If Zelensky Is Europe’s Voice Today, Europe Must Decide Whether to Listen
The Ukrainian president’s Davos speech exposes not only American ambiguity, but Europe’s unresolved responsibility for its own security. A commentary by Nathalie Tocci
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky chose the Davos stage to launch a blunt attack on Europe, accusing it of passivity and inertia.
Coming just hours after renewed contacts between the Ukrainian and Russian delegations, mediated by the United States and resuming in the United Arab Emirates, his words could be read as yet another display of European inconsistency. That interpretation, however, would be mistaken.
The resumption of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine reopens a space for hope.
For months now, work has been underway on post-war scenarios. The so-called “coalition of the willing” has been discussing with Ukraine and the United States the possible deployment of a European reassurance force after a ceasefire.
Although no US troops are expected to be stationed in Ukraine once the war ends, Washington has committed to supporting, and if necessary guaranteeing, the Europeans engaged in such a mission as a last resort.
American negotiators have also maintained discreet channels with Moscow, including special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Jared Kushner’s son-in-law, who have reportedly travelled to Russia to meet Vladimir Putin.
In short, as the White House optimistically claims, the Trump administration appears to be pushing hard for negotiations — and perhaps for an agreement — without involving European partners. Worse still, Europeans have been excluded from the table, yet are being asked to foot the bill.
There is a detail that is anything but marginal: Russia is demanding that Ukraine withdraw from those parts of the Donbas it has failed to occupy militarily, while Ukraine refuses to do so unless Russia retreats to the same extent, creating a demilitarised zone along the entire front line.
This might sound like a technicality, easily resolved with goodwill on both sides. In reality, it is not.
Moscow remains adamant that it will not relinquish control over territories where, four years into the war, around one and a half million Russians now live — territories it has not managed to conquer militarily.
For Kyiv, conceding not only in the name of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed in battle, but also by formally ceding territory it lacks the military capacity to reclaim, would open the door to further Russian advances. Ukraine knows that occupying the entire Donbas would be merely a springboard for Putin’s war to continue.
Zelensky is also acutely aware that Russia’s economy, already weakened by long-term deindustrialisation, can survive only thanks to a wartime economy. Without a real agreement, the regime risks collapse; the war would end with the fall of the regime itself.
Trump, therefore, has no interest in a slow and exhausting approach to the conflict’s end. By systematically refusing to exert pressure on Moscow and by openly aligning himself with Putin, the US president has done nothing other than prolong the war.
But Trump’s errors do not automatically absolve Europe. Zelensky’s criticism of Europe is at once exaggerated and justified. Exaggerated in tone, perhaps, but grounded in substance.
Despite last year’s American retrenchment, Europeans have remained at Ukraine’s side. And they have done so not merely in words.
There is a plan of 28 points written by Moscow and Washington. The European alternative — a 20-point plan — is far more balanced and credible. Today, the overwhelming bulk of support for Ukraine comes from Europe: not only in military aid, but also in the delivery of anti-aircraft systems.
The very survival of Ukraine’s air defence, missile by missile, depends on European resources. Intelligence and surveillance capabilities also depend heavily on US assets — but the financial cost of the war is now largely borne by Europeans.
Europe may not have shown sufficient courage in using frozen Russian assets, but it has nonetheless managed to commit €90bn over the next two years to Ukraine, excluding Hungary following Viktor Orbán’s veto. Europeans have not done so lightly, but because they understand that Europe’s own security is at stake.
Zelensky accused Europeans of wanting to live in a perpetual “groundhog day”, where bombings continue while talks drag on endlessly. The frustration is understandable. The lack of sufficient anti-aircraft missiles is not only unjustified — it is unconscionable. And yet, notwithstanding its limitations, Europe is standing firm.
The Ukrainian president expressed a profound truth: he spoke for Europe. And his intention was to shake Europe into doing more — not for Ukraine alone, but with Ukraine. By underlining that in the pursuit of European strategic autonomy, the necessary conditions already exist, Kyiv — despite darkness and cold — is ready to do its part.
A previous version of this article was published by the Italian daily La Stampa
IEP@BU does not express opinions of its own. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
