Russia looks like a paper tiger after three and a half years of war
En los pasillos de la Asamblea General de la ONU, Donald Trump le comunicó a Volodymyr Zelensky algo que pocos meses atrás habría parecido imposible: que Ucrania podía recuperar todo su territorio. Este giro, nacido de la frustración ante la intransigencia rusa en Alaska y del acercamiento con un Zelensky dispuesto a negociar, replantea el papel de Washington en una guerra que ya lleva más de tres años. La historia observa con cautela si este cambio de postura representa una convicción duradera o una táctica de presión en un conflicto que no cede ante las palabras.
- Trump anunció en Truth Social que Ucrania puede recuperar sus fronteras de 1991 con el respaldo de la OTAN y la UE, revirtiendo meses de abogar por concesiones territoriales a Rusia.
- La cumbre de Alaska en agosto fracasó por completo: Putin no cedió en nada, mientras Zelensky mostró disposición al diálogo, encendiendo la frustración de Trump y endureciendo su posición.
- Rusia respondió de inmediato por boca de Peskov: Moscú no tiene alternativa y continuará su operación militar, manteniendo sus exigencias sobre cinco territorios y la neutralidad de Ucrania.
- Analistas advierten que el giro retórico de Trump refleja más presión política que una garantía real, dado que Ucrania enfrenta escasez crítica de soldados y defensas rusas profundamente atrincheradas.
- El escenario más probable, según expertos, es que Trump presione a Europa para elevar su gasto en defensa al cinco por ciento del PIB, reduciendo la carga financiera estadounidense sin abandonar la influencia global.
Donald Trump llegó a la Asamblea General de la ONU con un mensaje que habría parecido impensable meses atrás: Ucrania podía recuperarlo todo. En un extenso mensaje en Truth Social, el presidente estadounidense explicó su razonamiento con la seguridad de quien ha revisado los números y ha cambiado de opinión. Estudió la posición económica de Ucrania y el desempeño militar ruso, y concluyó que Rusia llevaba tres años y medio sin lograr una victoria decisiva en una guerra que cualquier potencia real debería haber ganado en días. Con respaldo europeo y de la OTAN, las fronteras de 1991 eran alcanzables.
Este no era el lenguaje que Trump había usado antes. En agosto, en una cumbre en Alaska, había explorado fórmulas de intercambio territorial y sugerido que alguna acomodación con Rusia podría ser necesaria. Pero Putin no cedió en ningún punto, mientras Zelensky mostró disposición a negociar. La frustración de Trump ante esa asimetría terminó por transformarse en una postura más dura. Zelensky recibió el giro con visible alivio, señalando que Trump ahora comprendía bien la situación. El presidente estadounidense también respaldó el derecho de los miembros de la OTAN a derribar aeronaves militares rusas que violaran su espacio aéreo, en respuesta a incursiones recientes sobre Polonia y Estonia.
Moscú respondió sin titubeos: Rusia no tiene alternativa y continuará su operación militar. Las exigencias de Putin permanecen intactas: control sobre Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia y Kherson, y la garantía de que Ucrania nunca ingresará a la OTAN. Ucrania, por su parte, insiste en no ceder ni un centímetro de territorio.
Pero los analistas ven algo más complejo detrás del giro. Francesco Tucci argumenta que el cambio refleja frustración más que convicción, y que la relación entre Trump y Zelensky ha pasado de la humillación pública a algo parecido a una alianza sólida. La pregunta práctica, sin embargo, persiste: Ucrania enfrece una escasez crítica de soldados, y el campo de batalla es un laberinto de artillería rusa, minas y drones. Una contraofensiva exitosa parece poco probable en esas condiciones. Lo más verosímil, concluye Tucci, es que Trump use su nueva retórica como palanca para presionar a Europa a aumentar su gasto en defensa, aliviando la carga financiera de Washington sin renunciar a su influencia global. El giro, por ahora, luce más como estrategia que como promesa.
Donald Trump walked into a meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week with a message that would have seemed unthinkable just months earlier. The American president, who had spent the better part of a year insisting that peace in Ukraine required territorial compromise—that some land would have to stay in Russian hands—now believed something different entirely. Ukraine, he concluded, could win back everything.
The shift was dramatic enough that Trump felt compelled to explain it. In a lengthy post on Truth Social, he laid out his reasoning with the confidence of a man who had just seen the numbers and changed his mind. He had studied Ukraine's economic position, he wrote, and examined Russia's military performance. What he found was a country that had been grinding through a war for three and a half years without decisive victory—a war that any genuine military power should have won in days. Russia, in his view, was struggling. Its economy was buckling under the weight of the conflict. Its cities would soon understand the true cost of what was happening. Ukraine, by contrast, had spirit and growing strength. With patience, with European financial backing, with NATO support, the original borders—the ones Ukraine held when it broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991—were achievable. Why not, Trump asked, push further still?
This was not the language Trump had used before. In August, at a summit in Alaska, he had explored formulas built on territorial exchange. He had suggested that some accommodation with Russia's demands might be necessary. But that meeting had produced nothing. Putin had refused to budge on any point. Zelensky, by contrast, had shown willingness to negotiate, even to make concessions. The frustration was evident in Trump's subsequent statements—Russia was not negotiating in good faith, he suggested. Now, in September, that frustration had curdled into a different kind of resolve.
Zelensky responded with visible relief. Trump, he said, now understood the situation clearly and was well informed on all aspects of the war. The American president had also made other commitments: he would back NATO members' right to shoot down Russian military aircraft that violated their airspace, a response to recent Russian incursions over Poland and Estonia. He would continue supplying weapons through NATO's priority list, allowing European allies to purchase American-made arms for Ukraine.
Russia's answer came swiftly. Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin's spokesman, said Moscow had no choice but to continue its military operation. The country was acting for its present and future, he said, for generations to come. There was no alternative. Putin's original demands remained unchanged: he wanted all five contested territories—Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—and a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO. Ukraine had said it would surrender no territory at all.
But analysts who study Trump's foreign policy saw something more complicated in the reversal. Francesco Tucci, an international analyst, argued that Trump's 180-degree turn reflected frustration more than conviction. The Alaska summit had yielded nothing, Tucci noted. Trump, known for his unpredictable temperament, had hardened his position when he realized Moscow would not yield while Zelensky would. There was also pressure from NATO allies, alarmed by Russian aircraft repeatedly crossing into European airspace. Trump's relationship with Zelensky had transformed too—from public criticism and humiliation to something resembling an iron alliance.
Yet the practical question remained: could Ukraine actually recover its territory under current conditions? Tucci was skeptical. Ukraine faced a critical shortage of soldiers. The battlefield itself had become a grinding nightmare—Russian artillery dug in across vast stretches, territory seeded with mines, drones hunting targets constantly. A successful Ukrainian counteroffensive seemed unlikely given these constraints. As for whether Trump's new stance would translate into direct military aid, Tucci doubted it. Trump had made clear he did not want America spending more on European defense. Instead, he would likely continue pressing European nations to raise their defense spending to five percent of their GDP, allowing the United States to reduce its financial burden while maintaining global influence. The shift in Trump's rhetoric, Tucci concluded, looked more like political pressure and strategy than a genuine guarantee that Ukraine could reclaim all its occupied land.
Notable Quotes
Understands clearly the situation and is well informed on all aspects of this war— Zelensky, on Trump's shift in position
We have no other alternative but to continue our military operation to guarantee our interests— Dmitri Peskov, Kremlin spokesman
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Trump change his mind so suddenly about Ukraine's territorial prospects?
He met with Zelensky, studied the numbers, and became frustrated. Russia had refused to budge in negotiations while Zelensky showed flexibility. That August summit in Alaska produced nothing, and Trump doesn't like losing.
So this isn't really about believing Ukraine can win?
It might be partly that. But analysts see it as pressure tactics—Trump hardening his stance to push Europe to spend more on defense while he reduces America's burden.
Can Ukraine actually recover all its territory with what it has right now?
That's the hard question. Ukraine is hemorrhaging soldiers. The battlefield is a nightmare of Russian artillery, mines, and drones. A successful counteroffensive looks very difficult under these conditions.
What does Putin want to hear?
He wants all five territories—Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson—and a guarantee Ukraine never joins NATO. Ukraine says it won't give up any land.
So we're back where we started?
Not quite. Trump is now backing NATO members' right to shoot down Russian aircraft. He's continuing weapons supplies. But whether that changes the actual military balance on the ground is another matter entirely.