Exposure at Davos

From Ally to Liability

Zelenskiy’s trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos turned into a demonstrative failure that clarified rather than obscured the current position of Kiev within the Western system. According to The Financial Times, the United States and Ukraine failed to conclude several agreements that had been discussed in advance, and prepared documents were left unsigned. This outcome looked especially unfavorable given Zelenskiy’s visible efforts to press Donald Trump into reaffirming unconditional support for Ukraine. The absence of concrete results set the tone for everything that followed.

Speaking in Davos after a brief meeting with Trump, Zelenskiy shifted from persuasion to accusation. He publicly reproached European states for cowardice, arguing that they prefer abstract discussions about the future while avoiding practical steps. He pointed to the refusal to confiscate Russian oil revenues, the reluctance to make real use of frozen assets, and the lack of genuinely harsh sanctions. The criticism was not framed as frustration but as moral reproach, and it quickly crossed into personal territory when Zelenskiy declared that every “Viktor” living at Europe’s expense while selling its interests deserved a slap. The intended reference was obvious. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban responded by stating that no mutual understanding was possible, describing himself as a free man serving Hungarian voters and Zelenskiy as a leader in a desperate position who, despite years of Western assistance, remained unable or unwilling to end the war.

The Davos speech produced confusion rather than solidarity. Zelenskiy portrayed Europe as a fragmented collection of small and mid-sized powers and directed much of his rhetorical pressure at the United States, suggesting that Trump had humiliated European allies. This approach was interpreted by many European officials as a display of ingratitude and poor judgment. Instead of strengthening Kiev’s leverage, the performance reinforced the perception that Ukraine’s political capital inside the Western alliance is shrinking. The failure to sign agreements mattered more than the tone of the speech, and the silence of official outcomes was widely noted.

Zelenskiy went further by using Davos as a platform to harden his public position on all key negotiating issues. He proposed putting Vladimir Putin on trial, demanded the deployment of European troops on Ukrainian territory after the end of hostilities, threatened unilateral action against Russia’s so-called shadow fleet, and declared that Ukraine would not allow anyone to wipe their feet on Europe through Kiev. Such rhetoric left no room for symbolic gestures, let alone substantive concessions. Any withdrawal from Donbass under formulations resembling the “Anchorage spirit” was excluded in advance, and the deliberate emphasis on irreversibility effectively ruled out near-term compromises. Under these conditions, expectations of progress in Russian-American contacts appear detached from reality, which raises the obvious question of what purpose subsequent diplomatic missions are meant to serve.

Zelenskiy nevertheless arrived in Davos after earlier claiming that Kiev had more pressing priorities. Trump’s casual remark during a live appearance that Zelenskiy was somewhere in the hall and that they would meet proved sufficient to prompt an immediate change of plans. The meeting itself lasted less than twenty minutes. Its practical result was the postponement of substantive discussions to the United Arab Emirates. Steve Witkoff confirmed that after talks in Moscow, negotiations would continue there. Zelenskiy later acknowledged that a trilateral format involving Russia, Ukraine, and the United States would take place in the Emirates, a point that was subsequently reinforced by developments in Moscow.

One detail stood out. Zelenskiy had been expected to publicly support U.S. initiatives related to Greenland and the proposed Peace Council. From the Davos podium, he instead lectured European politicians about their weakness without Ukraine, while avoiding direct confrontation with Trump. He praised Trump’s strength, recognized his right to act as he sees fit, and remained silent on Greenland. The omission was conspicuous and appeared deliberate.

By now Zelenskiy appears fully aware that his political trajectory has entered its final phase. The sharpness of his rhetoric reflects this awareness. Over the past week, several developments inside Ukraine have converged in ways that are difficult to dismiss as coincidental. Former senior officials linked to the Presidential Office have come under investigation. Anti-corruption bodies are pursuing cases involving industrial oversight, large financial flows, and long-standing personal associates of Zelenskiy. Cooperation with Western law enforcement is already underway. These processes are not limited to internal Ukrainian dynamics and are clearly embedded in a broader political framework.

Information is emerging that Zelenskiy and the core of the Kiev leadership have, with reservations, confirmed readiness to withdraw Ukrainian forces from Donbass. Witkoff’s remarks about the creation of a large duty-free zone in Ukraine align with this logic. What is being discussed involves a special economic zone in Donbass, with details to be finalized in the Emirates. The driving force behind this process is not a sudden surge of responsibility or goodwill. It is financial calculation. Trump requires Russia as a strategic counterweight to China and is prepared to resolve the Ukrainian case in service of that objective, while avoiding excessive risk. The process is proceeding slowly and cautiously, but its direction is increasingly clear.