Verified facts: Trump’s most recent fabrication regarding the conflict in Ukraine

On Monday, President Donald Trump asserted that he understood why Russian forces were unable to reach Kyiv in the days following their 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Trump said that rockets destroyed Russia’s tanks “because the tanks got stuck in the mud.”

“You know, if they had taken the highway, they would have arrived in Kyiv in four hours. But a Russian general made a brilliant decision to go through the farmland instead,” he said, sarcastically criticizing the supposed general.

Since the president started making similar assertions months ago, military analysts and other Ukrainians have called this fake history. In actuality, Russia attempted and failed to use roads and highways to reach Kyiv. Along with muddy circumstances, logistical issues and strong Ukrainian resistance prevented its tanks.

During the initial assault, Russian forces made extensive use of roads and highways and suffered significant casualties on numerous occasions. Rob Lee, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Eurasia Program who has closely monitored military tactics during the conflict, acknowledged that Russian tanks did become mired in the mud during the initial invasion, but this was frequently after they had trouble moving along roads. “The lack of adequate highways and roads connecting Belarus and Kyiv, which channeled their forces, was one of the factors that hindered Russia’s invasion.”

Russian tanks did become mired in mud during and even before the assault, according to a White House official who spoke to TFD on condition of anonymity on Thursday. Links to a few stories that discussed this occurring were supplied by the official.

However, Trump’s assertion that Russia failed to reach Kyiv due to its decision to forego using highways was obviously refuted by even one of those publications. “The Russians invaded using Ukraine’s major highways looking for a blitzkrieg-like attack that would use speed and overwhelming firepower to capture the capital city of Kyiv,” the story stated.

Lee, emphasizing that sentence, added Friday: “Russian tanks did get stuck in the mud and there may have been cases when Russian commanders chose to drive through fields, but the Russian invasion plan emphasized driving along highways to reach the key cities, including Kyiv, as fast as possible. Usually, after attempting to use roads and highways, they drove across fields.

Trump has a long history of making incorrect statements about the conflict, and his fake story about the Russian invasion is just the most recent. This year, Trump has, among other things:

Here is a brief fact check of these Trump statements as he gets ready to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday.

American versus European aid

Trump has often asserted the claim. He often claims that the US has provided Ukraine with at least three times as much combat help as Europe, with $350 billion from the US and only $100 billion from Europe.

They received $350 billion from Biden. Europe contributed $100 billion. Trump stated on Monday that “it should be much more than that,” adding that “they should have had equalization, but they didn’t.” On Thursday, he reiterated these numbers: “We spent $350 billion. They spent $100 billion.”

Trump’s assertion is not only false, but it also contradicts facts. As several fact-checks have shown, Europe has really done more than just level the playing field; it has provided Ukraine with more wartime help than the US.

From late January 2022 to June 2025, Europe—the European Union plus individual European nations—allocated approximately $195 billion in military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, according to figures from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank that keeps track of the aid data. The US also contributed approximately $134 billion to Ukraine during the same time period (all figures are at Thursday exchange rates). In terms of aid promised to Ukraine against aid actually provided, the difference was significantly greater: almost $300 billion from Europe and $139 billion from the US.

Although different techniques of tallying aid can provide different quantities, Trump’s “$350 billion” US figure has not been supported by any rational method. On its website, the US government inspector general in charge of the Ukraine response states that as of March 2025, the US had appropriated approximately $185 billion for the Ukraine response, of which approximately $90 billion had been disbursed. This included money given to nations other than Ukraine or used in the US for defense services and weaponry.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the White House official responded to TFD’s request for clarification on the president’s $350 billion claim by quoting the inspector general’s estimate, which was close to $185 billion. The person also mentioned that the US gave roughly $20 billion in loans as part of a G7 program, according to the inspector general’s website.

All right, but it pales in comparison to Trump’s $350 billion estimate. The White House official tried to approach, but how?

A lot of things that are not helpful to Ukraine were included in with some illogical calculations.

The source specifically cited a $16 billion drop in US exports to Russia due to US sanctions, more than $90 billion in inflation experienced by US consumers following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and more than $7 billion in higher fertilizer costs as a result of the Russian attack.

It’s clear that none of this substantiates Trump’s assertion that the US has given Ukraine $350 billion in aid. Counting the inflation Americans endure as US aid to Ukraine is especially ridiculous.

Trump pledged during his campaign to halt the conflict right away.

Trump said, “I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration,” and “obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest,” in response to being reminded in an April Time interview that he had promised to end the war on “day one.” He said in June that his pledge to put an end to the conflict within 24 hours of taking office “was sarcastic.”

Trump frequently makes statements that are difficult to interpret. It isn’t in this instance. Numerous pieces of evidence demonstrate that Trump’s pledge was not ironic, humorous, or symbolic. It was a serious, straightforward, and precise commitment.

TFD discovered 53 examples of Trump saying, in a very serious tone, manner, and context, while campaigning, that he would put an end to the conflict either within 24 hours of his return to the White House or even sooner, as president-elect.

He said, “I will have that war settled between Putin and Zelensky as president-elect before I take office on January 20,” in his 2024 debate against then-President Joe Biden. That war will be resolved by me. People are being slaughtered so foolishly and needlessly. Additionally, I will quickly resolve this matter before I start work.

Who initiated the conflict?

In February, Trump asserted that Ukraine was the cause of the conflict, adding, “You should never have started it.” You may have reached an agreement. In actuality, Russia initiated the conflict in 2022 with its full-scale invasion (after its annexation of the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine in 2014). Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president, and a number of Republican congressmen officially retracted Trump’s claim in February that Ukraine initiated the conflict.

Later in the year, Trump employed different language, stating in April that “Putin should never have started it, Biden could have stopped it, and Zelensky could have stopped it.” “The President has expressed his frustration with Putin numerous times,” the White House official accurately pointed out Thursday.

Zelensky’s rating of approval

When Trump was harshly attacking Zelensky in February, he asserted that Zelensky’s approval rating was “down at 4%.”

That was far from accurate.

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they approved of Zelensky in a poll conducted in Ukraine from late November to early January, by a group of academics in partnership with a prominent Ukrainian pollster. And in a poll conducted by that pollster, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, in February, 57% of participants indicated they trusted Zelensky.

According to recent polling, Zelensky’s level of public favor is still the same. In a poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in late July and early August, 58% of respondents said they trusted Zelensky, which is lower than his 2025 peak of 74% in May but comparable to his numbers from earlier in the year and most of last year. In a poll conducted by Gallup in early July, 67% of respondents said they approved of Zelensky.

Ukrainian backing for a speedy conclusion to the conflict

“I’ve seen a poll coming out of Ukraine: 88% of the people would like to see a deal made,” Trump asserted on Monday. And everyone was excited about war three years ago.

Trump was correct when he said that since 2022, Ukrainian support for a swift, negotiated solution to the conflict has increased dramatically. However, TFD was unable to locate any public survey that had the number “88%.” According to a Gallup poll conducted in early July, 69% of participants backed Ukraine’s efforts to negotiate an early end to the conflict. This is a new Gallup polling high and significantly higher than the 22% recorded in 2022, although it is still considerably below Trump’s percentage.

When TFD questioned the White House about the “88%” poll Trump was alluding to, the official stated that the Gallup poll, which again had a 69% rating, supports the president’s assertion. “The President is correct,” the official stated. According to this Gallup poll, the vast majority of Ukrainians favor a peaceful settlement to the conflict as quickly as feasible.

Trump’s assertion would have been true if he had used the phrase “overwhelming majority.” However, he stated “88%,” which was untrue.

It’s also important to keep in mind that the Gallup poll did not ask Ukrainians what kind of agreement they would support to end the war; according to Olga Onuch, a professor at the University of Manchester who surveys in Ukraine, the poll’s conclusion was not that 69% of respondents are “willing to accept territorial concessions.” Widely differing levels of support for many possible options were observed in the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology poll conducted in late July and early August. Ideas that Russia had previously put forth were strongly opposed.

Aid funds and Zelensky

During his February barrage of criticism against Zelensky, Trump falsely claimed on social media that Zelensky “admits that half of the money we sent him is ‘MISSING.’”

That was never said by Zelensky. Instead, Zelensky criticized exaggerated estimates about the amount of US cash Ukraine has gotten in remarks that were misrepresented by some widely shared social media posts.

Despite claims that Ukraine was receiving up to $200 billion in US help, Zelensky told the Associated Press in February that Ukraine had actually gotten only $76 billion, mostly in the form of armaments. The news outlet Ukrainska Pravda translated Zelensky’s statement to say that he didn’t know where all the alleged extra money had gone and that maybe these higher figures were accurate “on paper.”

The fact that half of the US currency had disappeared was not a confession. In actuality, Zelensky was reiterating what analysts in the US and other countries have said time and time again: a significant portion of US assistance for Ukraine does not take the form of financial aid given to the Ukrainian government.

On Thursday, the White House official asserted that “Zelensky did say” what Trump said he had said. But Zelensky simply didn’t. As supposed evidence, the official linked to a Washington Post article that noted Trump’s claim did not describe “exactly what Zelensky said.”

According to the Post article, Zelensky’s remarks were consistent with the fact that tens of billions of dollars in US aid for Ukraine were “drawdowns from U.S. stockpiles, enhancing U.S. military capabilities, humanitarian aid funneled through organizations in Europe, including for refugees, global food security, sanctions enforcement, economic aid through the World Bank and more.”