01/25/2026 

Donald Trump’s formal retreat on the Greenland issue does not mean the end of the crisis – on the contrary, it has exposed a new reality of transatlantic relations. After two weeks of severe escalation and direct threats to Europe, the US president promised not to use military force, relieving acute tension and calming allies who were seriously considering a scenario of direct conflict within NATO. However, the damage has already been done and it has finally become clear to Europe: the States can no longer be perceived as a predictable and automatically reliable ally. The relief from the removal of the military scenario is accompanied by the realization of the main risk – Trump can change his position at any moment. This forces Europeans to abandon the illusion of the “old America” ​​and talk about strategic autonomy not as a slogan, but as a necessity.

Against this backdrop, Davos became a place for a broader clash of realities. Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech sharply highlighted the weakness, disunity, and indecision of Europe and NATO. His words that Europe had not learned to defend itself in a year were a condemnation of the policy of postponement and half-decisions. Calls for real action – tougher sanctions, a crackdown on Russia’s shadow oil fleet, confiscation of resources – became a counterpoint to Washington’s transactional logic.

In parallel, the negotiating track regarding Ukraine is increasingly taking on alarming shapes. Contacts between the US and Russia are taking place, meetings are ongoing, working groups are being created, but their content is increasingly evident not in the search for a compromise, but in the fixation of Russian ultimatums. The Kremlin openly declares: without the implementation of the so-called “Anchorage Agreements” – that is, without Ukraine’s refusal from Donbas – there will be no long-term settlement. And at the same time, it directly warns that in the absence of such a decision, it will continue to achieve its goals on the battlefield.

Against this background, the negotiations in Abu Dhabi, where the trilateral Ukraine-US-Russia group met for the first time, have turned into a presentation of mutually exclusive positions. Russia insists on territorial concessions as a prerequisite for peace, and there are no signs that Moscow has softened its demands. While Ukraine is offered to first discuss and consolidate packages of financial assistance and security guarantees. As a result, the negotiation process exists, but its vector remains unchanged: Russia speaks the language of ultimatums, the US – the language of agreements, and Ukraine is once again forced to prove that peace cannot begin with surrender.

Andriy Veselovsky , diplomat, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine, Representative of Ukraine to the EU in 2008-2010, shared his thoughts on these issues in an exclusive interview for OBOZ.UA.

– In your opinion, is this confrontation in Davos a victory for Trump? Has Europe finally managed to repel this onslaught, have the parties gone their separate ways and will now negotiate, rather than fight, as it seemed at the beginning of the week?

– Yes, the result is obvious. They will not fight, but will negotiate in a calmer atmosphere and, perhaps, even more effectively. But Europe received, I would say, two rather strong slaps. One from Trump. The second from Ukraine. In both cases, Europe began to make excuses, explaining that “in reality, everything is not so bad.” But the very fact of the excuses indicates one thing: the blows were deep. Moreover, many European politicians felt even before that that they would be attacked. Serious – diplomatic and not only diplomatic. In the case of Trump, it was actually effective military-psychological pressure. And they did not know what to do with it. To be honest, I am not sure that they still know what to do with it.

The problem is not just outlined – it is clearly demonstrated. Europe is weak. Europe is not subjective. You can demand anything from it. Even say: “Give me this delicious piece of ice, I love it, I want it.”

– Why hasn’t anything essentially changed in European politics? According to the logic of events, this should have happened a long time ago.

– As there were 27 states with very different, often opposing interests, so it remained. As there was no common security and defense space, so it does not exist. As there was no common military-industrial complex, but there was a set of competing industries, so it remained. And this, in my opinion, is the main conclusion of Davos. Not Greenland. Not Ukraine. And this is precisely the weakness and relative helplessness of Europe.

Europe remains valuable. Important in terms of money, markets, historical memory. All this affects politics, and millions of people, and tens of millions of tourists who come there every year. But its fragmentation, this, you know, such a “jelly” state – it has not disappeared anywhere. And this is precisely what Ukraine should draw conclusions from first of all.

– Returning to the question of the winner…

– All three lost. The Americans lost. Because they demanded not so much Greenland, but permission to take from Europe, as well as from Venezuela, what they needed, how they needed it, and in any form. It didn’t work. They were refused. And they were refused in a rather hysterical tone – with the demonstrative dispatch of several dozen military personnel and threats of serious economic consequences. They were told “no,” and they were forced to retreat.

Europe lost – we have already talked about this. It demonstrated its own helplessness and inability to meet the challenges of today. Ukraine also lost. Because if the US and Europe lost, then someone won against this background.

China won. And with it, the Russian Federation. They showed perseverance, purposefulness, unity and, I would say, complete indifference to all these “small problems”. And thus, the world, during its 72 hours of Davos, spun another revolution. And during these 72 hours, it showed its even greater unpredictability and, if you like, readiness for new problems. Once upon a time, there was a pandemic – a planetary problem. And now this weakness, disunity and fragmentation of those who, 10 years ago, set the rules and followed them themselves, showed: there are no more rules, no unity, no obligations here. And therefore, the world can turn into another major, common planetary crisis at any moment.

– In general, the crisis around Greenland is already a moment of crossing the Rubicon? Does Europe finally realize that it needs to carry out its own military programs, and not just socio-ecological ones? Will we see the rebirth of Europe? Will “our father Trump” still remain for a long time?

– Have they crossed the Rubicon? No. They haven’t. Because nothing has changed in the organization. If Spain, Italy, France and Germany cannot agree on how to create a new European fighter for three or four years, and they made the previous one 20 years ago and it is already flying its course – what are we talking about? They have been bargaining for years about who will make the wing, who the engine, who will get more contracts. And there is no plane. There is no project. There are no contractors. This is just one example. There are dozens of such.

One country sets certain energy rules, another says: “No, we have different interests and habits.” The Greeks have certain consumption traditions, the Danes have windmills, the Greeks don’t want windmills, and so on. The military-security complex cannot be a driver. It can only be the final product on a common foundation. And there is no foundation. Italy says: “We are for friendship with the USA.” Sweden, Denmark say: “What friendship? With whom? With this one?” The Poles have generally reached the point of schizophrenia in a square: the president says one thing, the prime minister says another. For one, Trump is abnormal, for another, he is an older brother. Therefore, no, they have not crossed the Rubicon. They have not even set foot on him yet.

– Okay, so what way do you see out of this situation? Because they will be eaten up individually much faster and easier than in this formal union.

– Exactly. That’s why, for example, China has a very careful policy of working with each country separately. “Come, King of Spain, we are waiting for you.” “Come, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, you are extremely important to us.” Everyone will be shown something different: skyscrapers somewhere, cheap goods somewhere, prospects for local voters somewhere. And so on in turn.

Today, there is no authority that could be placed at the head of Europe. Meloni is too attached to American political forces. Macron is a bright player, but his party does not dominate the country, he makes mistakes. There are no Churchills, no de Gaulles.

– So there simply isn’t a strong personality with maximum support within the country?

– Yes. None. Coalitions everywhere. Weak coalitions or minority governments. And there are no successes. There are some successes in Finland. But who will put Alexander Stubb, with all his wonderful golf skills, as the leader of a united Europe? Ursula von der Leyen is undoubtedly a worthy figure. But she is feared. And that is why she cannot take on the role of the first equal nation.

– In your opinion, what will happen next? Because we see Trump’s formal retreat and a supposed transition to bargaining. But this may not last long.

– You can simply call it something else – and then it will pass. Today, there is one American military base in Greenland, Pitufik. It is small, but there is a large airfield there, which is constantly cleared of snow and ice, and serious electronics – they listen to space and outer space. The same base can be built on the northern tip of Greenland. The same – on the western one. The same – on the eastern one. You can make these bases twice as large. By the way, the Danes offered this at the very beginning. They said, another base – please. For your money. Pay a symbolic rent and work.

– Has Trump removed this issue for himself or not? Namely, the change of sovereignty. Take everything away.

– He understood that at this stage there is no strength for this. There is not even sufficient support within Congress. By the way, when they annexed Texas and considered its status, it lasted almost two years, because Congress did not want to vote for it. The arguments were: “We do not need this. We do not have enough strength even for our own territory.” In the end, they agreed. And here the situation is even more complicated. So no, not anymore for today.

– Zelensky’s speech on Europe. The criticism is essentially correct, but in terms of form, wasn’t it too harsh? The Europeans remain our main partners. We already have different reactions. Former head of MI6 Moore supported Zelensky: they say, these are unpleasant but honest words, and Europe needs to hear them. But Italian Foreign Minister Tajani reproached Zelensky for “ingratitude.” He said, Europe has done a lot. And I don’t think he is the only one in Europe with such a reaction. In your opinion, will this change anything? Can we lose something?

– The cold will appear. This is exactly what Viktor Orban said three years ago. He was the first to say: the president of this state has no right to go around parliaments, point fingers and teach us how to live and how to save it. We forgot that then. And we shouldn’t have forgotten. We can’t forget the successful performances of our enemies – they will always spill their drop of poison.

I agree with those who say: the right thoughts could have been presented in a better form. There should have been more clearly articulated gratitude in this speech. And logic: by saving us, you save yourself. We are together – that’s the main thing. What Serhiy Kyslytsia can afford in the UN Security Council – harshly, sharply, even humiliatingly towards Nebenzi – is one thing. And what the President of Ukraine says from the highest world stage in Davos – is completely different. There should be proportionality here.

Europe is weak. We are not perfect either. But we are heroic. You are rich, we are heroic. Let’s come together. That would be better. Europeans speak no less harshly among themselves. When the Belgian Prime Minister refused to hand over Russian assets, he was told on the sidelines something that it is better not to repeat.

– But this is still within the “family”.

– That’s right. This is inside and tete-a-tete.

– The meeting of the presidents of the United States and Ukraine took place in Davos. In your opinion, how necessary was this meeting? After all, two key issues were declared there. The first is the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine, the creation of a fund for 800 billion dollars. The second is security guarantees. Both presidents said that everything was great. But the Financial Times writes that everything was not very good: Trump practically did not answer anything, everything remained on the same principles. The fund is not clear, as is security.

– To clarify the story with 800 billion. It is estimated that the total amount invested in restoring Ukrainian infrastructure, normal life, creating a labor market, returning those who left, rebuilding the armed forces, the social sphere, paying salaries and pensions is really approximately 800 billion. Will this money be given? Who will give it? In what way? It will not be spelled out now. Only one thing will be spelled out: this much is needed, in such and such sectors, there and so on. But whether these projects will be formulated in such a way that the owners of the money see the mechanism for returning investments is the main question. We need to make projects so that any fund or budget says: “Okay, in 5, 10, 15 years, but it will pay off. I’m coming in.”

The second element is what the Americans call security protocols. Why are they needed? So that investors can be sure that Russia will not attack again, there will be a stable security environment here, and our money will not burn.

Are Trump and Zelensky negotiating this? Yes, they are negotiating this. But it would be pointless to sign any document without understanding the Russian Federation’s reaction to the negotiations and consultations, which have actually been going on for about a month.

– What do we really have as of today?

– One of the key problems between Ukraine and the US has disappeared. There were two of them before the exit to Russia.

The first is the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. The second is the unoccupied territories of the Donetsk region. Well, both sides have stated that there is only one point left. So, there is a common position regarding the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and with it they are going to the Russians. This means that it will be much more difficult for the Kremlin to resist.

Regarding the territories, there is no common position. Obviously, Ukraine was unable to convince Trump that those parts of Donbas that are currently under our control should remain in this form. It can be assumed that the American side is further promoting the idea of ​​a so-called free economic zone. And, perhaps, it was with this idea that Witkoff and Kushner left. And they heard the well-known “no” there.

– But the answer from Putin is the same – the spirit of Anchorage, the war continues. Nothing has changed. Why was there a need to go then?

– Nothing has changed in general, but other points are no longer being discussed. And these are the changes.

– Then a hypothetical question. If Putin gets the entire Donetsk region, do you think he will cease fire and actually enter into peace negotiations?

– I’ll put it another way. If he gets this, he loses the argument to oppose Trump. And the US president needs reconciliation. Reconciliation. Agreement. Trump needs to win the congressional elections this fall.

– That is: you got what you wanted, now give me what I want…

– Exactly. He will say: you mentioned that Anchorage is a way out of the Donetsk region. Good. We did it. I think Putin said and says: “as soon as this, then…” And it turns out that “as soon as” is half a year, a year, a deadlock. And then there will be a deadlock.

– Abu Dhabi, could something happen there? Because President Zelenskyy noted that there will be a presentation of three positions. The American vision, most likely, some kind of free economic zone or something like that. The Russians have indicated their position a long time ago, the Ukrainians have too. Combining all this is extremely difficult, if at all possible.

– Since the war is serious, terrible, I would say both continental and with a global political dimension, the negotiations cannot simply take place in Abu Dhabi and end with the signing of papers. This will be a long, complicated process with a lot of stops, pauses and dots. What is happening today is essentially the getting to know the parties. Before that, there were either consultations between mediators, or crazy pressure and intimidation, or some incomprehensible movements.

Medinsky’s arrival is not negotiations at all. What can you talk about with Medinsky? And here, for the first time, really serious people have arrived from the Ukrainian and Russian sides. These are people who really know the situation on the battlefield. Who can assess how it will develop in the near future. Who can report to their leaders: this is what we have, this is what the enemy wants, this is where we can talk, and where we can’t, where concessions are possible, and where we absolutely cannot.

This is the first, familiarization, aiming round. After it, serious work will begin both at home and there, and with the Americans as well. They say: okay, we understood what they want. We understood what it looks like on the ground. We assessed our strengths. And now we are forming a position: we are doing this, we are not doing this, and you have to do this. That is, the negotiations are finally beginning. Before that, there were either consultations, or reviews, or theater.

– But still, it looks like a game by Putin’s rules. The delegation from Russia is different, it seems to be a signal of a more serious attitude. But the war continues, the shelling continues, the infrastructure continues to be destroyed.

– Somewhat like that, but still not entirely according to Putin’s rules. Because now the Americans are sitting. Before, they weren’t sitting, now they will be sitting.

– But Europe is not sitting still.

But this is the same Europe that we talked about. No matter how much she sits down, no matter how much she stands up, no one will believe her. Who is Europe in this format? Who will represent her? If it is Kaia Kallas, whom we all respect and love, what can she really say on behalf of Europe? Nothing.

All the help that the Europeans give us is national budgets. This is money from the states’ own pockets, not from some common European purse. To allocate common European funds, we need a vote from everyone together. When they write out 10–90 billion, they bargain for a long and painful time. Everything else is individual work. That is why Europe does not have a single voice, there is no single telephone, there is no single military-industrial complex. And there is not even a single intelligence agency. That is why its place is where it is – in a dependent position.

– How, in your opinion, will the negotiation process develop further? Will the Americans simply be present or will they really put pressure on the process?

– They will influence, they will act as needed at a specific moment. They will not have one hard line. They have one task: to ensure that some formal act of fixation takes place by September, at the latest, before the Congressional elections.

– Signing something…

– Not even necessarily signing. Fixation. Let’s say, the heads of the operational departments of the General Staffs of Ukraine and Russia sign a protocol decision: our troops are here, in such and such a number, theirs are there. That’s it. Without loud ceremonies, without a large number of photographs. Maybe one.

– That is, Trump needs a formal reason to say: “I ended the 25th war.”

– Absolutely. Exactly. This is the Americans’ task. Therefore, they will push both sides. And depending on the situation, they will arrest a few more tanks. Or they will send another batch of missiles for Patriot. Or vice versa, they will delay. Here are their levers. At the same time, at least we have an explanation why we want it this way and not otherwise.

– Moscow’s explanation is simple and Trump-style: “I want this piece of the country. I want the Donetsk region. I have already included it in my constitution. So give it back.”

– Exactly, but if the United States sided with Russia, what would happen? They would lose public opinion within the country very seriously. And this would immediately affect the elections. There would be hearings in Congress, polls, accusations that Trump is deliberately worsening the situation in Ukraine. They might want to. But, you know, there is that old joke: “He wants to eat. And who will give him?”

https://www.obozrevatel.com/ukr/politics-news/raketi-dlya-ppo-potribni-schodnya-zelenskij-nazvav-golovnu-tsil-udariv-rf-po-ukraini.htm