Key Points and Summary – Dr. Robert Farley analyzes President Trump’s abrupt rhetorical shift on the Russia-Ukraine war—from casting Kyiv as weak to framing Russia as economically brittle and Ukraine as capable of recovery. Words matter: a tougher U.S. tone could dent Russian morale and bargaining leverage.
-Yet Farley warns that Washington may still push Europe to shoulder more costs while lacking the institutional muscle to escalate economic pressure.
Ukraine Tanks. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-Battlefield realities remain stubborn for both sides.
–His bottom line: durable peace requires convincing Moscow it cannot achieve war aims—continuity of military and economic pressure, not mixed signals, is what shortens the conflict.
Ukraine War: What Happens Next?
President Trump surprised everyone yesterday with what looks like a dramatic about-face on the future of the Russia-Ukraine War.
After months of attempting to bring the war to a close by flattering Moscow’s strength and sense of purpose, Trump yesterday declared that the Russian economy was in crisis and that Ukraine stood a good chance of retaking the territory that it has lost thus far. So far, the change is only rhetorical, but rhetoric matters in war.
How could this change the course of the conflict?
Ukraine: Can They Win?
From the perspective of January 2025, the rhetorical shift was stunning. Since he re-assumed the Presidency, Trump has argued that the Russia-Ukraine War needs to end and has harped on Ukraine’s vulnerability.
During the now-infamous press conference with President Zelenskyy, Trump repeatedly claimed “You don’t have the cards,” as part of an effort to browbeat the Ukrainian leader into accepting peace terms.
Now, Trump appears to have contradicted himself. Trump’s decision to highlight the weakness of the Russian economy and to speak well of Ukraine’s chances to regain lost territory also directly contradicts the statements of his Vice President. J.D. Vance has long argued that Ukraine is doomed to suffer defeat due to fundamental material imbalances between Kyiv and Moscow.
It remains to be seen whether Vance will adjust his rhetoric to bring it more into line with the President.
Trump seems to have finally come to the conclusion, after months of evidence, that Ukraine and President Zelensky are not the primary obstacles to ending the war. Trump has been frustrated by Moscow’s intransigence, rather than Kyiv’s.
It was undoubtedly a shrewd strategic move on Ukraine’s part to accept the majority of US conditions for a ceasefire, whether Kyiv was certain of Russia’s reaction or not. Trump has transferred his ire of Russia to the point that he is now willing to say that the war’s outcome is far from a foregone conclusion.
Rhetoric Matters …
US rhetoric certainly matters to the morale of Russians and Ukrainians.
It is one thing for an army to continue fighting when it believes that it is on the cusp of victory. It is another thing to bleed for a square kilometer of territory when no end is in sight.
If Russians take Trump’s shift seriously, it could cause problems both at home and at the front. Putin’s evident belief that Trump would reduce support for Ukraine has undoubtedly solidified Russian demands at the negotiating table and may have staved off any concerns about Russian military morale.
Desperate measures are fine for desperate times, but as the time horizon extends, the seams begin to show. The Russian government’s management of the economic war remains remarkable in its effectiveness.
Despite severe strains, the economy has continued to serve civilian needs while keeping the army well-supplied at the front.
Implementing this approach has necessitated a series of short-term fixes that will ultimately lead to long-term damage to Russia’s economic prospects. Extending the war both increases the damage and exposes the brittle scaffolding.
But Only So Far …
However, this doesn’t mean that Ukraine is out of the woods. Indeed, Trump’s rhetorical shift may portend a further transformation of responsibility for the war to Europe, with a concurrent downplaying of the United States’ role.
While this doesn’t seem likely to result in an arms embargo or similar measures, it could further distance the US from the war and its support for Ukraine. It is also true that the Trump administration has gutted the parts of the US government that can most effectively impose pain upon Russia.
Economic threats are of little use if the US government is unable or unwilling to implement them. Finally, there is little reason to believe, Trump’s shift notwithstanding, that the Ukrainians can actually retake territory lost to Russia at reasonable cost; the factors that prevent Russia from advancing also prevent Ukraine from advancing.
What Happens Next?
A coherent policy towards Russia would have maintained continuity between the Biden and Trump administrations. Such a policy would have recognized both the magnitude of Russian war demands and the necessity to curtail those demands through the combined force of both arms and economic coercion.
This policy could well have hastened the end of the war by removing any hope in Moscow that the United States and NATO might buckle under Russian pressure. Instead, President Trump dithered for months in a fruitless attempt to convince Russia that it did not really want what it had repeatedly stated that it wished to, culminating in a pathetic display of summit diplomacy in Alaska.
President Trump’s belated realization that Russian ambitions can only be frustrated by defeat on the battlefield is, believe it or not, good for peace. Ukraine cannot accept Russia’s demands and will continue fighting if those demands are not relaxed.
The best way to peace is through convincing Russia that it cannot accomplish its ends through war, a reality that President Trump is beginning to acknowledge.
About the Author: Dr. Robert Farley
Dr. Robert Farley has taught security and diplomacy courses at the Patterson School since 2005. He received his BS from the University of Oregon in 1997 and his Ph. D. from the University of Washington in 2004. Dr. Farley is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force (University Press of Kentucky, 2014), the Battleship Book (Wildside, 2016), Patents for Power: Intellectual Property Law and the Diffusion of Military Technology (University of Chicago, 2020), and most recently Waging War with Gold: National Security and the Finance Domain Across the Ages (Lynne Rienner, 2023). He has contributed extensively to a number of journals and magazines, including the National Interest, the Diplomat: APAC, World Politics Review, and the American Prospect. Dr. Farley is also a founder and senior editor of Lawyers, Guns and Money.
More Military
The B-1B Lancer Bomber: Can It Fire Hypersonic Missiles?
USS Enterprise (CVN-65): Best Aircraft Carrier Ever?
The Kitty Hawk-Class Aircraft Carriers Have A Message for the U.S. Navy
The X-43A Hit Mach 9.6 (And It Was Cancelled?)
The Montana-Class Battleships Have a Message for the U.S. Navy
Jim
September 24, 2025 at 3:39 pm
What’s clear: everybody has war aims and wants a victor’s peace.
Trump wants a demarcation line leaving Ukraine west of that “cease fire line” to be rebuilt militarily by NATO, Europe, and, undoubtedly, with help from Uncle Sam. And NATO security guarantees. Trump wants the Keith Kelly Peace Plan. (As do the Europeans.)
Yes, Zelensky and his government want the whole ball of wax as spelled out by Trump in his social media post. Where he gave his best Keith Kellog imitation and assessment of the war… “We’d kick their ass!”
Russia wants neutrality and non-aligned status, and a limited military capability for Ukraine at the end of hostilities.
Each side’s conditions are unacceptable for the other side.
Trump has never uttered the word neutrality once and he knows it’s anathema in Washington.
A reporter needs to ask Trump directly: “Do you reject neutrality for Ukraine as proposed by Russia?
Having mutually exclusive war aims at the start of conflicts is typical, but we’ve been here three and half years… with a lot of war under our belt with trends well established… the war has trajectories which suggest which side is winning or losing.
Many analysts are surprised by this sudden turn of phrase and posture from Trump. In my opinion he’s taken off the mask of peace maker and neutral mediator (which was always a fiction).
Without concrete actions rhetorical flourishes are unlikely to fly… and that could be all it is, one way for Trump to hog the spotlight during the General Assembly and all its hoopla.
Trump always wants the most hoopla and brightest spotlight on him… except when he wants to distract you from his failures, mistakes, or misdeeds.
Well, he’s done it, so what does it really mean?
The author suggests something: does Europe without United States backing, and no significant financial & military help, have the capability to impose Trump’s vision of rolling back Russia to 1991 borders and beyond?
Europe is in recession, partly due to a string of sanction packages that never seem to work, their populaces are balking at the prospect of war and severe social spending cuts, and, as a result, the leaders’ poll numbers are low or historically low, Macron in France, Starmer in Britain and Merz in Germany. (Germany, the economic powerhouse of Europe, has been in recession for two years.)
All this is to say, Europe can’t do it alone, no way, now how.
Will Trump accept the war as his responsibility, whether he started it or not. It’s on his watch as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and President.
Could this be his way for Trump to force Europe to truly assess their real capabilities and limitations?
Could be, but it’s rooted in a characterization of the war which flows from the Washington Consensus which Trump has never been willing to cross since taking office.
Does Europe want to risk political & economic upheaval?
If Europe wakes up and smells the coffee regarding its limitations & capabilities and balks, does the Washington Establishment also realize it’s a bridge, too far, for them, too?
The sands of time are draining through the hour glass.
Something’s gotta give.
George
September 25, 2025 at 7:40 am
“Battlefield realities remain stubborn for both sides.”
Funny. Ukrainian lines are collapsing at a rate higher than at any time and the last remaining strongholds are in the process of being operationally encircled, leaving nothing but open steppe to the Dnepr. Are you sure you understand what war is?
Swamplaw Yankee
September 26, 2025 at 2:11 am
Just now, the Free Nations of Post Russian Forum was held. Somehow, the reality of that still lingering Kremlin Imperialism of Muscovy stench is not being inhaled by most peer readers.
POST RUSSIA is a reality, not a AI construct. The peer readers seem unwilling to reflect accurately on centuries of silencing, dispossession and assimilation under the terrorist empire of the muscovy federation. Halloween is coming and Baskirs, Komi, Erzya, Kalmaks, Sakha, Karelians, etc are tired of ethnic russian peasants dressing up in various Hallowwen costumes and coming out to kill them; again, again and again.
The prime question is will the Yankee MAGA USA take action to help the United States of Siberia achieve freedom from Putin’s orcs? Or, will the MAGA USA continue to enforce their tired old policy to ignore the United States of Siberia, et al?
Again, there is no Vietnam, Korea, or Iran type war in Ukraine! NO WAR in Ukraine like that at all. Did all those Yankee boys go to Vietnam of Iran to kill every Vietnamese or muslim and steal their real estate? Nope.
For over 1000 years, ethnic ruusskie peasants have conducted Genocide against Ukrainians. Read a history book, say Orest Subtelny’s book.
The big Halloween Genocide was in 1932-33. Ethnic ruusskies dressed up in Fat Joe Stalin KGB costumes to Genocide 20,000,000 Ukrainians. Safe in their fake costumes, ethic ruusskies legally starved Ukrainians to steal their homes, farms and businesses. Parasite russkie etnics moved into vacant, therefore, FREE Ukrainian homes, farms, industries, and want to repeat the FREE Ukrainian real estate scam in 2025.
Will they do it again? -30-