By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticized Europe’s approach to security, including its reliance on NATO and its handling of situations like the recent military mission to Greenland. He questioned Europe’s readiness to defend itself, suggesting that the limited deployment to Greenland sends a weak message to Russia and China. Zelenskyy also accused Europe of inaction regarding Iran and urged them to take measures against the Russian shadow fleet, as the U.S. has done, and to hold Vladimir Putin accountable more swiftly.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy: Deploying 40 troops to defend Greenland sends a signal to Putin, and it’s not the one you might think. Many of us initially misread the headline, picturing Ukrainian soldiers braving the Arctic. But in reality, Zelenskyy is using the situation to critique European inaction and, frankly, what he sees as their timidity in the face of Russian aggression. The “40 troops” aren’t Ukrainian. It’s a very small contribution from Europe, and his words are a pointed jab at what he perceives as a lack of resolve.
This observation isn’t just about the troop numbers. It’s about the underlying message Zelenskyy believes Europe is sending. He’s highlighting the perceived weakness and lack of unity within the European Union, which he sees as a significant detriment in the face of a determined adversary like Putin. It’s a sentiment many seem to share, regardless of their political leanings. There’s a general sense that Europe needs to be bolder, more assertive, and less reliant on the assumption that NATO will automatically come to the rescue.
The core of Zelenskyy’s point hinges on the idea that Europe is relying on a belief in NATO’s strength rather than actively demonstrating its commitment. He’s questioning whether the alliance is truly prepared to act decisively if a situation arises, such as a Russian incursion into a NATO member state. The exercises and training are important, sure, but what about the willingness to stand up and say “enough is enough?” The reality is that we haven’t really *seen* NATO in a full-scale operation of this kind.
The critique extends beyond just the number of troops. It’s a broader commentary on Europe’s willingness to engage in the defense of itself. There’s also the crucial element of signaling to Russia, to other nations, and to its own citizens, that it is ready and prepared to deal with whatever problems may arise. He’s not incorrect.
The conversation naturally shifts to the context of the situation. Some point out that moving troops into Arctic conditions isn’t simple. Training and resources are needed, and those things take time. Additionally, this is likely reconnaissance and preparations for larger exercises. But this point doesn’t negate the underlying message. Sending a small contingent sends the wrong signal.
The conversation also touches on the nature of warfare in the current context. Some would argue that sending ground forces to defend Greenland, in the face of Russian naval capabilities, is not the best strategic move. Greenland is an island, and securing it might require naval and air power. The goal isn’t to simply land troops on the ground, but to gain strategic advantage.
The reaction, however, underscores the urgency of the situation. Zelenskyy is not just looking for troops; he is trying to push for more of a European effort and more commitment to stand up against the threat of Putin. Many agree with Zelenskyy’s perspective, feeling that the EU has been too slow to act. The contrast between Zelenskyy’s leadership and the perceived inaction of European powers is stark and telling.
The situation also touches on the role of the United States. Many are quick to note that US foreign policy can be unreliable, and it makes it difficult to plan. Some suggest that Europe should rely on itself. The message is simple: Europe needs to act as a united front, regardless of American policy.
Ultimately, the small number of troops deployed is a symbol of a larger issue. The real value of the statement is that it pushes Europe towards action, and serves to unite the rest of the continent. It’s the symbolic weight of the deployment, or lack thereof, and the message sent to Putin that matters most. The small numbers might be a practical necessity, but they also highlight what Zelenskyy sees as a lack of political will, a cautiousness that he, as a leader, is unwilling to display.