(DAVOS, SWITZERLAND) – This week’s World Economic Forum in Davos highlighted deep changes in Europe’s security outlook, with discussions and statements suggesting that NATO and European politics may be entering a new and uncertain phase.
The atmosphere was shaped by growing concern over renewed imperial ambitions, questions about the reliability of existing security arrangements, and a widening gap between the language of rule of law and the realities of military force. Several participants described the situation as urgent, with Europe appearing uncertain about its strategic direction.
Security around Davos reflected these anxieties. The resort town, located around two hours from Zurich, was heavily fortified, with visible air defence systems positioned in the surrounding mountains. Authorities described this year’s forum as one of the most tightly secured to date, citing a more dangerous global environment.
Much of Davos was temporarily transformed for the event. Shops and cafes along the main street were replaced with short term installations known as houses, created by governments, companies and organisations seeking influence and visibility. These spaces hosted constant receptions and events, blurring the lines between diplomacy, lobbying and socialising.
Russia was notably absent. Russian participation at Davos has sharply declined since 2015, after the illegal seizure of Crimea. Previous Russian efforts to influence the forum through lavish hospitality were discontinued, and Ukraine House has since become a central venue for discussions on the war.
Donald Trump dominated early conversations. Journalists and officials closely followed his public statements, which included provocative comments and symbolic gestures that unsettled many attendees. Several European leaders were reported to have sought to pre emptively flatter him, reflecting anxiety over future United States policy towards Europe and NATO.
Trump’s arrival drew unprecedented attention. Access to his appearance was highly restricted, prompting intense competition among politicians and journalists. Many were forced to watch from elsewhere in the town, including Ukraine House, where reactions ranged from disbelief to visible concern as his remarks were broadcast.
During his speech, Trump made statements that were widely interpreted as threatening and transactional. The response included nervous laughter and shock, with some attendees describing the atmosphere as oppressive. Discussions that followed focused on how to interpret and report his remarks.
Alongside these events, a documentary highlighting the impact of Russia’s war on Ukrainian farmers was screened to an audience of policymakers from across the political spectrum. The screening aimed to underline the link between the war and European food security, and it reportedly received a strong emotional response.
Private meetings also drew attention. At a closed breakfast attended by senior figures including NATO leadership and European prime ministers, debate focused on frozen Russian assets and Europe’s legal and strategic responsibilities. Belgium’s prime minister argued against confiscating Russian funds, a position that drew visible criticism from advocates of tougher sanctions.
The presence of Steve Witkoff, described as a representative of Trump, caused controversy. He announced plans to travel to Moscow for talks with the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and repeated Kremlin narratives about so called referendums in occupied Ukrainian territories. These remarks were made in front of Ukrainian officials and soldiers, prompting sharp criticism.
Questions were raised about potential conflicts of interest linked to Witkoff’s alleged financial ties to Russia. When confronted directly, he declined to respond. His subsequent meeting with Putin later that night intensified concerns among journalists and observers.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech later in the week sharply contrasted with earlier events. He warned that Europe remains overly reliant on assumptions about NATO intervention and urged European states to take responsibility for their own defence. He rejected the portrayal of Ukraine as a charity case and called for unity and decisive action.
The speech appeared to resonate. Within a day, France moved against a vessel linked to Russia’s shadow fleet, with President Emmanuel Macron reaffirming that violations of international maritime law would not be tolerated.
Behind the scenes, several officials privately acknowledged doubts about the United States as a reliable long term security partner. Some suggested that this uncertainty could ultimately strengthen Europe by forcing it to take defence more seriously.
Many participants concluded that this was not Davos as usual. Rather than offering solutions, the forum exposed unresolved problems and shifting assumptions, marking what several described as one of the most significant weeks in European politics in decades.
