The end of the Cold War offered the former communist countries the chance to live a western way of life. But it also brought back what was known as the ‘nationalities question’, so long suppressed by Soviet power. We in Britain think little about this. We can easily see why the slowdown in western arms supplies threatens Ukraine, but not why it spreads such confusion among Nato allies. It is because any retreat by the United States forces Europeans to make frightening choices. The 20th century showed that European powers were unable to resolve their own conflicts without American help. Post-war, the European Community did its bit, but the real protector was America, via Nato. Now it might not be. Putin’s Russia could exploit this – a coup in Moldava, perhaps; a declaration of independence by a Russian-speaking town in the Baltic states – to advance his imperial mission. Who would then lead the resistance? Economic and geographical logic says Germany, but Germany is the most confused of the lot. Under the Merkel doctrines, Germany thought it could flourish by eschewing hard power, leaving its defence and its energy supply at the mercy of Russia. Now it is clear that Russia is utterly unmerciful. That telephone conversation of German generals which Russia hacked shows the paralysing fear of Chancellor Scholz that if he lets Ukraine have Taurus missiles, it might fire them at Moscow, or at least that Putin would think (or affect to think) that it might, and would therefore launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack. Scholz’s detestation of war in Europe does him credit, but seems to blind him to the fact that one is already in progress.

If Labour wins the next election, Sir Keir Starmer will be our first declaredly atheist prime minister. I have checked this with Fr Mark Vickers, whose book God in Number 10 is an excellent account of the religious beliefs of all the house’s prime ministerial occupants since 1900. In his view, Bonar Law and Attlee were ‘basically atheists’, but never said so publicly. All the others had Christian (or deist) beliefs, except for Rishi Sunak, who is a Hindu. Sir Keir has declared publicly: ‘I am not of faith, I don’t believe in God, but I can see the power of faith and the way it brings people together.’ What effect might this have? I hope Sir Keir understands the Christian roots of our history and is therefore not inclined to set up universal human rights – the religion of the irreligious – as the ultimate authority over government. Might his atheism also persuade him, through over-deference to ‘the power of faith’ as seen from outside, to concede to Muslim zealots the blasphemy law for which they constantly campaign? They prefer to talk of ‘Islamophobia’, but their essential purpose is that of the blasphemy laws in many Muslim countries – to criminalise criticism of Islam. This could quite easily become law, particularly if wrapped up in more general language about causing ‘offence’ to believers of any kind. I hope that Sir Keir, who occasionally attends synagogue with his Jewish wife, will not fall for this attack on free speech.

‘Charles,’ said an email I received last week, ‘Join the National Trust Council.’ It was from Jan Lasik, the NT’s general counsel and secretary. Magnanimous of Jan, I thought, since my published remarks about the Trust’s management have not always been favourable. I fear I may even have laughed immoderately when Jan himself blogged in 2022 about ‘the joys of our [the NT’s] democratic constitution’. Yet now he wants me on board. A closer reading, however, suggested I might not be the sole recipient of Jan’s invitation. I think he has sent it to all 5.37 million members. ‘If you’re passionate about places where people and nature can thrive and how the Trust is governed, we want to hear from you,’ he says. I am – and ‘passionate’ also about houses and gardens, neither of which he mentions as part of the Trust’s work – but I don’t think Jan does want to hear from me. So long as the NT maintains its Quick Vote system, which is offered only to members prepared to vote in the way its management wants, the Council will be devoid of all diversity of opinion. Apply, please, says Lasik, by April Fools’ Day.

There was a fuss the other day when Tate & Lyle decided to rebrand their Golden Syrup bottle, leaving its venerable dead lion with bees buzzing round him only on the syrup tin. The famous Old Testament words from Judges,14, ‘Out of the strong came forth sweetness’, have been removed. A lion’s head has replaced the full body previously shown; no bees. The company says, ‘the fresh new design will make it easier for consumers to discover Lyle’s as an affordable, everyday treat while reestablishing the brand as the go-to syrup brand for the modern UK family’ and that religion played ‘no part’ in the change. Is that the whole story? Samson was Jewish. For Jews and Christians, he is the type of heroism in war. He killed the lion with his bare hands and the fact that bees made honey in the corpse was a sign of divine favour. Samson’s speciality was smiting the Philistines, the enemies of Israel, the people today known as Palestinians. He slayed a thousand with the jawbone of an ass. Then he fell in love with Delilah, who enticed him, under Philistine orders, and removed his strength by cutting off his hair while he slept, so that ‘the Lord was departed from him’. Then the Philistines took Samson and put out his eyes and brought him hostage to Gaza. There they ‘made sport’ of him in their celebrations in honour of their god Dagon; but by that time, Samson’s hair had regrown and therefore his strength had returned. So he stood between the two pillars of the temple and ‘bowed upon them with all his might’. The whole place fell down, killing 3,000 Philistines, and Samson. I suspect someone inside Tate & Lyle knew the Bible well enough to remember this story and that perhaps a diversity coordinator got thoroughly windy about it. And lo, it came to pass that Tate & Lyle dropped the dead lion.