Europe's Paris Meeting For Ukraine and Putin's Shrewd Greenland Messaging.
European Diplomatic and Military Posture on Ukraine.
Significant diplomatic activity has unfolded over the past two days.
On the European front, the Paris meeting in support of Ukraine proved to be a productive moment of unity.
The key takeaway was a clear and firm message: Europe will not lift sanctions prematurely to satisfy Russia’s maximalist demands around the Black Sea ceasefire deal.
As referenced in yesterday’s post, Russia continues to play hardball, insisting that SWIFT sanctions and other restrictions on financial institutions involved in agricultural trade — particularly fertilizers — be lifted.
However, Europe has held the line, maintaining that such concessions will only come after Russia ends its invasion and withdraws from Ukraine.
Military Signaling and Strategic Messaging: There were additional signals that Europe is unwilling to accept limitations on Ukrainian military rearmament and mobilization as part of any ongoing ceasefire negotiations.
Planning for long-term military confrontation continues, underscoring a recognition that the war is unlikely to end soon or be frozen on favorable terms.
Unresolved strategic questions remain however:
1. Coalition of the Willing – Composition and Cohesion: The proposed “coalition of the willing” force, previously floated by Keir Starmer, remains undefined.
Will it materialize?
Which countries will contribute?
A rift may emerge between Eastern and Western Europe: with Spain, Portugal, and Italy potentially staying on the sidelines, while the Baltics, Poland, Germany, France, and the UK bear the brunt of forward deployment.
Will Europe allow such a split, or will it present a united military front?
2. Mandate of the Force – Enforcement vs. Observation: The core strategic dilemma: What will be the mandate of the force?
Will it act as a ceasefire enforcement mechanism, with a credible threat of force?
Or will it become a symbolic observer mission, akin to UN forces in Lebanon — ineffective, toothless, and easily ignored by Putin?
If the latter, Putin would have ample tactical opportunity to undermine the force:
He could avoid direct confrontation, possibly keeping European forces limited to 30–50K troops across a 1,000 km front, at best.
Stationing European forces in western Ukraine would further reduce deterrence.
Any accidental collateral damage to NATO troops could be downplayed diplomatically by Russia, allowing European leaders to retreat from escalation.
This would hand Putin a low-risk environment, giving him room to maneuver without crossing any NATO red lines explicitly — all while discouraging firmer European responses.
Bottom Line: Europe has shown diplomatic resolve, but the military and strategic questions remain dangerously open.
Without clarity on the coalition’s composition, deployment, and rules of engagement, European deterrence will fall short.
These ambiguities risk giving Putin the space he needs to outmaneuver Europe — not through open escalation, but through calibrated ambiguity and exploitation of European reluctance.
The fundamental question is this: if need be, is Europe (or at least countries in the coalition of the willing) ready to go to war with Russia over its ceasefire violation?
If the answer is no, then there will be little deterrence.
If the answer is vague, Putin may take his chances via gray zone tactics.
Only a definitive yes could ever deter Putin.
And so far, we are not seeing signals of such resolve - and it is much needed, given that American backstop (already unlikely after Hegseth’s previous comments that Article V wouldn’t cover those peacekeeping troops, and little action from Trump to signal otherwise) is unlikely to happen - especially in the midst of a looming trade war with the EU and crisis over Greenland - both enough to push already impulsive Trump against cooperation with our traditional allies.
Putin’s Endorsement of Trump’s Greenland Ambitions and the Return of Brazen Sphere-of-Influence Diplomacy.
In the meantime, and while European leaders continue to publicly condemn former President Donald Trump’s ambitions to forcibly (if it comes to that) acquire Greenland, President Vladimir Putin has quietly endorsed the idea, sending a potent and calculated message: Russia shares Trump’s worldview — one grounded in great power spheres of influence, reminiscent of 19th-century geopolitics.
Putin stated that Trump’s proposal to seize Greenland was “very serious,” “historically rooted,” and likely to be pursued systematically by Washington.
Crucially, he added that the issue is strictly bilateral between the U.S. and Denmark — implying it bears no relevance to Russia.
Now, from a strategic standpoint, this is patently false: Greenland is a core geostrategic node in the Arctic, hosting the U.S. Pituffik Space Base, its position is vital to U.S. defense and early warning architecture against potential Russian missiles/ICBMs.
(side note: there is also the importance of GUIK gap in monitoring Russian submarine activity and making sure that those trying to reach America’s Atlantic coast can be properly tracked and monitored. For a more comprehensive strategic importance of Greenland, read our previous post.)
But for Putin, the strategic calculation is twofold:
1. No direct loss for Russia: Greenland already lies outside Russian influence. Whether under Danish sovereignty or greater autonomy, its strategic utility to the U.S. will persist - which means that one way or another, the U.S. military will have a direct presence on the island: and Russia will not be let in under any circumstances.
As such, there is little to lose here.
2. Opportunity to align with Trump and create further division amongst Western allies:
By backing Trump’s claims — even subtly — Putin is signaling ideological alignment on a crucial foreign policy principle: “what belongs to the great powers, belongs to the great powers.”
Essentially, he’s telling Trump: “I respect your historical claim to Greenland, so respect my historical claim to Ukraine”.
Divide and Conquer Playbook In Action: Putin’s move exploits a sensitive wedge between NATO allies, especially between the U.S. and Europe.
At a time when Trump is under fire from European capitals, and in the middle of yet another trade dispute (this time over auto tariffs), Russia is positioning itself as a sympathetic partner to Trump’s worldview — a world where NATO becomes an obstacle rather than an alliance.
Historical Parallels as Justification: Putin’s reference to the “deep historical roots” of Trump’s Greenland plan is not accidental.
It echoes Putin’s own ideological narrative about Ukraine — laid out explicitly in his July 2021 essay, still featured on the Kremlin’s website.
That essay argued Ukraine is an illegitimate state — a historical error — which Russia has both the right and obligation to correct by force.
In this context, Putin’s subtext is clear: If America has a right to act on historical claims, so do we.
Bilaterality as a Shield: By branding Greenland a “bilateral” matter, Putin reinforces the idea that Ukraine, too, should be a bilateral matter — a private issue between Moscow and Kyiv, not subject to NATO or Western interference.
This is a profound challenge to the multilateral order and to the principle of territorial integrity.
Trump’s Susceptibility: Given Trump’s transactional mindset and evident disinterest in alliance politics, there is real danger that he may accept Putin’s framing.
He could view Ukraine and Greenland through the same lens: two great powers exercising historic claims — with NATO and Europe standing in the way of both.
Should Trump embrace this worldview, the cohesion of NATO would come under existential strain.
Putin’s rhetoric is designed precisely to accelerate this unraveling — and he is playing this card deftly, with minimal cost.
Putin is not merely commenting on Trump’s Greenland policy.
He is drawing an ideological parallel between American expansionism and Russian revanchism — between Greenland and Ukraine.
His aim is to legitimize Russia’s imperial vision by aligning it with America’s own exceptionalism, thereby sowing discord within NATO and appealing to Trump’s instincts.
Whether Trump recognizes this gambit as a trap — or embraces it as a shared worldview — will be a decisive factor in the future of the Western security architecture.
And that Taiwan is an intra- China affair.