Zelenskyy gave a "fiery" speech at Davos in which he was more critical of Europe than ever before, but according to Mihkelson, speaking to "Ringvaade," this was going too far given Europe's role as Ukraine's biggest backer.

On Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a speech lasting more than an hour in Davos, one that had long been awaited and dreaded around the world. As of now, many views have been expressed. So what is the position? It is common knowledge that Trump changes his views regularly — one thing today, another tomorrow. So what is the current status as a deal has been made, and can Greenland and, more broadly, all of Europe remain calm at the moment?

At the moment, it is indeed possible to be calm, but there has been no deal. It is true that there were fears that the Davos speech, and Trump's appearance at Davos in general, might pour more fuel on the fire that has arisen in recent days over Greenland and Trump's earlier threats to again confront Europe via a trade war, yet he backed down.

I do not know what exactly the reason was – whether the NATO secretary general once again found some nice words and pointed to a 1951 agreement between Denmark and the U.S. which would allow the U.S. to increase significantly its military presence in Greenland. If we look at what the Danish prime minister said in her comment, then according to her there can be no compromise on sovereignty and territorial integrity, and [NATO Secretary General Mark] Rutte cannot be regarded as speaking on Denmark's behalf in talks with the U.S. president. What is most important is that at least tonight we can go to sleep more calmly, without fearing that tomorrow there could be some major shift in our alliance space. In that sense, it is at least good that the tension has eased somewhat.

Likely no one can answer that question except Trump himself, but how long will this tension last? Today I read that if he wants certain territories, then he will also get them in Greenland, but as I understand it, that information is not true either.

From what I can infer from the Danish side or from Danish comment, the issue is still not about the U.S. acquiring some part of Greenland. No, I would not conceive of that. Rather, it is precisely on the basis of that same agreement concluded in 1951 and renewed in 2004 between Denmark and the United States, which allows the U.S., instead of its current single military base, to establish significantly more there where needed, but there is certainly no agreement on territory so to speak passing under U.S. control.

A great deal of praise has been heaped on the Canadian prime minister's remarks, where he said that the masks have dropped and we see who he really is and that the old world order has changed. Everyone is enthusiastic about that, yet he did not actually say anything new. In reality, we know all of this even without saying it out loud. What is so special about it?

I think what is special is how well composed the speech was – it came at the right time, at the right point. The substance of the speech was that you must stand up to bullies. We cannot retreat and give in when we are attacked within our own alliance space and when what helps ensure our security is being dismantled, including in fact the security of the U.S. itself. This makes Canada's call to act even more important in that context. We have been talking for years about a world in transition. China's influence in the world has pressured the Western understanding that we are no longer the rule-setters. We need to understand that there is a major change in the world order. He did say that it has completely collapsed. That can still be debated, but the fact is, as he himself said in his speech, that Canada has a plan to do this, that and the third thing — from defense spending to massive investments in artificial intelligence and being active in diplomacy. That is actually what I would also expect from European leaders.

The major danger which all politicians are aware of is that if Trump gets criticized too harshly, he could at some point withdraw entirely from NATO, and that is considered likely to be an even worse outcome.

I do not think the issue is criticism as such. The issue is actually standing up for principles that are similarly important to the U.S. as a whole. Trump is not the U.S. Yes, he is currently U.S. president. There are still three years to go, his first year in office has just ended, but I believe that the active diplomacy that was certainly conducted in Davos and continues with our main ally, the U.S., must not consist of endless flattery and the hope that such flattery can achieve results and keep the alliance space together. Instead, we must act accordingly and defend our principles and ultimately also give the U.S. a clear signal that what they are doing works against their own interests. Being left alone against China is certainly not in U.S. interests.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was also present in Davos on Thursday, meeting on the one hand with Trump — saying that the meeting went very well — while on the other hand also criticizing Europe, saying that Europe remains too weak and is doing too little.

I must say that I have not previously noticed such a sharp and critical tone from Zelenskyy directed specifically at European allies. In some ways, I even felt a little sense of injustice, because let us be honest — over the past year to year and a half, it has in fact been European countries, mainly the Nordic and Baltic states, Germany and several others, that have been Ukraine's main supporters in both military and economic terms.

The EU has only just decided to allocate €90 billion to Ukraine, but in his speech he pointed out that we are still too slow, too complacent, and our attention is dispersed. We are talking about Greenland at a time when we should be talking about how to help Ukrainian residents in cities that are currently freezing and how to help Ukraine survive this war — that attention is lacking.

He gave another example: When the Iranian regime only a few weeks ago drowned a popular uprising in blood — massively, tens of thousands killed — then what did Europe do? We cannot even bring ourselves to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, and that is where the frustration arises. I hope that in Davos, and those who listened to Zelenskyy's speech, do understand what our most important priority is — helping Ukraine.

At the same time, he said that the meeting with Trump went very well. Does that simply mean that he has learned new diplomatic techniques in communicating with the U.S. president, or could it mean that it really did indeed go well?

He has been communicating with the U.S. president for a very long time, and throughout this entire year efforts have been made to find a way to reach some kind of solution in this war — that is, a just and lasting peace. At the same time, in that speech he pointed out that [former Venezuelan president Nicolas] Maduro had been detained as Venezuela's president, yet Putin is still at large. Putin the war criminal is still free. So he gave a very clear hint as to what he thinks of the Russian dictator.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!