The Logic of US Hegemony Is the Real ‘Paper Tiger’

Donald Trump recently posted on Truth Social that, “Russia has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. ... In fact, it is very much making [Russia] look like ‘a paper tiger’.” This remark at once contradicts his previous stance of advocating that Ukraine cede territory for peace and exposes his serious misjudgment of the Ukrainian crisis.

Following a swift rebuttal from Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, President Vladimir Putin also responded personally, saying that, over the years, Russia has been fighting “not just Ukraine, but the entire NATO alliance,” and that, “if we are fighting with the entire NATO bloc, we are moving, advancing, and we feel confident, and if we are a ‘paper tiger,’ then what is NATO itself?” This retort served to counter Trump’s claims, but it also took aim at the NATO system itself, revealing the wider international context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

In reducing Russia’s military operations to “aimless fighting” and overlooking the strategic resilience Russia has demonstrated on the battlefield, Trump’s remarks betray a simplistic view of the Ukraine crisis. By contrast, Putin made it clear that Russia is fighting not just Ukraine but all of NATO, and yet it continues to “move and advance”— a statement in stark contrast to Trump’s paper tiger rhetoric, highlighting Russia’s clear-eyed understanding of its strategic position.

Trump’s Comments Reveal His Strategic Anxiety

In his response, Putin also underscored Russia’s military strength: “We feel confident about our nuclear shield. ... At present, we are producing numerous modern high-tech weapons systems, including the ‘Oreshnik’ hypersonic missile, and other new weapons and equipment will follow it.” With this, Putin pushed back against Trump's “big economic trouble” narrative while showcasing Russia’s ongoing advances in military technology.

Trump’s remarks stem from his impotence and anxiety over the Ukraine crisis. As a Republican president, and with the midterm elections approaching next year, Trump is attempting to redefine the U.S. position on Ukraine through extreme rhetoric such as this, in hopes of securing more political capital for his party. But this simplistic narrative is seriously divorced from reality. Despite the impact of sanctions, Russia’s economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience, its government has been able to sustain funding of the war effort, and its defense industry enterprises are steadily upgrading their equipment.

In simplistically seeing the economic pressure exerted on Russia as spelling Russia’s collapse yet ignoring Russia’s resilience in areas such as energy exports, financial innovation and military industry, Trump’s remarks also expose the short-sidedness of U.S. politicians with respect to international relations. Russia is not a paper tiger but a “real bear”— one that, though wounded in war, has lost none of its strength.

But the reality on the battlefield is more complex than Trump’s rhetoric would suggest. While Russia has secured certain tactical advantages, it has been unable to pull off a decisive victory over the Ukrainian forces. This is not because Russia is a paper tiger, but because Ukraine has received sustained backing from the West. Western military aid has provided a significant boost to Ukraine’s military capabilities, making it difficult for Russia to achieve a swift victory.

Finally, Trump’s comments also reflect division within U.S. domestic politics. Both American parties are relatively consistent in their support for Ukraine, yet Trump is attempting to set himself apart through extreme rhetoric merely for the sake of doing so. This approach does little to resolve the crisis, and it may also undermine U.S. relations with its allies.

The lessons of history show that the United States’ simplistic labeling of its adversaries as paper tigers often leads to strategic miscalculations. In the 1970s, the U.S. viewed Vietnam as a paper tiger, only to become mired in the quagmire of the Vietnam War; in the 1990s, it considered Iraq a paper tiger, before becoming embroiled in a protracted conflict in the Middle East. Trump’s paper tiger rhetoric once again repeats this historical mistake.

Putin’s response, on the other hand, demonstrated Russia’s strategic resolve. His remark about fighting not just the Ukrainian armed forces but almost all NATO countries situated the Ukraine crisis within a broader international political context, revealing the deeper causes of the conflict.

Repeated Miscalculations Squander Opportunities To Resolve Crisis

Trump’s anxiety is also evident in his attitude about NATO. His endorsement of NATO shooting down “intruding” Russian military aircraft stands in stark contrast to his previous “pro-Russia” label, and this change of stance may reflect an attempt to strike a new balance diplomatically, but the inconsistency only serves to confuse American allies.

Essentially, Trump’s comments amount to political opportunism. He wants to attract voter attention with extreme statements like these while ignoring the complexity of the Ukraine crisis. Such simplistic thinking not only fails to help resolve the crisis — it may even complicate the situation further.

In the Ukraine crisis, it is more important to find pragmatic diplomatic solutions than to deride Russia as a paper tiger. Trump’s comments remind us that the complexities of international relations are far greater than what can be captured by any simplistic label.

The fact of the matter is, the real “paper tiger” has never been any single nation; rather, it is the hegemonic logic that undermines multilateralism and intensifies confrontation. Trump’s comments are more than simply a misjudgment of Russia. More fundamentally, they are a misjudgment of his own strategy.

Resolving the Ukraine crisis requires pragmatic diplomatic efforts, not emotional rhetoric. Trump’s narrative exposes his impotence and anxiety regarding Ukraine while it also reveals the dangers of simplistic thinking in international politics. When a nation reductively labels others as “paper tigers,” it often signals that its decision-makers have lost touch with reality, and such misjudgments ultimately exact a heavy price.