and fled to Russia.
The US and the EU were involved. As were the Russions. It was incredibly foolish and hubristic. As a result hundreds of thousands have died…
There was a typo in my reply. It was the EU that brokered a deal with Yanukovych.
I repeat, the main country seeking to subvert Ukrainian politics is, and always has been, Russia. The US and EU are bit players.
The principal cause of the conflict is Russia seeking economic control of Ukraine. Attempts by Ukraine to join the EU are an existential threat to this.
The financial issues you mention in relation to Zelensky were all from before he was President and in relation to various companies dealing with his earnings in the entertainment business.
I have seen nothing credibly indicating he has misappropriated any funds in his role as President.
That doesn’t appear to be the case – after his election in 2019 the financial issues were managed through his family. Having said that I am not aware of any evidence that Zelensky is as corrupt as some of the Ukrainian elites – or anywhere near that of the Russion oligarchs and Putin…
https://www.occrp.org/en/project/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-reveal-offshore-holdings-of-ukrainian-president-and-his-inner-circle