September 23, 2025

Institute for the Study of War: Trump voices confidence Ukraine can expel Russian forces from its territory

Institute for the Study of War

US President Donald Trump expressed confidence in Ukraine’s ability to fully liberate all of its internationally recognized territory that Russia currently occupies, following a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Trump stated at a press conference with Zelensky on September 23 that he has “great respect” for Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion and that Ukraine is “doing a very good job” of defending its territory against Russia’s efforts to quickly seize it.[1] Trump affirmed NATO member states’ right to shoot down Russian fighter jets violating their airspace, in response to a series of recent Russian incursions into Polish and Estonian airspace. Trump subsequently wrote that he assesses that the Ukrainian military, with the help of the European Union (EU) and NATO, is capable of “[winning] all of Ukraine back in its original form,” likely referring to Ukraine’s internationally recognized 1991 borders.[2] Trump wrote that Russia’s military shortcomings in Ukraine, despite its large-scale financial investments in military industrial production, make Russia look like a “‘paper tiger’,” and that Ukraine should act now, while Russia is facing economic turmoil, including gasoline shortages. Trump concluded that the United States will continue to supply weapons to NATO’s Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) initiative, through which European states purchase US-made weapons for Ukraine.

The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) publicly acknowledged Russia’s intent to advance further into Kharkiv Oblast should Russian forces seize Kupyansk, supporting ISW’s assessment of Russia’s operational intent. The Russian MoD claimed in a social media post on September 23 that Russian forces are continuing their offensive operation aimed at seizing Kupyansk and that Russian forces have partially enveloped Ukrainian forces in the city.[3] ISW has not observed geolocated evidence to support the claim that Russian forces have enveloped Ukrainian forces in Kupyansk as of this report, however. The Russian MoD claimed that Russian forces intend to leverage the seizure of Kupyansk to attack further into eastern Kharkiv Oblast in several directions simultaneously, including toward Chuhuiv (west of Kupyansk) and Izyum (southwest of Kupyansk), and toward Vovchansk (northwest of Kupyansk). The Russian MoD claimed that the Russian Western and Northern groupings of forces intend to unite the Vovchansk and Kupyansk efforts, which would effectively establish a “buffer zone” near the international border in northern Kharkiv Oblast. The Russian MoD claimed that the seizure of Kupyansk will also support Russian efforts to advance toward Slovyansk and Kramatorsk (both south of Kupyansk in Donetsk Oblast) and seize Ukraine’s fortress belt in Donetsk Oblast.

ISW assessed in February 2024 that the Russian MoD likely intended for Russian efforts to seize Kupyansk and the east (left) bank of the Oskil River to set operational conditions for Russian forces to advance into northern Donetsk Oblast toward Ukraine’s fortress belt and/or eastern Kharkiv Oblast toward Kharkiv City.[4] ISW assessed on July 12, 2025 that Russian forces likely began an offensive operation aimed at connecting Russian operations near Vovchansk with those near Dvorichna (north of Kupyansk), possibly to facilitate ongoing Russian efforts to establish a buffer zone along the international border.[5] The Russian MoD’s statement confirms these prior assessments of the Russian military command’s operational intent.

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.