Expert shares Trump's two-word nickname as he reveals Russia's honest opinion on president
In June 2015, shortly after Donald Trump declared his intention to run for the White House the following year, certain figures within America's intelligence apparatus started scrutinising the controversial business mogul's past.
In the subsequent years, numerous allegations surfaced suggesting Trump had received financial backing, or at least substantial assistance, from the Russian state. Writers Craig Unger and Luke Harding have both published books claiming that Trump was groomed as a Kremlin operative following his marriage to Czech model Ivana Zelnickova.
However, the reality of the situation is far more straightforward, and considerably harsher, according to former White House national security adviser John Bolton.
Speaking in a new British documentary examining Trump, Bolton revealed: "Many alumni of the U.S. intelligence community have said to me that they think that Trump has been recruited by the Kremlin. I don't think so. I think he is a useful idiot."
The phrase "useful idiot" became popular during the Cold War era, describing someone who naively advanced Soviet objectives without recognising they were being manipulated. Bolton, with a career spanning four US presidents, made a startling claim in the documentary Trump: Moscow's Man In The White House, suggesting that Vladimir Putin, a seasoned former intelligence operative, has Trump wrapped around his finger: "I think Putin can get him in the place he wants to," he said.
"He's manipulable and, does the work that the Russians want without ever knowing it."
He elaborated on why intelligence experts, who have successfully turned numerous Russian officials into informants, believe Trump is acting precisely as a Russian asset would. However, Bolton posits that Putin is exploiting Trump's ego for strategic gain rather than financial reward.
Trump, for his part, has been less than complimentary about Bolton, his former 25th United States ambassador to the United Nations, branding him "a real dope" and "a nut job."
Yuri Shvets, a former KGB agent reportedly consulted by Craig Unger for his book "American Kompromat," drew parallels between Trump and the infamous Cambridge Five – a quintet of idealistic upper-class British spies who passed secrets to the KGB over many years.
Addressing claims that he has shown excessive favour towards Russian interests, including allegedly dismissing CIA intelligence on Russian espionage, Trump has consistently maintained that the Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, widely referred to as The Mueller Report, "completely exonerated" him.
However, the report explicitly states that Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election was unlawful and took place "in sweeping and systematic fashion."
The document also documented numerous connections between Trump's associates and Russian agents.
The investigation detailed how a Russian "troll farm" established bogus social media profiles to saturate online platforms with pro-Trump and anti-Clinton material.
Among those identified in the report was Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Wagner Group leader who later mounted a brief mutiny against Putin in 2023 before his death in suspicious circumstances.
Mueller's findings led to criminal proceedings against 34 people and three organisations, resulting in eight guilty pleas and one trial conviction. The report stopped short of determining whether Trump had obstructed justice, in part because of Justice Department policy preventing federal prosecution of a serving president.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
13 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MAGA strikes back after Trump ally Alina Habba ousted as top prosecutor job by 'rogue judges'
The MAGA movement erupted in fury on Tuesday after Alina Habba was abruptly ousted from her role as New Jersey 's top federal prosecutor by what Trump allies are calling a group of 'rogue judges.' Habba, the former personal attorney to President Trump, had been serving as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey until her 120-day appointment expired this week without Senate confirmation. A panel of mostly Democrat-appointed judges bypassed Habba and installed her deputy, Desiree Leigh Grace, as the district's top prosecutor. Within hours, the Trump administration fired back, terminating Grace and sparking a dramatic power struggle between the executive branch and the federal judiciary. Attorney General Pam Bondi accused the court of overstepping its authority and threatening Trump's constitutional powers. 'This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges - especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers,' Bondi declared on X, launching what appears to be a full-scale legal and political offensive to reclaim the post for Habba. The sudden unraveling of Habba's tenure after a whirlwind rise from Trump's personal attorney to one of the most politically potent prosecutors in the country sent shockwaves through MAGA world. Only months earlier, Habba was sworn in by Trump himself in the Oval Office, taking over the New Jersey post in March. Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Grace, a nine-year veteran prosecutor, accusing the court of overstepping its authority and threatening Trump's constitutional powers Her appointment was always temporary and subject to Senate confirmation but she quickly made headlines by pursuing politically explosive cases, including charges against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver, both Democrats. She also challenged New Jersey State Police over sanctuary city policies, generating praise from Trump and fierce criticism from Democrats who accused her of pursuing 'frivolous and politically motivated' prosecutions. Under federal law, if the Senate does not confirm a president's nominee within 120 days, the district court judges can install a replacement and this is exactly what happened - much to Trump's fury. The panel of judges, mostly appointed by Democrats, declined to extend Habba's tenure and instead chose Grace, her deputy, in what insiders describe as a calculated snub of the White House. 'Alina is President Trump's choice to lead,' said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, another Trump loyalist and former defense attorney, in a fiery post on social media. 'No partisan bench can override that.' Behind the scenes, Habba is said to have seen the writing on the wall. Days before the decision, she gathered her staff for an emotional all-hands meeting, according to a source familiar with the conversation. 'Hopefully this isn't goodbye,' she told them, expressing gratitude and signaling that she was still banking on full Senate confirmation, although the odds were stacked against her. Her nomination, submitted formally on July 1, stalled in the Senate due to opposition from New Jersey Democrats Cory Booker and Andy Kim, who accused her of inexperience and partisanship. While Trump has pressed for the Senate to stay in session through August to fast-track his nominees, Habba's path remains uncertain. 'She would never back down from the job Trump chose for her', a person close to her told With Habba's nomination still pending and Grace ousted by DOJ leadership, the ball is now back in the Senate's court.
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
FACTBOX Key facts on the US-Japan tariff deal
TOKYO, July 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Wednesday said they had struck a trade deal that will include a 15% tariff on imports from Japan. Here's what we know so far. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the deal would include $550 billion of Japanese investments in the United States, improved market access into Japan for American goods including automobiles, rice and other agricultural products. Japanese autos, which account for more than a quarter of all the country's exports to the U.S., will also be subject to a 15% tariff, down from a punishing 25%, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said. The U.S. has also agreed to not impose any caps on auto imports, he added. Japan will keep its existing tariffs on imports of U.S. agricultural products and maintain a minimum market access system that limits the amount of rice that it buys from overseas including the U.S., he said. A Trump administration official said Japan would increase its purchases of U.S. agricultural products such as rice. The $550 billion of investment was the upper limit of loan investments and guarantees that Japanese government state banks and agencies would make available to companies to help companies build resilient supply chains. Japan's top trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa said steel and aluminium, subject to a separate 50% tariff, were not included in the deal. Akazawa has traveled to the U.S. eight times since April for trade talks with U.S. officials including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The latest visit came days before an August 1 deadline when the Trump Administration said it would impose a 25% tariff on all Japanese imports. The U.S. is Japan's biggest export market. Economists had estimated that Trump's tariffs could lower Japan's GDP by as much as a percentage point. The tariff agreement comes three days after Ishiba's administration lost its upper house majority in an election, triggering calls for his resignation including from within his own ruling Liberal Democratic Party, according to local media reports. In the wake of that election defeat, Ishiba said he would stay in place to push for a trade agreement with the U.S. and to tackle Japan's looming economic problems. Ishiba will announce his intention to step down by the end of August, the Mainichi newspaper reported on Wednesday. Japanese automaker shares led the Nikkei share average higher, which rose by 2% in early trading following the announcement. Toyota Motor Corp's (7203.T), opens new tab shares jumped by 10% with Honda Motor Co (7267.T), opens new tab up by 9%. The benchmark 10-year Japanese bond futures tumbled as much as 0.92 yen to 137.68 yen, the lowest since March 28.
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Reclaiming everyday power matters more than starting a new party
We were talking, of course, about Labour, the deepening void in British politics, about a country where public services are crumbling, where opposition feels hollow, and where the political space once occupied by hope seems to have disappeared. It's not a cynical question. And it deserves more than a cynical answer. So I gave it some thought. And to be honest, I surprised myself. Because even though I agree with the premise – that Labour no longer offers a political home for many – I didn't feel excited. I didn't feel much at all. And that feeling stayed with me. Not because I'm disengaged from politics, but because I've been trying to make sense of what a new party could be for. What it could meaningfully offer in the current landscape, not ideologically, but structurally. READ MORE: 'Wake up, America!': Alan Cumming hits out at Donald Trump over trans attacks When the news broke of a new initiative involving Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, my reaction wasn't negative. But it wasn't hopeful either. Oh. There's a new party in town. That's it. There's a contradiction here. It's possible to agree that a political alternative is needed and still not feel particularly moved when one arrives. And the more I think about that contradiction, the more it seems revealing, not of the new party's flaws, but of a deeper problem in political life. Because the real question may no longer be: Do we need a new party? It might be: What can people do? And more crucially: What do people feel they can do? At this point, any honest reckoning has to contend with a widespread sense of powerlessness. Not apathy. Not disinterest. But the quiet despair that comes from not knowing where to begin, or what could possibly make a difference. That's why Hilary Wainwright's recent piece in Red Pepper magazine felt so relieving to read. She writes about the left's 'fatal attraction to shortcuts' – the belief that if the right party, with the right leader and the right policies, comes along, transformation will follow. But as she reminds readers, this logic has a long track record of disappointment. From Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party to Respect to Left Unity, new parties have emerged with high hopes, only to fade without leaving a lasting political infrastructure behind. Wainwright doesn't argue against new formations. But she insists that the work must begin elsewhere: in the slow, patient construction of popular democratic power. In local initiatives, people's assemblies, and independent councillors building relationships of accountability not with a party headquarters, but with their neighbours. That kind of politics isn't a shortcut. It's a long, sometimes frustrating path, but it might be the only one capable of lasting. That perspective helped clarify my own. A new party isn't irrelevant. But in a context where people no longer believe their actions matter, where politics has become something external, alien, remote … it can't be the first step. READ MORE: Here's why John Swinney should ask Keir Starmer for a Section 30 now I've started to realise there may be a thread running through much of what I've been writing in this newspaper over the past few years. Whether I've been looking at childcare, housing, or the slow degradation of the NHS, I keep circling the same question: How do people reclaim a sense of power over their lives – real, collective, material? What connects so many of these crises is the deep belief that nothing we do will change them. And that belief, I think, is one of neoliberalism's greatest successes. Neoliberalism has often been described as a decades-long experiment in outsourcing. Services, care, governance: all handed over to markets, contractors, consultants. But it also outsourced something deeper – the sense of shared political responsibility. The message was that someone else, an expert, an algorithm, a market force, would take care of it. And we citizens, would be seen, first and foremost, as consumers. And gradually, that logic seeped into our idea of politics itself. Politics, too, came to feel like something best left to professionals. Not a shared, daily practice of negotiation and solidarity, but a technical domain of experts and spokespeople. People didn't give up on politics. They were taught it wasn't theirs to do. And that teaching was reinforced everywhere; in the design of services, in political narratives, in the retreat of collective spaces. We learned to see politics as something external; something you observe or vote in (a choice to be made, a bit like a marketplace actually), not something you build or change. You can see this disempowerment very starkly in housing. Rents rise, quality falls, and entire developments go up that ordinary people will never live in. Homes become assets. What was once a public good becomes a private commodity. And the experience of trying to access housing, like trying to find childcare, or dental care, or mental health support, becomes a kind of battle: exhausting, bureaucratic, humiliating. That's disempowerment. Not as a vague feeling, but as a daily reality: paying more for worse, navigating systems that no longer serve, feeling that no matter how hard you try, it's always slipping further out of reach. And over time, that doesn't just impact housing or health, it shapes how people see the world. It hollows out belief. It makes politics feel like something that happens elsewhere, in a different language, for other people. READ MORE: Tall Ships celebration attracts more than 400,000 visitors as event comes to a close Some of the most meaningful political acts I've observed recently haven't taken place in formal spaces at all. They've unfolded in nurseries, where parents start questioning fee hikes and demand accountability. In blocks of flats, where neighbours create mutual aid systems. In conversations between mothers about birth trauma in overstretched NHS wards. These are not isolated complaints. This is the work of building collective understanding, and sometimes, action. This is where politics lives – not in manifestos, but in people's attempts to name what's happening to them, and to resist it, even in small, fragile ways. That's where power can start to grow again. And if a political party is to matter, it will have to come from that, not speak down to it, or try to replace it. Emancipation, autonomy, sovereignty; these are not abstract goals. They are needs, expressed through the daily grind of trying to live with dignity in a system that often treats people as expendable. A new political project must respond to that hunger, not with slogans or personalities, but with structures that allow people to act together and be heard. That is what Wainwright means, I think, when she says there are no shortcuts. And it's what I mean when I say: a party can't do it all. A political party can support. It can amplify. It can defend. But it cannot substitute for the deeper, harder, slower work of rebuilding the very idea that politics belongs to us. So when someone asks: 'Do we need a new party?' I no longer rush to answer. I want to ask: What's already happening? Who's organising? Where do people still feel they have a voice? Because maybe the real work is there – not in founding something new, but in noticing what already exists, and helping it grow.
