Simon Gros

---

The recorded discussion staged as a “Ukrainian Breakfast” at Ukraine House on the margins of the World Economic Forum at Davos offers a compact laboratory for examining how contemporary Euro-Atlantic public reasoning tries to hold together heterogeneous registers: humanitarian witnessing, alliance management, legal-financial constraint, technocratic reconstruction, and strategic coercion. Its governing ambition, as the sequence of prompts and interventions makes visible, concerns the production of a practicable unity among actors who speak from different institutional jurisdictions and evidential repertoires, while time pressure and audience expectation force continuous compression of argument. The event’s distinctive value as an object of study lies in how it renders the problem of “peace” as simultaneously a diplomatic artifact, a financial instrument, a military threshold, and a moral remainder that resists abstraction.

From the outset, the compositional frame is explicit and internally differentiated. The presentation opens in the wake of remarks oriented toward capital mobilization and reconstruction, closing with “Thank you everyone,” and the subsequent moderator’s voice (“Larry,” followed by the announcement of “a galaxy of heads of government”) marks a transition from an economic-development register to a political-strategic register. This hinge matters: it introduces, as a practical necessity, the problem of how “private capital” and “put into the ground” reconstruction talk can coexist with the fact that the war remains active, cities are being struck, and the relevant agents of decision are distributed across alliances, national governments, supranational institutions, and ad hoc negotiating teams. Even the small stagecraft—applause calibrated against applause “as the Ukrainian soldiers,” the inability to “turn the microphone on,” the jocular compliment that the “IQ level has really gone up” after a moderator handover—functions as a kind of metacommentary on authority and attention: the event repeatedly reminds its audience that what is being attempted is an orchestration of legitimacy under conditions where no single actor can claim to speak as the sovereign voice of the whole.

Fareed Zakaria’s initial choice of first question to Mark Rutte is diagnostic of the event’s internal logic. He begins, performatively, with gratitude for “saving the Western Alliance,” then frames the interview in two linked interrogatives: whether a “crisis” over Greenland has been “resolved” such that Greenland remains “a sovereign territory of Denmark,” and whether “the United States under current administration is truly committed” to Ukraine’s sovereignty. The structure of the question binds together two sovereignty problems: one concerning an allied member’s territorial integrity within an alliance, the other concerning a non-member partner’s survival against invasion. This linkage immediately forces the speaker who represents NATO, an alliance rather than a state, to articulate a position that cannot simply be national. Rutte’s reply makes this constraint visible in its sequencing. He grants the “Ukraine” part “absolutely,” with emphatic “yes,” and then shifts to a broader Arctic frame. The rhetorical movement is not merely topical; it re-specifies what Greenland signifies. Greenland becomes a synecdoche for “the whole Arctic,” whose security problem is defined in terms of “sea lanes” opening and the need to defend “against the Russians and the Chinese.” The event thus performs, in real time, a transformation of a potentially intra-allied dispute into an alliance-wide theatre of adversary competition.

Within that transformation, Rutte’s discourse exhibits a characteristic NATO form of justification: a prioritization hierarchy combined with a distributed responsibility schema. He lists “Seven nations in NATO, one outside NATO, Russia,” and then enumerates the Arctic NATO states including the United States “because of Alaska.” The point is neither descriptive geography alone nor a mere roll call; it is the production of a collective subject capable of action without erasing national competence. The presentation’s “work stream” language (“one work stream coming out of yesterday”) further indicates that the claim is not primarily a claim about settled policy, but about institutional process: a plan to continue discussion “to take that work forward” based on prior meetings involving named U.S. officials and Danish delegates. In this way, the event shows how alliance legitimacy is continuously re-made through references to procedural continuity, rather than through declarations that would require a single locus of sovereign decision.

Rutte then performs a second re-specification: “all of this is not about Greenland or the Arctic.” He re-centers the object as “how can we protect ourselves against our adversaries,” and he names Russia as “our main adversary,” with China “massively building up.” Here the event reveals an internal tension between legal-sovereignty language and threat-calculus language. The initial question solicits reassurance about sovereignty; the answer partly supplies reassurance by shifting to exclusionary security language (“make sure the Russians and the Chinese stay out”), and then claims the deeper unity of the issue as collective self-protection. The sovereignty question is neither denied nor resolved; it is absorbed into an adversary-management frame that treats sovereignty as a security function. This absorption is not neutral: it changes what counts as relevant evidence. The discussion’s insistence on “sea lanes,” “access to the Greenland economy,” and “military sense” indicates that sovereignty is being operationalized as control over access, rather than as self-determination in the abstract.

The same logic governs Rutte’s pivot back to Ukraine, which is presented as the primary “ball” that must not be dropped. The metaphor is managerial and intentionally anti-grandiose: it suggests attention discipline rather than moral exaltation. Yet it carries a strong normative pressure: those who look away are culpable for distraction. Rutte’s argument is built through an interlocking sequence of modalities: recognition of “peace talks” as “great,” acknowledgment that they “will not happen tomorrow,” and insistence on immediate needs (“they need interceptors … tomorrow”). The causal structure is explicit: without interceptors and military support, the ongoing missile and drone strikes and infrastructure failures persist. The presentation includes concrete sensorial details—“minus 20° in Kiev”—that function as a warrant for urgency. The overall effect is that the event produces an ethics of sequencing: peace is affirmed as a goal, but the right to speak about peace is conditioned by the willingness to sustain the material means of survival while peace remains unrealized.

In the next segment, the moderator’s role expands beyond adversarial questioning into agenda management, and another speaker enters with a bridging function. A voice congratulates Mark and thanks Fareed and Victor for the “extraordinary breakfast,” salutes “Ukrainian heroes,” and then introduces President Alexander Stubb with a question that explicitly ties “resolute peace and security” (attributed to Larry Frink’s earlier framing) to “next steps” and to the problem of “how do we get Russia to the table?” This is an important compositional move: it makes the prior reconstruction-capital language and the subsequent coercion-diplomacy language mutually accountable. Peace becomes both a security guarantee package and a prosperity package. The event thereby stages a kind of practical unity of the “military” and the “economic” without ever claiming that they are conceptually identical. Their unity is procedural: documents, working groups, sequencing.

Stubb’s reply is highly revealing in how it constructs optimism and limits it. He begins by gently inserting the Arctic into a competence claim about Finland: “a country that has 1 million individuals trained in Arctic conditions,” thereby offering a concrete capacity argument that both complements and subtly competes with Rutte’s alliance-process language. He then frames “two points”: the peace process and the narrative of the war. On peace, he reports a concrete documentary architecture (“somewhere between five plus two documents”) including “security guarantees,” “prosperity package,” “sequencing,” and a “20 point plan.” The event, at this point, is not primarily arguing about final settlement terms; it is arguing about the existence of an organized apparatus capable of producing a settlement. This is the event’s characteristic substitution: where content is uncertain, structure becomes the evidence of seriousness.

Yet Stubb then immediately introduces doubt: he is “not convinced that Russia will approve this,” and he returns to the necessity of sustaining Ukraine “today and the near future.” This oscillation between procedural optimism and adversary skepticism is one of the event’s recurring motifs. It allows speakers to appear constructive without presupposing trust in Putin. The motif is not purely rhetorical; it has methodological consequences. If one assumes that Russia may refuse, then the measure of success shifts from agreement to endurance and pressure. In that shift, the event’s normative vocabulary changes: from “agreement” to “force,” from “package” to “pressure.”

Stubb’s “narrative of the war” section makes that shift explicit. He is “baffled” by discourse implying Russia is winning, and he offers an inventory of Putin’s “strategic aims” and their purported failure: taking over Ukraine, preventing NATO enlargement, projecting power regionally and globally. He uses numbered enumeration as a rhetorical device of clarity and closure, attempting to stabilize the referent “winning” by specifying the aims that would constitute victory. The evidence offered is partly geopolitical (“Central Asia,” “southern caucuses,” “Iran,” “Syria,” “Venezuela”), partly alliance-institutional (Finland and Sweden implied as “substantive military powers”), and partly quantitative in the military and economic domains (“advanced a maximum of 1 percentage point,” “1,000 dead soldiers per day,” “30,000 per month,” “zero growth,” “30% inflation,” “16% interest rates”). Regardless of the external accuracy of these figures, within the event’s internal economy they function as warrants for a specific practical conclusion: Russia’s incentive to continue is constrained, yet Putin’s domestic political cost of ending is high; therefore pressure must be increased while support to Ukraine must continue. The argument is not a pure empirical forecast; it is a coercion design thesis: align Russia’s cost structure with a settlement by raising the price of continuation and lowering the feasibility of victory.

The Latvian President’s segment introduces a different kind of boundary setting: the difference between strategic desirability and institutional admissibility. Asked about “fasttracking” Ukraine’s EU membership, he affirms the goal and then “reckons with three elements,” explicitly separating Ukraine’s own reform burden, the EU’s internal politics, and a broader “defense identity” transformation. This triadic structure does more than organize content; it performs a theory of institutions. The EU is presented as merit-based and conditional, and membership is framed as simultaneously “strategic political” and “merits based.” The necessary reforms are named in a familiar EU vocabulary: “fight against corruption,” “justice reform,” alignment to “European standards.” The event thus imports into the war-peace discussion a juridical-administrative rationality in which legitimacy is produced through compliance with criteria. At the same time, the President reframes the EU: beyond “political,” “monetary,” “economic” union, Ukraine’s entry would strengthen “European defense identity,” with Ukraine’s army described as the “largest fighting army in Europe.” This is a key conceptual move: it treats membership as a security capability acquisition, not only a values-community enlargement. The EU’s criteria become, implicitly, criteria for incorporating a war-hardened defense capacity into the Union’s identity, even as the Union struggles to define itself as a defense actor.

The Dutch Prime Minister’s contribution reinforces the EU’s self-presentation as a financing and governance apparatus, while also exposing the internal tension between speed and stability. He cites a European Council decision of “19 billion” support for “26 and 27,” calls it a “strong signal,” and insists there can be “no question” about support. Yet when pressed on timeframe, he concedes “a couple of years,” warning against destabilizing the EU by admitting “too quickly.” Here the event’s recurrent dialectic appears again: commitment is asserted in maximal terms (“the home for Ukraine”), then bounded by institutional caution. The caution is justified in terms of protecting the EU’s internal stability and domestic consent. This is a form of legitimacy that depends on slow time: the EU’s promise gains credibility by acknowledging delay, as though an unrealistically fast promise would undermine the very trust the promise seeks to generate.

A decisive compositional rupture occurs with the introduction of Steve Witkoff as “President Trump’s representative” for negotiations. The moderator marks the break explicitly: “break from the program on stage.” This is an important self-reflexive moment: the event acknowledges its own format as programmatic and then authorizes an exception, thereby heightening the authority of the exception speaker. Witkoff’s remarks are structured around proximity to action: travel to Moscow, Abu Dhabi working groups, dinners with Ukrainian negotiators, accessibility of Zelenskyy and Trump. He claims progress by presenting time spent together (“100 hours”), then reduces remaining conflict to “one issue” with “iterations,” implying solvability. The evidential posture is experiential and procedural rather than documentary: the proof of progress is his repeated travel and the narrowing of issues. The event thereby contrasts two evidential modes: EU-style criteria and numbers, and negotiator-style process intimacy.

Witkoff’s discourse also introduces a distinctive economic-utopian motif: a “tariff-free zone from Ukraine” that would be “gamechanging,” attracting industry and enabling competitive export to the United States. In the event’s internal logic, this motif functions as a reward horizon that justifies endurance. It shifts “prosperity” from reconstruction to comparative advantage. Yet it also introduces conceptual strain: “tariff-free” implies a form of exceptionality within existing trade law regimes, and the Ukrainian deputy prime minister later explicitly notes complexity “in EU trade law.” The event thus stages, without resolving, a conflict between the political desire for spectacular economic incentives and the legal-technical constraints of supranational regimes.

The Belgian Prime Minister segment, prompted by a question about “confiscating Russian sovereign assets,” makes the legal-financial constraint explicit and central. The moderator frames confiscation as an “easy demonstration of will,” while noting it sets a precedent and alluding to Belgium’s “complicated stance.” The reply dismantles the apparent simplicity by re-defining what has already been done: “immobilized assets,” “not the frozen assets,” held largely in Belgium at Euroclear, immobilized “for an indefinite period.” This semantic distinction is not pedantic; it is an attempt to re-classify action so that it remains inside legal bounds. The Prime Minister argues that outright confiscation would be “an act of war,” “never happened in history,” with “grave consequences” for trust in the financial system and the Eurozone. The event here exposes a deep tension between moral rhetoric—punish aggression, fund reconstruction—and the infrastructural conditions of monetary sovereignty—maintain trust, avoid destabilizing precedent. The claim “there’s no such thing as free money” operates as a methodological warning: policy proposals that present as morally obvious may carry systemic risks that only become visible within a finance-law register.

This segment also reveals the EU’s political fragmentation as an internal constraint on legal action. The Prime Minister emphasizes that sanctions require renewal, and that “not everybody at the European table” is “so pro-Ukrainian.” The EU is described as “not a country,” “a confederation.” The legal-financial decision is thus justified as a way of insulating immobilization from the periodic risk of sanctions renewal failure. The argument is institutional: because unanimity is fragile, legal engineering must anticipate defections. In this way, the event demonstrates a form of realism that is internal to liberal institutions: the acknowledgment that commitment is vulnerable to domestic politics, and that durable action must be designed to withstand that vulnerability.

Croatia’s Prime Minister then reframes the discussion through historical analogy and enlargement theory. He invokes Croatia’s own experience of territorial occupation in the 1990s, offering a comparative percentage (“27%” then, Ukraine “around 19 and a half%”). This analogy serves multiple functions. It provides ethos—speaking as one who has lived a similar predicament—and it introduces a model of post-war processes: “peace process,” “integration,” “reconstruction,” with the “condition” being to stop aggression. He also articulates the enlargement dilemma as a tension between “merit-based” criteria and a “geopolitical” approach that may enable speed. Here the event’s conceptual register shifts again: from immediate war and financing to the constitutional theory of the EU, including “absorption capacity” and the “decision” process. The very mention of the “fourth Copenhagen criteria” indicates an attempt to anchor political urgency in established accession doctrine. Yet he also advises Ukraine in explicitly moral-historical terms: never leave “an ink of a pen” that gives up territory. The advice is framed as concern for “legacy” and for the “precedent” for international system stability. In this moment, the event’s internal commitment to law returns, but now as a moral-historical demand, rather than as a constraint on confiscation.

The Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka’s response to a corruption-and-bureaucracy prompt is methodologically significant because it explicitly addresses the problem of credibility as a function of predictability. He states that partners want “trust, rule of law,” while Ukraine wants predictability in “security guarantee,” “financial support,” and “accession.” The symmetry is strategic: it treats trust as reciprocal rather than unilateral. He accepts the merit-based approach, yet asks for commitment “by certain date,” to prevent accession from dissolving into “uncertainty.” This reveals a central tension in the event: institutions demand indefinite conditionality, while a society at war demands determinate horizons. Kachka then offers anti-corruption statistics as bureaucratic evidence—cases started, indictments, sentences—explicitly acknowledging his “bureaucrat” persona. The crucial interpretive move is his claim that “every discovered case … is a win,” because it indicates cleaning. Corruption is not denied; it is reframed as evidence of functioning institutions. The event thus shows how a stigma can be re-coded as a signal of institutional maturation, provided the audience accepts a procedural conception of integrity.

Jonathan Powell’s floor contribution introduces another coercion-design thesis: the war will not end in “victory on either side,” so negotiations are necessary; Trump is “right” to push; progress exists “on our side,” but Putin shows no evidence of compromise. Powell’s depiction of Putin as indecisive and “a judo player” functions as a psychological model, used to justify an operational prescription: apply “financial pressure, military pressure,” and set a “deadline.” The deadline is an instrument for forcing decision under conditions of deliberate ambiguity. The mention that Putin has “become a member of the board of peace” introduces a paratextual motif already present earlier (Powell’s comment presupposes it as a shared reference within the event), and it displays the event’s propensity for symbolic institutions—boards, roles, labels—whose real efficacy remains uncertain. Powell’s final methodological warning, that peace processes “always take a lot longer than you expect,” aligns with Rutte’s insistence that talks will not end “tomorrow.” It functions as a discipline on audience impatience and on the temptation to treat negotiations as imminent closure.

Eric Schmidt’s intervention shifts the evidential and conceptual register again, toward technological transformation. He begins with a seemingly banal logistical request—another mic—then produces a thesis about war as a competition “tougher than business” because “lives are at stake.” He frames Ukraine’s transformation as moving from “techish” to “tech country at scale,” and identifies “innovation” as the answer to asymmetry of manpower and artillery. Drones appear as the emblem of a “new form of war,” with an explicit dynamic of diffusion: Ukraine leads, Russia copies. Schmidt then forecasts a reversal in the conduct of war, “start with robots” across air, land, sea. The internal function of this intervention is twofold. It supplies a future-oriented justification for supporting Ukraine beyond moral duty: Ukraine as a generator of doctrines and capabilities that NATO and “the West” will need. It also introduces an ambivalence: the techniques will be used by “our enemies as” well. The event thus contains, even if only momentarily, an acknowledgment that innovation does not belong to one moral side; it is a capability that migrates.

The Norwegian Finance Minister, introduced as a former NATO Secretary General, synthesizes the coercion-design thesis with budgetary realism. He explicitly states that the difficult task is to “agree with President Putin,” and then draws on personal history of meeting Putin since 2000 and achieving agreements such as a “delimitation line in the Baron Sea.” This biographical reference functions as a warrant for his claim that agreement is possible in principle, but he immediately asserts that Putin’s aim is to “control Ukraine,” and that minds cannot be changed, only calculus. The concept of “calculus” is pivotal: it is the event’s preferred bridge term between morality and force, between law and coercion. It permits speakers to treat negotiation as rational adjustment of costs without granting moral legitimacy to aims. The prescription follows: provide military support so the “price” is too high, forcing negotiation that respects Ukraine as an “independent nation.” He then grounds the abstract claim in domestic governance: as finance minister he tripled support, providing “8.5 billion dollars yearly,” emphasizing Norway’s small population. The implicit message is that commitment is measurable in budgetary sacrifice, and that small states can act decisively when political will is organized.

Senator Chris Coons, framed as representing the “first branch of government,” introduces the American constitutional register, thereby complicating the event’s representation of “U.S. commitment.” He claims Ukrainians fight “for us,” frames the century as a “century of freedom when they win,” and promises “uninterrupted robust intelligence support, military support, and financial support.” He then provides a concrete legislative timeline—passing defense appropriations “next week”—and situates himself as “senior Democrat” on appropriations, indicating capacity to deliver. He also notes the necessity of being prepared to “ratify a strong security guarantee.” The event thereby marks a critical boundary: executive negotiation and alliance leadership are insufficient; durable guarantees require legislative assent. This boundary matters because it introduces an internal American constraint analogous to the EU unanimity constraint described earlier. The event thus mirrors itself: in both EU and U.S. contexts, commitment is filtered through plural institutions that can slow, condition, or potentially block action. Political will is always mediated.

Radek Sikorski’s intervention intensifies the humanitarian-infrastructure frame. He describes communist-era housing estates dependent on area heating plants, and the practical consequence of lost heat: draining water from radiators, making estates “almost unlivable,” producing “exodus” from cities including Kyiv. The descriptive detail functions as a moral and strategic warrant: civilian infrastructure attacks are war crimes, and population displacement threatens Ukraine’s viability. He then enumerates Europe’s “cards”: financing the state, denying market access to Russian oil and gas, sanctioning the “clunker fleet,” blocking assets, pledging “90 billion,” taking risks in admitting Ukraine, and bearing security stakes. He offers a worry: a deal that leaves Ukraine without “defensible borders” plants seeds of “the next war.” He offers a suggestion: pressure must be on the aggressor, not the victim. In this segment, the event’s tension between optimism and caution appears as a tension between negotiation and deterrence. Peace without defensibility becomes merely an intermission.

The testimony of Yuri Filattov, introduced as an unmanned aerial vehicle commander in the Third Army Corps, constitutes a deliberate rupture in register: from policy architecture to existential verdict. He claims that “international law is not working anymore,” and he narrates a causal chain from Ukraine giving up the “third largest nuclear arsenal” for “international guarantees,” to missiles later returning, to 2014 Crimea, to willful blindness. The form of the argument is genealogical: present catastrophe is explained as the cumulative result of prior failures to enforce norms. From this genealogy he draws a conclusion about force: when law fails, “strength becomes the only thing” that counts. He expresses anger at past belief in guarantees, and then asserts Ukraine is “holding right now a million plus army at the border of the European Union,” thereby re-casting Ukraine as de facto European security. His appeal—“please be united … be strong because only that matters”—is a direct challenge to the earlier institutional caution. It does not deny complexity; it treats complexity as a delaying tactic that lawless empires exploit. The event thus internalizes a conflict between institutional legalism and frontline existentialism, without resolving it.

Senator Tillis’ remarks are saturated with affect, yet they also attempt to translate affect into constitutional doctrine. He invokes North Carolina’s military installations and rapid deployment capacity, then calls Ukrainian soldiers to stand for applause. He recounts travel to Kyiv, Munich, Poland, and a visit to Bucha, describing atrocities in language of systematic crime. He asserts “no lasting peace” unless ratified by the “article one branch,” with “binding force of a treaty.” The claim is at once normative and institutional: legitimacy requires legal bindingness, and legal bindingness requires congressional participation. He then expands the threat horizon to Moldova and “the West Balklets,” presenting Russia’s project as reestablishing empire, and frames this as a threat to the United States as well as Europe. His rhetoric includes explicit moral condemnation (“liar”), but its internal function is strategic: to justify U.S. leadership and NATO commitment as necessary for global peace. The event thus presents a model of persuasion in which atrocity witnessing is used to underwrite treaty-level obligations.

Professor Neil Ferguson’s intervention is explicitly meta-rhetorical. He announces inability to match Tillis’ “rhetorical passion,” then describes the week as “strange,” invoking Davos’ “spirit of dialogue,” and introducing the “Melian dialogue” from Thucydides with its formula about strong and weak. He links this classical reference to the “surreal conversation” about Greenland, thereby tying the earlier sovereignty crisis back into a realism-law tension. He then turns his classical frame into a policy critique: the “pace of European rearmament” is “still so slow,” and commitments to spend 3% or 5% of GDP are insufficient without procurement and modernization. He uses Denmark’s generosity as an example and calls it “rather melonian” if weapons are not replaced, and he asks: “where are the defense forces” of EU states, lamenting absence of German representatives and urging “operation warp speed” for German and European rearmament, scaling drone production to “10 15 million.” The conceptual role of this intervention is to attack what might be called the event’s own temptation: to treat speech acts and fiscal pledges as substitutes for industrial mobilization. He demands a translation from discourse to production. His concluding exhortation—be “a little less million and a bit more Athenian”—is a deliberate provocation aimed at European leaders: embrace power politics in order to deter power politics.

Rutte’s response to Ferguson is a display of institutional defense and factual counter-narration. He accepts the critique regarding burden sharing for Ukraine support, conceding it cannot remain dependent on a subset of countries. Yet he rejects the rearmament critique, specifically defending Germany with numbers: defense spending rising from “70 billion” in 2021 to “160 billion” by 2029, and citing the opening of an ammunition factory producing “155 caliber,” built “from nothing” to full automation in “14 months,” contrasting with the usual “10 years” for paperwork. The argument is exemplary: a single case is used to refute a general claim about slowness. It also reveals an epistemic contest inside the event about what counts as adequate evidence. Ferguson’s evidence is impressionistic and comparative; Rutte’s evidence is numeric and anecdotal-institutional, grounded in a personal act of witnessing (“I opened a factory”). The event thereby stages a struggle over the representation of Europe’s capacity: whether Europe is lagging in decisive ways, or whether decisive changes are already underway but under-recognized.

Croatia’s Prime Minister adds a further layer by distinguishing between being “at the country at war” and being under “umbrella of collective security,” using Croatia’s own wartime mobilization as proof that small countries can rapidly field large forces under existential pressure, even under arms embargo. He then lists Croatia’s current modernization—French jets, German tanks, American equipment, FPV drone production—and notes efforts to supply electricity equipment to Ukraine during winter. This intervention functions as a rebuttal to the narrative of European inertia, while also implicitly confirming Ferguson’s premise that wartime urgency produces speed that peacetime institutions often lack. The tension is displaced rather than eliminated: Europe is doing things, yet the standard of doing enough remains contested.

The event’s closing returns to a different kind of truth claim, delivered by a former captive. The moderator announces that the concluding soldier will speak in Ukrainian, then encourages English. The speaker begins with captivity as a phenomenological stripping away: “all abstract ideas disappear,” “no geopolitics,” “no long-term planning.” This is a philosophical thesis expressed in experiential terms: under conditions of coercion and vulnerability, the categories that normally organize strategic discourse lose their grip. He then defines freedom not as “a word on the slide,” but as “a possibility to say no” under torture, to “say truth” without being killed. This definition functions as a critique of the event’s earlier abstraction and an attempt to re-ground it. Freedom is made concrete as a capacity enacted under threat. He then frames “solutions” as having “power and force” only when a “real price” is paid, and connects this to his mother as a widow and children not recognizing him. He addresses the audience’s geopolitical literacy and strategic work, then asks that decisions be “more specific” and “more swift,” so that he can explain to his children that their path is about “sense” and “common sense,” not merely pain. The event ends with thanks, closing the circle from capital mobilization to existential meaning: reconstruction talk, negotiation architecture, sanctions legality, rearmament production, and legislative guarantees are all implicitly measured against the captive’s definition of freedom and the demand that decisions become determinately efficacious.

At this point in the discussion, the event’s internal architecture has stabilized a set of tensions without dissolving them. International law appears simultaneously as an indispensable language of legitimacy and as an inadequate instrument when confronted with imperial coercion. Financial legality appears as both a constraint that protects systemic trust and as a site where moral urgency presses against precedent. Negotiation appears as both necessary and insufficient, requiring coercive pressure, deadlines, and continued military support. European integration appears as both a strategic necessity and a slow, criteria-bound process whose speed threatens the very stability it aims to extend. Technological innovation appears as both a solution to asymmetry and a diffusion mechanism that empowers adversaries. Across all of these, the event demands from its interpreter a competence that is less about adopting a single evaluative stance and more about tracking how claims migrate across registers: how “prosperity” becomes a tool of coercion and legitimacy; how “sovereignty” becomes a problem of access control; how “commitment” becomes a budget line, a treaty vote, an industrial plant, and a soldier’s capacity to say no. It demands tolerance for strategic ambiguity, sensitivity to procedural mediation, and an ability to notice where the event’s own language—its metaphors of “balls,” “work streams,” “packages,” “calculus”—quietly governs what can be thought and what can be demanded.