Trump says Ukraine could win back all land from Russia, but experts warn it would be a long shot

President Donald Trump told the United Nations General Assembly this week that Ukraine could win back all of its territory from Russia with the right mix of time, patience, and Western financial support. He said, "With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original borders from where this war started, is very much an option." He also argued that Russia's economy was in trouble and that Vladimir Putin had been "fighting aimlessly." The remarks marked a sharp departure from his earlier position that Kyiv would have to concede land. The comments drew swift attention and set off a debate about Kyiv's prospects and the durability of Western backing.

On Wednesday, the Kremlin pushed back, saying Russia's economy fully satisfied the needs of its army and that it would be a big mistake to believe Ukraine could reclaim any lost territory. The assertion immediately underscored the gulf between Washington's geopolitical rhetoric and Moscow's framing of the war, which has stretched into a fourth year and shows no sign of a quick resolution.

Analysts cited by the report noted that while reclaiming occupied land would be militarily daunting for Ukraine, there could be a broader political and strategic path over time. former British Army colonel and intelligence analyst Philip Ingram told the outlet that Ukraine faces a mammoth task to push back Russian forces, but that a wider operational perspective could offer possibilities if Moscow’s own logistics and economy deteriorate. "From a pure military perspective, it would be very difficult for the Ukrainians to use their military to push the Russians out," Ingram said. "But from a wider operational perspective, where you bring in the geopolitical aspect of it, there is a realistic possibility, but it will take a long time."

Ingram also framed Russia's financing of the war as a potential pressure point. He noted that Kyiv has been pressing Russia to degrade its energy industry as a way to choke war funding, while acknowledging that Moscow's economy remains a large and complex system capable of sustaining operations even under sanctions if enough revenue can be generated elsewhere. The discussion underscored how the war hinges not only on battlefield outcomes but also on the ability of Russia and Ukraine to sustain prolonged mobilizations amid international pressure.

The conflict has persisted for more than three years, with Russia occupying roughly 19% of Ukrainian territory today, including the regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, and Donetsk. Ukraine continues to defend these areas while attempting counterstrikes and replenishing its battered forces. Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, remains a flashpoint that shapes the strategic calculus of both sides. The physical landscape of the front—trenches, anti-tank barriers, minefields and fortified lines described by Western officials as among the most extensive in any modern conflict—helps explain why a return to prewar borders would be so challenging, even with robust Western aid.

From a raw military standpoint, the war reveals a stark asymmetry in manpower, matériel and industrial capacity. Russia has far more active-duty personnel and a larger reserve pool, while Ukraine has mobilized its population aggressively to sustain fighting for years under intense international support. The balance influences how both sides conduct battles, and it informs the broader question of whether Kyiv can reverse recent gains.

On manpower, Russia’s active personnel are estimated at about 1.32 million, versus Ukraine’s roughly 900,000. Moscow also maintains a much larger reserve, with estimates around 2.0 million compared with Ukraine’s 1.2 million. Even the inclusion of overseas troops—North Korea has reportedly sent thousands of fighters to Russia—illustrates the scale of external factors that can influence the conflict. Yet the numbers alone do not tell the full story: attrition, morale, training quality, and the ability to sustain long campaigns are equally decisive.

The battlefield also features a pronounced technological gap. Russia has a substantial air-power advantage, with an inventory that analysts place around 4,292 aircraft, including modern fighters and bombers. Ukraine’s air arm, by contrast, numbers about 324 aircraft, a ratio of roughly 13 to 1 in Russia’s favor. Western air defenses and supplied fighters have helped Kyiv, but the power gap in the skies remains a critical constraint for Ukrainian operations. Russia can threaten Ukrainian positions with long-range missiles and airstrikes, while Kyiv relies on Western-supplied air defenses and newer systems to blunt those threats.

Russia’s ground forces also hold a material edge in armor. Moscow operates about 5,750 tanks, compared with Ukraine’s roughly 1,114. That disparity translates into a potent disadvantage for Kyiv in large-scale armored engagements, even as Western-supplied tanks and infantry fighting vehicles begin to change some of the dynamics on the front lines. In the naval arena, Russia’s fleet numbers far higher than Ukraine’s, with hundreds of ships versus Ukraine’s fewer than a hundred, including dozens of submarines and surface warships. The naval balance complicates Kyiv’s aspirations to challenge Russia in multiple theatres and to sustain maritime operations along the Black Sea and adjacent waters.

Despite the numerical advantages enjoyed by Russia, Kyiv has found ways to compensate through Western-supplied weaponry, precision missiles, and drones. Western artillery, anti-tank systems, and air defenses have helped Ukraine deliver costly losses to Russian armor and to defend critical cities against long-range strikes. The ongoing deliveries of F-16s and other Western aircraft to Ukraine are expanding its aerial capabilities, though these capabilities do not eliminate the gap in overall air superiority.

These dynamics shape the strategic calculus for both sides. Col Ingram emphasized a key political-military factor in Ukraine’s favor: the moral component of fighting power. He described the conflict as a national survival struggle for Ukraine, noting that such resolve can-heighten political will and public endurance even when battlefield conditions are unfavorable. He said the most definitive weapon Kyiv could deploy to reverse the war would be to disrupt Moscow’s ability to sustain the conflict economically, including secondary sanctions that target Russia’s oil and gas revenues beyond traditional channels.

The economic dimension matters because the war’s longer-term trajectory depends not only on battlefield wins and losses but also on international financial support, sanctions pressure, and the resilience of Moscow’s energy exports. The United States and its allies have emphasized continuing military aid and political support for Ukraine, while Russia has pressed its own case that it can sustain the war and protect what it regards as national interests.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s UN remarks reflect a political calculation that has wide resonance among Ukrainians and their supporters: the belief that with time and sustained backing, even ambitious objectives could be pursued. Critics, however, caution that declaring the possibility of reclaiming all occupied land risks inflating expectations and underplaying the considerable obstacles that still lie ahead—including Russia’s fortified lines, the depth of its reserves, and Moscow’s ability to adapt to evolving battlefield conditions.

In the end, the question remains: can Ukraine regain all the territory it lost to Russia, or will the war settle into a prolonged stalemate with gains limited to smaller, incremental advances? The balance of forces suggests that any path to a reversal of the prewar map would require a sustained confluence of military breakthroughs, continued Western support, and a willingness among international partners to impose costs on Russia that far exceed current levels. Trump’s remarks—and the subsequent Kremlin rebuttal—underscore how fluid and contested this prospect remains in the public record, even as the reality on the ground continues to hinge on logistics, morale, and international diplomacy.