June 25, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Trump acknowledges Russia may have territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine

Institute for the Study of War

US President Donald Trump stated that Russia may have territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine — consistent with ISW’s long-held assessments that Russia is preparing for a future conflict with NATO and setting conditions to justify future aggression against non-NATO former Soviet Union states. A reporter asked Trump during a press conference at the NATO summit on June 25 whether it is possible that Russian President Vladimir Putin has territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine, and Trump responded that “it’s possible.”[1] ISW has long assessed that Russia is preparing its military and society for a possible future conflict with NATO following the conclusion of the war in Ukraine, including by pursuing military reforms; integrating veterans into all levels of Russian local, regional, and federal governments; and setting rhetorical conditions to justify future aggression against NATO.[2] ISW has observed the Kremlin leverage the same rhetoric that it used against Ukraine before the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 to threaten NATO states.[3] The Kremlin has also specifically weaponized the concept of “compatriots abroad” — Russian-speaking populations living outside of Russia, whom Russia claims it needs to protect—to justify aggression against former Soviet states in the past.[4] The Kremlin has also promoted its concept of “Russkiy Mir” (“Russian World”) — an amorphous ideological and geographic conception that includes all of the former territories of Kyivan Rus, the Kingdom of Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the contemporary Russian Federation and which Putin uses to frame any territories a Russian regime ruled or claimed to have ruled as Russia’s “historical territories.”[5] The Kremlin has been setting informational conditions to justify potential aggression against Moldova and the Baltic states using the alleged need to protect its “compatriots abroad” and the claim that these countries are part of the “Russkiy Mir” — the same narratives that the Kremlin used to justify the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.[6] Trump’s statements therefore, cohere with ISW’s fundamental assessment that Russia maintains territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine and will continue pursuing these ambitions unless Putin is forced to reconsider his theory of victory. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio correctly stated that Russia has not shown a willingness to move forward in peace negotiations. Rubio stated in an interview with Politico published on June 25 that Russia is trying to “achieve on the battlefield what [Russia is] demanding at the negotiating table” including “control over certain territories,” but noted that this objective will be more difficult to achieve than Russia currently believes.[7] Rubio stated that Russia has suffered over 80,000 killed-in-action (KIA) since January 2025 but that Putin nevertheless continues “feeding into the war machine” and that Russia has “not shown a willingness to move forward” in peace negotiations. Rubio’s statements are consistent with ISW’s assessments that Russia has been attempting to delay the negotiation process and protract the war in order to secure additional territorial gains.[8] Russia’s maximalist negotiating demands for Ukrainian territory, including significant amounts of territory that Russia does not currently occupy, represent an informational tactic intended to force territorial concessions to compensate for gains that Russia cannot achieve on the battlefield. ISW continues to assess that Russia is unwilling to engage in substantive negotiations to end the war in Ukraine in any way that falls short of acquiescing to Russia’s maximalist demands, which have remained consistent since before the start of the full-scale invasion.[9]

Russian officials are promoting purposefully vague rhetoric about the “root causes” of Russia’s war against Ukraine in order to allow the Kremlin the flexibility to adapt its demands as it sees fit. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov claimed on June 24 that the “root causes” of the war are the alleged discrimination against Russian-speakers in Ukraine and NATO violations of its obligations to not expand closer to Russia, including claimed NATO plans to build bases in Crimea and British plans to build a base on the Sea of Azov.[14] Lavrov previously claimed in an interview in December 2024 that the two main “root causes” of the war are NATO’s alleged violation of obligations to not advance eastward and “aggressive absorption” of areas near Russia’s borders and the Ukrainian government’s alleged discrimination against ethnic Russians and Russian language, media, and culture in Ukraine.[15] Kremlin officials have repeatedly demanded in recent months that any settlement to the war must “eliminate the root causes,” but Lavrov’s June 24 claim that these root causes include alleged NATO and UK plans to build bases in Crimea and along the Sea of Azov is unusually specific and likely aimed at further deterring Western support for Ukraine and portraying NATO as a threat to Russia.[16] The ambiguity of what Russian officials constitute as “root causes” of the war allows the Kremlin the flexibility to add specificity when it chooses and to adapt its demands of Ukraine in any potential peace settlement in the future.

Russia is reportedly accelerating its missile production capacity with sanctions evasion support from Belarus and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Ukrainian outlet Kyiv Independent reported on June 24 that Russia’s state-owned Votkinsk Plant has hired 2,500 workers, built new facilities, and imported specialized manufacturing equipment as part of efforts to expand Russia’s production of Iskander-M ballistic missiles, Iskander-K cruise missiles, Yars and Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and likely Oreshnik ballistic missiles since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.[17] The Kyiv Independent stated that an analysis of the plant’s internal business operations shows that the plant sourced manufacturing equipment from companies in the PRC, Taiwan, and Belarus via private Russian intermediaries. The Kyiv Independent stated that it is unclear how many ICBMs the Votkinsk Plant is currently producing, but noted that internal documents indicate that Russia is investing in its ICBM arsenal and that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) ordered the Votkinsk Plant in March 2022 to fulfill a production contract for $13 million worth of parts for the Bulava ICBM by 2024. A senior official from Ukraine’s Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) told the Kyiv Independent that Russia is preparing for a long war and is stockpiling various types of missiles. The Kyiv Independent, citing the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), stated that Russia increased its production of Iskander-M ballistic missiles from 250 in 2023 to 700 in 2024 and noted that its GUR source agreed with RUSI’s assessment. The Kyiv Independent reported that it received GUR intelligence in early June 2025, indicating that Russia had stockpiled roughly 600 Iskander-M ballistic missiles and 300 Iskander-K cruise missiles — a stockpile that would last about two years, should Russia maintain its current pace of strikes against Ukraine. ISW recently observed reports indicating that Russia is actively expanding and stockpiling its production of T-90M tanks, and Russia’s expansion and acceleration of missile production capacity further supports ISW’s assessment that Russia is working to expand its defense industrial base (DIB) likely in preparation for a protracted war in Ukraine and a potential expanded future conflict with NATO.[18]

The United States signaled receptiveness to provisioning Ukraine with additional Patriot air defense systems—a particularly salient issue given reports of Russia’s increased ballistic missile production. US President Donald Trump responded to a question during the NATO summit on June 25 on whether the United States planned to provide Ukraine with additional Patriot air defense systems by stating that the United States would “see if they can make some available.”[19] US Patriot air defense systems are vital to Ukraine’s ability to defend against Russian ballistic missile strikes and will become increasingly important as Russia increases its production and stockpile of ballistic missiles, which would enable larger and more frequent ballistic missile strikes against Ukraine. ISW continues to assess that Ukraine’s limited Patriot air defense systems are forcing Ukraine to make difficult decisions about which areas of Ukraine to protect.[20]

NATO and Western officials reaffirmed their commitment to collective defense and security, to increasing defense spending in the face of increased Russian aggression, and to providing support to Ukraine. The NATO heads of state and government participating in the NATO summit in The Hague published a joint declaration on June 25.[21] The declaration reaffirmed NATO’s commitment to collective defense, as defined in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, and committed to investing five percent of gross domestic product (GDP) annually in core defense requirements and defense- and security-related spending by 2035. The declaration also reaffirmed NATO’s commitment to supporting Ukraine and that NATO members will include direct contributions to Ukraine’s defense and defense industry in their spending calculations. The declaration highlighted that Ukraine’s security contributes to NATO’s security. NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte told reporters on June 25 that NATO faces a long-term threat from Russia, especially because North Korea, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and Iran are supporting Russia’s war effort against Ukraine, and that NATO must increase its defense spending.[22] Rutte emphasized in his plenary speech at the NATO summit the importance of Article 5 and the commitment to invest five percent of GDP into defense, stating that NATO will need to expand its DIB on both sides of the Atlantic.[23] US President Donald Trump told reporters at the NATO summit that the United States is committed to Article 5.[24] A large group consisting of members of the European Parliament, members of national parliaments, politicians, diplomats, military personnel, and subject matter experts sent an open letter to the heads of NATO countries calling for support of Ukraine, including calling for increased aid and air defense.[25]

Ukraine’s European partners continue to allocate military aid to Ukraine and deepen cooperation with the Ukrainian defense industrial base (DIB). The Norwegian government announced on June 24 that it will allocate 6.5 billion Norwegian kroner (about $642 million) to drone procurement for Ukrainian forces from Ukrainian and European manufacturers.[26] Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov and Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen signed a letter of intent on June 24 to begin efforts to establish the joint production of Ukrainian weapons in Denmark.[27] The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (MoD) reported that the Danish government allocated 500 million Danish kroner (about $78 million) to accelerate Ukrainian weapon production. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that the UK will provide a new package of 350 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAMs), financed for the first time using £70 million (about $96 million) of funding from the interest on seized Russian assets through the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration (ERA) framework.[28] Starmer announced that UK Armed Forces engineers had adapted the ASRAAM missiles to be compatible with Ukraine’s UK-supplied RAVEN ground-based air defense systems. Starmer stated that the UK will imminently deliver five new RAVEN air defense systems, bringing the total that Ukraine has to 13 systems.

Ukrainian forces likely conducted a long-range strike against a Russian military industrial enterprise in Rostov Oblast on June 24. Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation Head Lieutenant Andriy Kovalenko, who often reports on successful Ukrainian drone strikes, reported that Ukrainian forces struck the Russian Atlant-Aero plant in Taganrog, Rostov Oblast.[29] Kovalenko reported that the Atlant-Aero plant specializes in producing critical Russian combat drone components and control systems, including “Orion” drones, electronic warfare (EW) systems, and digital integration for first-person view (FPV) drones and loitering munitions. Russian sources posted footage of explosions in Taganrog and claimed that Russian air defenses repelled a drone strike near Taganrog and other areas of Rostov Oblast overnight.[30]

Key Takeaways:

  • US President Donald Trump stated that Russia may have territorial ambitions beyond Ukraine – consistent with ISW’s long-held assessments that Russia is preparing for a future conflict with NATO and setting conditions to justify future aggression against non-NATO former Soviet Union states.
  • US Secretary of State Marco Rubio correctly stated that Russia has not shown a willingness to move forward in peace negotiations.
  • The Kremlin continues to leverage Russian Security Council Deputy Chairperson Dmitry Medvedev’s aggressive rhetoric to undermine Western support for Ukraine.
  • Russian officials are promoting purposefully vague rhetoric about the “root causes” of Russia’s war against Ukraine in order to allow the Kremlin the flexibility to adapt its demands as it sees fit.
  • Russia is reportedly accelerating its missile production capacity with sanctions evasion support from Belarus and the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
  • NATO and Western officials reaffirmed their commitment to collective defense and security, to increasing defense spending in the face of increased Russian aggression, and to providing support to Ukraine.
  • Ukraine’s European partners continue to allocate military aid to Ukraine and deepen cooperation with the Ukrainian defense industrial base (DIB).
  • Ukrainian forces likely conducted a long-range strike against a Russian military industrial enterprise in Rostov Oblast on June 24.
  • Ukrainian forces recently advanced near Borova and Velyka Novosilka, and Russian forces recently advanced in Vovchansk and near Pokrovsk and Novopavlivka.

Share the Post:

Wilson Center

Forced displacement represents one of the most pressing humanitarian issues of our time. Individuals and families, torn from the fabric of their communities, find themselves navigating a world of uncertainty, often without basic necessities or a clear path to safety. There are currently some 110 million forced displaced, and this number is growing by 10 million each year!

At the heart of this crisis are the political triggers. Armed conflicts, ethnic or religious persecutions, and systemic human rights abuses force millions to flee their homes in terror. Many are displaced within their own national boundaries, while others seek asylum abroad. If these factors change as a result of political shifts at home or the pressures from abroad, they can return to their homes. Forced displacement is thus different from environmentally driven displacement, as victims of climate change may never be able to return to their homes.

The ramifications of any sort of displacement are profound, not just for those directly affected, but also for host communities and countries. Overburdened infrastructures, socio-economic strains, and cultural tensions can arise, necessitating comprehensive strategies to foster harmony and integration. Yet the root causes of forced displacement can be remedied with a concerted focus by local players and international diplomacy.

Organizations like Refugees International play a crucial role in this arena, advocating for the rights and needs of the displaced, conducting on-the-ground assessments, and influencing policymakers to take informed actions. Their relentless work underscores the gravity of the situation and the urgency ofinternational cooperation. But they, too, are overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the crisis.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), with its core principles centered on the protection of civilians during conflicts, plays a pivotal role in this discourse. Yet, despite clear legal frameworks, compliance remains
inconsistent. This initiative emphasizes the importance of upholding and reinforcing these international standards.

It’s not just about recognizing the problem; it’s about active engagement. We urge governments, organizations, and individuals to prioritize the rights and needs of the forced displaced. Through collective efforts, informed policies, and sustained advocacy, we can shift the narrative from passive acknowledgment to proactive intervention.