Trump’s “Paper Tiger” Bluff: Europe Duped Into Funding America’s War Narrative

By Uriel Araujo

Trump’s unexpected praise for Ukraine’s chances against Russia hides a deeper game. By shifting financial burdens to Europe, he may be sidestepping accountability while eyeing Arctic geopolitics. Europe is being “played” once again.

US President Donald Trump’s recent rhetoric on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict has raised eyebrows across the Atlantic. After meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on September 23, 2025, Trump labelled Russia a “paper tiger” and expressed confidence that Ukraine could “reclaim” disputed territories. This blunt departure from his earlier calls for territorial concessions has sparked speculation: is this a genuine shift, or a calculated ploy to further offload Ukrainian “burden” onto Europe? Given Trump’s modus operandi — often characterized by “bullying” and unpredictable turns — the latter seems not just plausible, but probable.

One should always keep in mind that Trump’s ego has long been a driving force in his political theatre. As political commentator Arnaud Bertrand sharply observes, if a Ukrainian victory were somehow truly on the horizon, would a man of Trump’s stature willingly step back and just let Europe claim the glory, from a Western perspective? Hardly. “If so, I have a bridge to sell you…” Bertrand quips on X. This scepticism in fact makes a lot of sense.

Trump’s sudden optimism about Ukraine’s chances therefore looks less like a genuine strategic shift and more like a calculated trick — meant to draw European leaders deeper into an expensive quagmire while allowing the US to keep distance

The mechanics of this shift are telling. Trump’s latest line insists that US weapons support will flow through NATO allies, with $500 million in transfers already greenlit. Yet, he’s quick to emphasize that the financial load should fall on European taxpayers, not the US budget. This is clearly a deft manoeuvre to compel Europe to shoulder the fiscal weight.

As a matter of fact, European officials are already sounding the alarm. A recent Financial Times report highlights Poland’s Donald Tusk warning that Trump’s new posture conceals a “shift of responsibility”, with EU leaders increasingly viewing (at last!) the US as an unreliable ally.

It is true that Trump’s rhetorical pivot ends up serving as a lifeline for Zelensky, in a way. Ukraine’s modest enough battlefield gains — often underreported amid the fog of war anyway — hinge on sustained Western support. Trump’s words thus arguably give Kiev rhetorical cover to press for more aid, even as Europe grapples with its own economic strains.

This being so, Zelensky is likely to lean on hyperbole or blatant lies to secure EU funds — a tactic that has sort of worked thus far. Yet the hard reality remains: Ukraine cannot “reclaim” all disputed territories overnight, especially given the contested history of regions like Donbass (which it has been bombing for a decade) and Crimea since 2014. Once again, the West’s recognition of Kosovo’s 2008 independence, based on its own unilateral referendum, lays bare the hypocrisy at play here.

So much for Trump’s “peace-making” persona. His strategy appears to be less about resolving the conflict anyhow and more about merely tilting the cost-benefit calculus in Kiev’s favour for the time being — on Europe’s dime. In this scenario, the arrangement would eventually force European nations to fund  Ukraine’s nation-building efforts, a burden they may not be equipped to handle long-term. Thus, the junction Europeans find themselves at is precarious, to say the least: the survival of Ukraine’s ethnocratic regime remains tethered to Western largesse, but that support is increasingly strained.

As I’ve recently argued elsewhere, in any armed conflict, any gains must be at once militarily sustainable, diplomatically leveraged, and financially backed — a tall order when the US is effectively “passing the buck”, as political scientist John Mearsheimer puts it.

Some might argue that Trump’s shift reflects a genuine reassessment of Russia’s capabilities. After all, his “paper tiger” jab suggests a belief that Moscow’s resolve is weakening. But this reads more like bravado than strategy. Trump’s history of erratic policy swings — combined with his penchant for “bullying” allies into compliance do suggest he’s playing a longer game. By framing Ukraine’s recovery as possible, he can claim credit if it somehow succeeds, while blaming Europe if it fails. This fear has been voiced already by some European officials, who see Trump preparing to scapegoat them for any shortcomings.

The truth is that the Ukrainian regime cannot decouple its fate from Western support, and yet it must navigate a landscape where that support is both insufficient and conditional. Trump’s recent rhetoric, while bold enough to stir debate, lacks the substance to back a decisive Ukrainian victory, which remains completely unlikely. Instead, it serves, as usual, as a pressure tactic, in this case pushing Europe to stretch its resources while Washington watches from the sidelines. Meanwhile, the US is already eyeing what might well be the next geopolitical hotspot for tensions and Great Power competition: the Arctic.

Washington, as I’ve argued, is intensifying its Arctic presence to secure the region’s vast resources, including oil, gas, and minerals, through increased military and economic investments, as outlined in a Pentagon strategy document. Meanwhile, Russia and China are deepening their Arctic alliance, leveraging Moscow’s extensive Arctic infrastructure and Beijing’s economic might to exploit resources and secure strategic trade routes, such as the Northern Sea Route. This collaboration challenges Western dominance, as Russia’s military buildup and China’s investments signal a long-term commitment to Arctic influence.

Ukraine, in turn, in any event, could remain a “frozen conflict” for a very long time, considering the presence of a ultra-nationalist far-right (funded and armed by the US) that won’t simply go away. Such ethnopolitical issues (rooted in post-Maidan Ukraine’s ultra-nationalism) often spills into neighbouring countries, such as Hungary — not just Russia. Kiev in any case is far from being the only potential point of contention in the foreseeable future.

On Ukraine, be as it may, the question remains: is Trump tricking Europe? The evidence leans toward this. The American President’s sudden “epiphany” about Kiev’s prospects aligns too neatly with his goal of offloading responsibility with regards to a largely American made crisis. This is after all a leader adept at shifting the spotlight — and the bill — elsewhere.

Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.

7 Courses in 1 – Diploma in Business Management

Categories: Analysis, Geopolitics, International Affairs

Tags: China, Donald Trump, EU, Europe, Geopolitics, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, USA