Ukraine war: what to make of Trump's U-turn?
US President Donald Trump now believes it would be possible for Ukraine to recapture its territories which are currently occupied by Russia. With the support of Europe and Nato, a return to the original borders as they were at the start of the war is an option, he wrote on Truth Social. Until now, Trump had talked of ceding captured territory to Russia as the way to end the war. Commentators debate motives and consequences.
Dip in approval ratings is working wonders
Elita Veidemane, editor-in-chief of Neatkarīgā, believes that Trump's change of position is mainly part of his quest for popularity in his own country:
“The growing aid from Nato states for Ukraine undermines Trump's statements that the financial burden lies solely with the US. Furthermore, Trump has been criticised by both Republicans and Democrats for being too 'soft' on Russia, and he is well aware of this, which is why his rhetoric is changing. Let's hope that not just the rhetoric but also the actions change - then the president's ratings will no doubt also improve: as a strong narcissist, this is an important aspect of his life.”
Steady flow of weapons is key
Reliable US arms supplies could force Moscow to make compromises, writes military analyst Mykola Bielieskov in a Facebook post picked up by NV:
“If European-funded supplies from the US are systematic and long-term, it would send a clear signal to the occupier in the Kremlin: it cannot hope that interest in supporting Ukraine will wane and it would therefore be wiser to negotiate instead of continuing to try to dictate its own terms. This certainty was lacking after the approval of the last aid package by Congress in April 2024, a long time ago, and this is exactly what Moscow was counting on. Now there is hope that the steady flow of supplies through the PURL programme will somewhat correct the opponent's calculations.”
Rejection of the coalition of the willing
This is not Trump siding with Ukraine's supporters but turning them down, writes the Weltwoche:
“It's a misunderstanding on several counts to interpret Trump's recent public statements on the Ukraine war as a 'U-turn'. He has once again rejected the 'coalition of the willing'. ... Should military adventurism gain the upper hand in the 'coalition of the willing' against the Russian 'paper tiger', the US will stay on the sidelines and wash its hands of the situation. It is just a little bit pregnant with this war and its causes, which it cannot or does not want to resolve. 'Good luck,' Trump said on Truth Social.”
A tyrant focused on his own interests
Trump's foreign policy is driven by blackmailing tactics and self-interest, comments Birgün:
“US President Trump's approach in international relations alternates between 'bullying' and 'clever businessman' tactics. Ukraine, which is fighting against Russia, needs weapons from the US. Trump has stepped in here and forced Ukraine to hand over key natural resources to pay off its debt. Even if the deal struck between the two countries didn't quite meet Trump's expectations, the US has nevertheless tried to exploit the plight of a friendly country.”
Up to the EU and Nato to sort it out
Der Tagesspiegel remains cautious and recommends a closer reading:
“Trump is not saying that the US government will actively help to recapture Russian-occupied territory, but that he sees it as an 'option' that Ukraine could achieve this goal 'with the support of the European Union' and Nato. The US would continue to supply weapons, but 'to Nato for Nato to do what they want with them'. Trump is not committing his country to anything politically or militarily. He is only serious about his commitment in the sense that he wants Putin to believe that he is serious. He is placing the responsibility for success in the hands of Nato and the EU. In other words, Trump is continuing to manoeuvre.”
The cards have been reshuffled for now
La Repubblica remains sceptical:
“It is important to stress that Donald Trump has changed his stance on Ukraine. In his view, the roles have been reversed. For months, the American president had claimed that Ukraine did not 'hold the cards', so it made sense for it to seek a territorial compromise with a Russia that was much stronger in relative terms. Today (but we'll see how long this lasts) he writes that Russia has a 'big economic problem' and that Kyiv might be able to win back territory thanks to its extraordinary morale.”
Vague promises
Many questions remain unanswered, political scientist Linas Kojala explains in Delfi:
“The US's promise to continue supplying weapons - via Nato - signals continuity and cooperation with its allies. However, there is a lack of details about which systems Ukraine will actually receive, and in what quantities. Some weapon systems are lacking even in the US itself, so the flow may be disrupted. ... Europe's responsibility, on the other hand, was more clearly articulated. The US president's call to sever energy ties with Russia is positive, but it is crucial that Trump talks to his pal Viktor Orbán. Hungary is one of the main buyers of Russian raw materials in the EU. If Budapest were to change its position even slightly, the impact would be noticeable.”
May the strongest prevail
In Radio Kommersant FM's view Trump's statements signal a retreat from his previous peace efforts:
“The key conclusion is obvious: the peace talks have officially failed, and the only option left is a military scenario, or more precisely, a new phase of escalation. ... However, the head of the White House remains constructive. He is not adopting a pro-Ukrainian position but simply distancing himself from current events and stepping aside. Let Europe fight if it wants to and can, while the US deals with its internal problems. In other words, may the strongest prevail.”
A stark contrast to Putin
La Libre Belgique has had enough of the US president's inconsistencies:
“These shifts in stance clearly illustrate Trump's disruptive foreign policy: constant improvisation and shock tactics with the sole aim of closing a deal, however insignificant it may be. A policy devoid of substance that flatters a fleeting ego. ... This weather-vane effect makes one dizzy compared to Vladimir Putin, who never deviates from his bellicose strategy or his chilling rhetoric. For three years, the Kremlin has been repeating that Ukraine will never regain its territories. ... The hesitations of one reinforce the obsessions of the other. A striking asymmetry.”