President Donald Trump’s latest remarks on the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war have sent ripples through diplomatic circles, European capitals, and the corridors of power in Washington. On September 23, 2025, Trump took to Truth Social to declare that Ukraine possesses a “great spirit” and, with the help of the European Union and NATO, could “fight and WIN” the war against Russia. He went so far as to describe Russia—a country he once treated as a peer power—as a “paper tiger,” a phrase that raised eyebrows both in Kyiv and abroad.
Trump’s comments came after a conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The timing and tone of his statement marked a dramatic departure from his previous, more equivocal stances. According to The Washington Post, a senior White House official clarified on September 25 that Trump’s remarks were part of a “negotiating tactic” aimed at pressuring Russia to wind down the conflict. Yet, the official’s candor about this strategy seemed to undercut its effectiveness. If everyone knows it’s just a tactic, does it still work as intended?
For those following Trump’s approach to the war, this pivot is not the first, nor likely the last. He has oscillated between expressing support for Ukraine, then for Russia, then back again. At times, he’s threatened to cut off aid to Ukraine, even going so far as to call the conflict “not my war.” Just this past winter, Trump reportedly told Zelensky in the Oval Office that Ukraine had no “cards” and needed to contemplate territorial concessions. His more recent social media post, however, painted a different picture: “Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like ‘a paper tiger.’”
Trump’s post did not go unnoticed in Kyiv. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded with measured optimism, stating that Trump was “well informed” and clearly understood the situation on the battlefield. According to Slate, top Ukrainians expressed both surprise and gratitude, but stopped short of interpreting the comments as a real shift in U.S. policy. “At least he’s not saying he’ll cut off aid,” one Ukrainian official reportedly remarked, “but there’s no sign he’ll be increasing it, either.”
European leaders, meanwhile, offered a mix of praise and skepticism. Several cheered what appeared to be a newfound optimism from Washington. Yet Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, writing on social media on September 24, cautioned against reading too much into Trump’s words. “President Trump has stated that Ukraine could, with the support of the European Union, regain all of its territory. This surprising optimism conceals a promise of reduced U.S. involvement and a shift of responsibility for ending the war to Europe,” Tusk wrote. “Truth is better than illusion.”
From the perspective of many European politicians and diplomats, Trump’s pivot seems less like a full-throated embrace of Ukraine and more like a handoff. Matthew Schmidt, an Eastern Europe expert at the University of New Haven, told CBC, “It seems to me like he’s walking away and handing the key to the car to the Europeans.” Schmidt speculated that Trump’s motivations might be less about geopolitics and more about personal legacy. “I think Trump is driven by a desire to win a Nobel Peace Prize and by extreme embarrassment at failure… I think that this is saying, ‘I don’t think I can win this. I don’t want to risk losing it and have that attached to me.’”
Trump’s social media declaration also touched on Russia’s economic woes. He asserted that “Putin and Russia are in BIG economic trouble,” referencing long lines for gasoline and the strain of a war economy. These points echo U.S. intelligence assessments that Russia’s army has failed to make significant advances despite heavy losses, and that the Russian economy is buckling under the weight of prolonged conflict. As Slate noted, Trump’s comments seem to both reflect and amplify these assessments, though it’s unclear whether he’s basing his statements on briefings or personal perceptions.
Some analysts suggest that Trump’s latest position may be influenced by U.S. economic interests in Ukraine. There are ongoing negotiations for up to a $30-billion drone deal, which would benefit the U.S. military and defense industry. Additionally, American companies are eyeing investments in Ukraine’s critical minerals sector. Zelenskyy, in a recent speech to the United Nations, signaled his country’s willingness to share its drone expertise with Western partners, further fueling speculation about the economic underpinnings of Trump’s stance. Before his UN appearance, Zelenskyy revealed that Ukraine had put forward a draft agreement for discussion, expected to cover investments in drone production, joint or co-production agreements, and weapon purchases from the U.S. Canada, for its part, signed a joint drone production partnership with Ukraine last summer.
Despite these economic dimensions, Schmidt is skeptical that financial or military benefits are the main drivers behind Trump’s pivot. He argues that Ukraine has become increasingly self-sufficient, particularly in the realm of military innovation. Since late August 2025, Ukraine has launched a campaign targeting Russian oil refineries, reportedly disabling about 17 percent—roughly one-sixth—of Russia’s oil-refining capacity. On some days, refining output has dropped by as much as 20 percent, with major facilities like Ryazan, Volgograd, and Salavat experiencing significant disruptions. This has reduced the volume of refined petroleum available in Russia and for export, further straining the Russian economy.
Ukraine’s growing military competence and strategic command have impressed observers. “Ukraine is doing a lot now and it’s quite self-sufficient,” Schmidt noted. “It has figured out how to produce the weapons, train the drone pilots. It has, I think, competence, strategic command.” This self-reliance, coupled with European support, may bolster Kyiv’s position even as the U.S. appears to step back.
Meanwhile, Trump’s own words continue to send mixed signals. In his Truth Social post, after touting Ukraine’s prospects, he concluded with a note of detachment: “In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!” As Slate observed, this hardly sounds like a passionate endorsement of Ukraine or a stern warning to Russia. If anything, it suggests Trump is content to watch from the sidelines, leaving the heavy lifting to others.
As the war grinds on—now in its fourth year—Trump’s shifting rhetoric underscores the uncertainty surrounding U.S. policy. For Kyiv, the silver lining is that American support, though less enthusiastic, has not been withdrawn. For Europe, the message is clear: the burden of supporting Ukraine may increasingly fall on their shoulders. And for Russia, the so-called “paper tiger,” the pressure is mounting, both on the battlefield and at home.
In the end, Trump’s pivot may say less about the future of U.S. involvement and more about the evolving dynamics of a war that has outlasted expectations and upended old alliances. The world will be watching to see whose resolve holds firm as winter approaches once again.