NCP62

The final pieces of the puzzle are falling into place, revealing an increasingly disturbing picture of what is happening behind the scenes in Washington. If you are still wondering where Donald Trump's hysterical attacks on Kyiv come from, why he keeps making absurd claims about "the rain that saved Ukraine," and why he responds so aggressively to journalists who challenge him, consider the analysis of someone who understands the inner workings of the White House. Dr. Fiona Hill, a former senior White House national security official and one of America's leading experts on Russia, has offered a deeply troubling interpretation of Trump's behavior. Trump wants Zelenskyy to capitulate. Why? Because, according to this interpretation, the entire situation comes down to something painfully simple: Trump's wounded ego. This is a man who promised to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He imagined himself receiving the Nobel Peace Prize and being celebrated as one of the greatest peacemakers in history. He envisioned a spectacular diplomatic triumph that would secure his place in the history books. Instead, his grand promises have collided with reality. Months have passed, the magical peace agreement has failed to materialize, and the Kremlin dictator continues to reject proposals that do not satisfy his demands. Putin has repeatedly demonstrated that he has little interest in helping Trump achieve his political ambitions. So who should Trump blame for this humiliating failure? Himself? Absolutely not. In Trump's political universe, admitting a mistake is practically unthinkable. Putin? Apparently not. Trump continues to treat the Kremlin dictator as a powerful leader worthy of respect, despite Russia's continuing destruction of Ukrainian cities and the deaths of innocent civilians. That leaves one convenient target: Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump is furious because the Ukrainian president refuses to surrender, refuses to kneel before Moscow, and refuses to sign an agreement that would sacrifice his country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. He is furious because an entire nation refuses to capitulate to an aggressor merely so the 47th president of the United States can stand before the cameras and declare himself the man who ended the war. And now, as Hill's analysis suggests, the pressure is increasingly being directed not at Moscow, which launched the invasion, but at Kyiv, which is fighting for its survival. The apparent calculation is that Washington, potentially supported by war-weary European governments, can pressure Ukraine into accepting terms that would allow Trump to claim a diplomatic victory, regardless of the long-term consequences for Ukrainian security. But the price of this political spectacle is not measured in television ratings, headlines, or Nobel Prize nominations. It is measured in the blood of Ukrainian soldiers defending their country in freezing trenches. It is measured in the lives of civilians killed by Russian missiles and drones, in destroyed homes, shattered families, kidnapped children, and entire cities reduced to ruins. Ukraine is fighting an aggressor determined to destroy its independence. At the same time, Ukrainians must confront the possibility that some of those who call themselves allies may place their own political ambitions above Ukraine's survival. There is something profoundly disturbing about demanding concessions from the country being invaded while treating the invading dictator as an indispensable partner in negotiations. Ukraine did not start this war.Ukraine did not invade Russia.Ukraine is not responsible for Putin's imperial ambitions or Trump's unfulfilled political promises. And Ukrainians should not be expected to pay for anyone's wounded pride with their freedom,their territory,or their lives. A peace agreement that rewards aggression and leaves Ukraine defenseless is not a historic diplomatic victory. It risks becoming an invitation to the next war.