Miami Confidential Talks and Davos Suspense: Ukraine's Peace Process Enters a Critical Game Period.

On January 17, 2026, a cold Saturday, a plane landed in Miami, USA. The Ukrainian delegation that disembarked consisted of Kirill Budanov, Head of the Presidential Office, Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, and David Arakhamia, Chairman of the Servant of the People parliamentary faction. Their destination was not the White House, but a series of closed-door meeting rooms, where they were met by Steve Witkoff, Special Envoy of U.S. President Trump, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll. The core topic of this meeting, dubbed the "Miami Secret Talks" by the media, was singular: how to end the four-year-long Russia-Ukraine war.

Almost simultaneously, within Ukraine, over 200,000 households lost power supply in the severe cold, and 386 settlements in the occupied territories of Zaporizhzhia Oblast were plunged into darkness. The energy infrastructure in Kyiv and Kharkiv once again became targets of Russian missile attacks, turning the winter night at minus 18 degrees Celsius into another kind of battlefield. On one side, diplomats deliberate over the wording of agreement texts in warm meeting rooms; on the other, engineers rush to repair bombed substations in the freezing cold. This stark contrast accurately outlines the essence of the current crisis in Ukraine: the game on the negotiation table and the attrition on the battlefield are proceeding simultaneously and shaping each other.

Trump's "Peace Commission" Blueprint: A Regulatory Model from Gaza to Ukraine

An exclusive report from the Financial Times provides a crucial clue for understanding the context of the Miami talks. According to the report, the Trump administration is considering creating a U.S.-led peace commission, modeled after the Gaza Strip peace plan it helped broker, to oversee the implementation of any future ceasefire agreement in Ukraine. This envisioned commission would be chaired by the U.S. President and include representatives from Ukraine, Europe, NATO, and Russia. Its core function would be to ensure the execution of any future peace plan and monitor compliance.

Analysis reveals that this concept is by no means a spur-of-the-moment idea. It continues the distinctive transactional art style of Trump's diplomacy and the direct intervention logic of America First. Transplanting the Gaza model to Ukraine signifies that the United States is attempting to establish a conflict supervision mechanism that goes beyond the traditional United Nations framework and is directly controlled by Washington. For Ukraine, this might imply a form of security guarantee with enforcement power; for Russia, it could be a compromise it can accept to avoid the direct eastward expansion of NATO; and for Europe, this suggests that its voice in this crisis may be further marginalized.

A senior Ukrainian official involved in negotiations with the United States confirmed to the Financial Times that the establishment of the Ukraine Peace Commission is a crucial component of the proposal aimed at ending the Russian war. However, the plan faces a fundamental obstacle: Moscow currently shows no signs of agreeing to or even seriously discussing the 20-point peace plan. Russia insists on territorial concessions from Ukraine, while Kyiv considers these demands unacceptable. This core clash of positions renders any intricate mechanism design akin to a castle in the air.

Miami Agenda: Security Guarantees, Economic Reconstruction, and the Unresolved Territorial Deadlock

According to multiple sources, the agenda of the Miami talks primarily revolves around two main pillars: long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, and a post-war recovery and prosperity plan with a scale of up to 8000 billion dollars. Upon arrival, Budanov clearly stated: Ukraine needs a just peace. We are working to achieve results.

Security guarantees are a survival concern for Ukraine. President Zelensky has repeatedly emphasized that any agreement must include long-term security assurances that extend beyond Trump's term. Ukraine requires legally binding commitments backed by multilateral forces to prevent history from repeating itself. The currently discussed 20-point peace plan is reportedly a revised version of the 28-point plan proposed by the United States in November last year, which had sparked controversy for being perceived as overly pro-Russian. To what extent the revised version balances the interests of all parties remains unknown.

Economic reconstruction is the foundation for maintaining peace. The so-called Prosperity Plan aims to attract approximately 800 billion US dollars in investment over a decade for Ukraine's reconstruction and economic kick-start. The plan is expected to be funded through a series of loans, grants, and private investment opportunities. Zelensky hopes to sign relevant documents with the United States at next week's World Economic Forum in Davos, thereby officially unlocking this massive sum of money. This funding is not only about rebuilding from the ruins but also concerns Ukraine's post-war social stability and political direction.

However, all these discussions inevitably revolve around the most challenging and fundamental issue: territory. Article 5 clearly states: the two sides have yet to reach an agreement on the key issue—territorial concessions to the aggressor. Washington insists on handing over Donbas to Moscow, but Ukraine firmly opposes this. Russia is equally uncompromising on territorial matters. During negotiations with the U.S. delegation in Moscow in early December last year, no compromise was reached, although the Kremlin described the talks as constructive. The territorial issue is like a black hole, devouring all seemingly positive progress in other areas. Without a consensus on the territorial framework, security guarantees and economic reconstruction are impossible to discuss.

Battlefield Winter and Negotiation Heat: Stress Testing in Parallel Realities

While negotiators were meeting in Miami, the winter in Ukraine is becoming a strategic weapon for Russia. Kyiv accuses Moscow of weaponizing winter by systematically targeting energy infrastructure, aiming to break the will of civilians in temperatures as low as minus 10 degrees Celsius. Ukraine's new Energy Minister Denis Shmyhal stated that over the past year, Russian forces have launched 612 attacks on energy targets, with the offensive intensifying in recent months.

President Zelenskyy painted a grim picture: over 15,000 energy workers across the country were conducting emergency repairs in freezing temperatures; half of the capital Kyiv was without heating at one point; and air defense systems had partially failed due to missile shortages. He admitted frankly: "Until this morning, we had several air defense systems without missiles. I can say this publicly today because we have now received those missiles." This statement served as an implicit criticism of the delayed assistance from allies and also revealed the vulnerability of Ukraine's frontline defenses.

This military pressure directly translates into diplomatic pressure. Russia's continuous pressure on the battlefield aims to increase its bargaining chips at the negotiation table. Every bombing of the power grid sends a message to Kyiv and its Western supporters: time is not on Ukraine's side. Ukraine's diplomatic sprint in Miami and the upcoming Davos Forum is, to some extent, also a response to this time pressure, attempting to secure some favorable political arrangements before the situation further deteriorates.

Recent remarks by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov are quite thought-provoking. He described U.S. efforts to resolve the Ukraine conflict as aligning with Russia's interests and stated that Moscow appreciates Washington's endeavors. At the same time, he noted signals from Rome, Paris, and Berlin regarding the need for dialogue with Russia, calling it a positive shift in the broader Western stance. Peskov made it clear: Russia has dialogue with the United States, but not with the Europeans. These remarks clearly delineate the hierarchy of power in Moscow's view: it negotiates only with the real decision-maker, Washington, while treating Europe as a secondary player. This undoubtedly complicates the efforts of major European powers such as France and Germany to play a mediating role.

Davos: An Outpost for Peace Agreements or a Mirage?

All eyes are now on Davos, Switzerland. The World Economic Forum is about to open, with both Trump and Zelenskyy scheduled to attend. This venue is envisioned as a potential stage for a historic signing. Zelenskyy stated: If everything is in place and the U.S. side agrees... then signing the agreement next week in Davos is possible. He claimed that Ukraine is in principle ready and emphasized that Ukraine holds the initiative in the negotiations, progressing faster on this matter than Russia.

However, this optimistic statement needs to be questioned from multiple angles. Firstly, Russia's substantive participation remains absent. All current negotiations are conducted either between the U.S. and Ukraine or in parallel between the U.S. and Russia; the three parties have never sat at the same table. Moscow has yet to comment on the 20-point plan developed through U.S.-Ukraine consultations. Without Russia's signature, any agreement would be merely a piece of paper.

Secondly, President Trump's own statements contain subtle contradictions. On one hand, he told Reuters that Putin is ready to reach a deal, while Ukraine is less willing, and he blamed the negotiation deadlock on Zelenskyy; on the other hand, his administration is actively advancing specific proposals such as a peace committee. This contradiction may reflect the tug-of-war between different voices within Washington, or it could be part of the negotiation strategy.

Furthermore, even under the most optimistic estimates, Davos is more likely to be a venue for announcing a principled framework or partial agreements (such as an economic recovery plan), rather than a final destination for resolving all issues comprehensively. The most critical territorial and security arrangements will still require extremely arduous follow-up negotiations. The so-called peace commission concept may indeed be designed to manage this long and fragile transition period.

From closed-door consultations in Miami to the spotlight in Davos, the path to peace in Ukraine remains fraught with thorns. Negotiators strive to forge a blueprint for peace within the agreement text, while the artillery fire on the battlefield and power outages in the harsh winter constantly remind people of the brutal reality. The United States attempts to bypass deadlocks with innovative mechanisms like a peace commission, Europe seeks opportunities to make its voice heard on the sidelines, Russia sets the bottom line for negotiations with missiles, and Ukraine faces the most difficult trade-off between survival and sovereignty.

The outcome of this game will not only determine the future map of Ukraine but also redefine the security architecture of post-Cold War Europe, testing the global leadership model of the United States during Trump's second term. Davos may not produce a comprehensive peace agreement, but it is likely to become a critical turning point as this prolonged war enters its final political resolution phase. Regardless of the result, this cold winter of 2026 is destined to leave a profound mark on the geopolitical history of Eurasia.