I have a disturbing theory about Donald Trump’s increasingly bizarre behavior. What if Vladimir Putin has finally lost patience and delivered an ultimatum: “Listen, Donald. Do whatever you want with Ukraine and Zelensky, but they must surrender soon. Otherwise, everything we’ve collected about you over the years becomes public. You’ll lose Congress, face impeachment, and perhaps spend your remaining years behind bars.” This is speculation, not an established fact. But imagine how much of Trump's behavior it could explain. He eases pressure on Russia, announces questionable ceasefires, portrays Ukraine as responsible for the war, pressures Zelensky, restricts intelligence cooperation, and interferes with Ukraine’s ability to strike Russian energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, Moscow continues its aggression. And what has all this achieved? Nothing resembling the Ukrainian capitulation Putin wants. At this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if Trump offered Russia Patriot air defense systems to protect its refineries, then threatened Ukraine with American military intervention unless Kyiv accepted Moscow’s demands. Naturally, he would call it “forcing Ukraine to make peace.” Imagine the nightmare: Ukraine facing military pressure from two nuclear superpowers simultaneously. And thirty years later, Russian and American textbooks describing how Washington and Moscow supposedly “saved the world from Ukrainian Nazism.” Absurd? Certainly. But so much that once seemed politically unthinkable has already entered mainstream discussion. My deeper concern is that Russia learned something from the Soviet Union’s collapse: direct repression and military force alone cannot secure lasting geopolitical dominance. Influence, dependency, corruption, propaganda, and political manipulation can be far more effective. For decades, Moscow cultivated relationships with influential Western politicians, exploited European dependence on Russian energy, and supported political movements that weakened Western unity. Gerhard Schröder’s relationship with Russian energy interests is well documented. Russian support for certain European far-right movements has also raised serious concerns. But allegations involving other politicians require evidence, not assumptions. Migration crises, economic insecurity, and political polarization have created opportunities for Kremlin influence operations. Russia did not invent every European crisis, but it has repeatedly demonstrated an interest in exploiting divisions within democratic societies. This is the old imperial strategy: divide and rule. I also wonder whether Russia benefits strategically from Washington becoming increasingly entangled in Middle Eastern conflicts while Ukraine faces growing pressure. And now comes the most dangerous part: the approaching November 3 congressional elections. We have less than three weeks. I fear that this period could produce particularly reckless decisions concerning Ukraine, Russia, and American foreign policy. Perhaps my imagined blackmail scenario is completely wrong. I hope it is. But the central question remains: How did the democratic world reach a point where Ukraine must worry not only about Russian aggression, but also about pressure from the very country that once promised to defend its sovereignty? History may eventually reveal the answer. For now, the consequences are already frightening.