Miami Negotiations and Davos Games: The U.S. Calculations and European Rifts Behind Ukraine's Security Guarantees.

The sunshine in Florida seems unable to dispel the bitter cold in Kyiv. Just as Ukrainian negotiators and U.S. envoys engaged in two days of substantive talks in Miami, Russian drones and missiles continued to tear through Ukraine's night sky. More than 200 drones struck multiple regions including Sumy, Kharkiv, and Dnipro, leaving over 5,600 residential buildings in the capital Kyiv without heating in temperatures as low as -14 degrees Celsius. Rustem Umerov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, specifically emphasized in a social media post that the team had fully briefed the U.S. side on Russia's latest attacks on Ukraine's energy system. This intertwining of battlefield reality and negotiation table forms the brutal backdrop of this critical diplomatic contest in January 2026.

The Miami talks did not announce any specific agreements, but both sides agreed to continue consultations during the World Economic Forum in Davos. Superficially, the dialogue focused on economic development and prosperity plans, as well as security guarantees for Ukraine, but its core went far beyond that. It served as a rehearsal for the post-war order, major power responsibilities, and the geopolitical landscape, set against the complex backdrop of the war entering its fourth year, shifting political winds in the United States, and internal divisions within Europe. What Ukraine seeks is not merely a written guarantee, but also a reliable path for its survival amid uncertain American commitments and increasingly complex European stances.

Miami: From "Substantive" Dialogue to Unfinished Agenda

According to disclosures from Umerov and Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Ukrainian delegation is exceptionally distinguished: in addition to Umerov himself, it includes the newly appointed Head of the Presidential Office, Kyrylo Budanov, and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Faction of the ruling party Servant of the People, David Arakhamia. The American representatives are even more diverse: Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff, former President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, U.S. Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, and White House staff member Josh Grynbaum. This combination itself conveys multiple signals—ranging from formal diplomatic channels to informal private connections, covering both security and military matters as well as economic and political issues.

The talks were described as substantive. Analysis reveals that this substantiveness is primarily reflected at two levels.

First, there is the concrete advancement at the working level. Zelensky revealed that the team is working on the documents required to end the war. This points to the famous diplomatic incident in November 2025. At that time, the United States pressured Ukraine to accept a 28-point peace plan widely considered too favorable to Russia. Ukraine and its European allies—particularly the United Kingdom, France, and Germany—then urgently formulated a 20-point counter-proposal, which incorporated more of Kyiv's interests and demands, especially regarding security guarantees and territorial integrity. The Miami talks likely built upon this foundation, refining the details of the documents in an attempt to bridge differences. Umerov specifically mentioned that discussions on security guarantees focused on practical implementation and enforcement mechanisms, indicating that the negotiations have moved from statements of principle to the operational level.

Secondly, it is about information synchronization and cognitive shaping. Umerov and Zelensky have repeatedly emphasized that the Ukrainian team has comprehensively briefed the American side on the current battlefield situation, particularly Russia's systematic destruction of energy infrastructure. In the severe cold of over minus ten degrees Celsius, more than 200,000 residents in Zaporizhzhia Oblast have lost power, and large areas of Kyiv are without heating. This is not only a humanitarian crisis but also part of a strategic game. The Ukrainian side aims to make American decision-makers intuitively understand that any ceasefire lacking solid security guarantees could plunge the country into a more vulnerable situation by the next winter. Zelensky stated bluntly: If Russia truly wants to end the war, they should focus on diplomacy—not missile attacks, power outages, or even attempts to sabotage our nuclear power plants.

However, the substantive talks did not yield any public results. There was no joint statement, no roadmap, only a commitment to continue in Davos. This open-ended outcome reflects the sensitivity and difficulty of the current negotiations. There exists a gap that needs to be bridged between Ukraine's core demand—legally binding, U.S.-led security guarantees—and the reality of domestic politics in the United States.

Davos: More Than an Economic Forum, a Political Arena.

If Miami was a closed-door technical consultation, then Davos is destined to become a political stage under the spotlight. The World Economic Forum has always been a venue for global elites to discuss economic issues, but for Ukraine, the 2026 Davos has evolved into a political testing ground. As Ukrainian media analysis points out, the forum will bring together at least four intertwined and tension-filled threads, each directly related to the outcome of the war and the future of Ukraine.

The first clue, also the core clue: Obtain Trump's personal approval.

Ukraine and its European allies hope to finalize the text of the security guarantee agreement with the United States and European countries at Davos. However, the formal finalization of the text is far less important than substantive political endorsement. The key issue lies in obtaining the personal approval of U.S. President Trump. Leaders from Italy, Germany, France, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the President of the European Commission plan to hold a joint meeting with Trump and Zelensky, with the core task being to politically advance this guarantee plan. European countries are well aware: without the United States, none of this is possible.

However, Trump's stance appears ambiguous and full of contradictions. He publicly accuses Ukraine, particularly Zelensky himself, as the main obstacle to a peace agreement, claiming that Russian President Putin is ready to end the war. This narrative was quickly adopted by the Kremlin, which praised Trump's assessment. The disconnect between the Trump-Putin narrative and the Ukraine-Europe narrative constitutes the greatest risk in the security discussions at Davos. The logic of Ukraine and Europe is based on deterring Russia and upholding international law; whereas the logic Trump exhibits leans more toward making a deal at any cost. Davos will become a critical occasion to test whether these two logics can be compatible, or which one will prevail.

The second clue: Exchange economic prosperity plans for security guarantees.

This is the common language Ukraine is attempting to communicate with Trump in: money, resources, numbers, interests. According to reports, Washington and Kyiv are preparing to sign a grand economic agreement on Ukraine's reconstruction—the Economic Prosperity Plan, with a total value potentially reaching 800 billion dollars, spanning ten years. Zelenskyy and Trump are expected to witness its signing in Davos.

This plan is a key component of Kyiv's new strategy: exchanging natural resource extraction rights, large-scale infrastructure projects, and access to the post-war reconstruction market for U.S. security guarantees. As a practical footnote to this strategy, Ukraine granted the mining rights to a lithium deposit to the U.S. government-funded TechMet consortium on January 9, 2026. This marks the formation of a clear transactional logic. However, the core question remains unresolved: Is Washington willing to pay for stability in Eastern Europe with the hard currency of security, or will it merely settle for signing investment contracts? Can security guarantees be reduced to a profitable business investment?

The third clue: The profound rift within Europe regarding dialogue with Moscow.

Davos will expose and potentially exacerbate an increasingly sharp divide within the European Union: whether and when to engage in negotiations with Russia. French President Macron and Italian Prime Minister Meloni—both leaders once known for their tough stance on Russia and transatlantic orientation—are increasingly vocal about Europe’s need to play a role in potential talks with the Kremlin. French officials say Europe wants to at least be at the negotiating table to prevent its red lines from being overlooked in any possible U.S.-Russia agreement.

But this rhetoric was immediately met with resistance from Eastern European countries and major EU institutions. They oppose any dialogue without clear preconditions, arguing that negotiating for the sake of negotiation would only serve the Kremlin, legitimize its aggression, and buy time for Russia. The UK's stance has been particularly clear, acting as a brake on the idea of promoting early dialogue with Putin. British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper explicitly stated that Moscow has not shown any serious interest in peace, and we need to see evidence that Putin genuinely wants peace. At the moment, I do not see it. She emphasized that the only reasonable response is to strengthen sanctions against Russia and increase military aid to Ukraine, rather than making diplomatic gestures that Moscow would perceive as weakness.

Russia keenly captured Europe's wavering. The Kremlin swiftly declared that the alliance opposing negotiations with Moscow is disintegrating, and Putin also expressed readiness to restore necessary levels of relations with Europe. This appears more like a test of European unity and a tactical adjustment rather than a breakthrough toward peace. At Davos, whether Europe can maintain a unified front in the face of U.S. pressure and Russian temptation will directly impact its credibility as one of Ukraine's security guarantors.

The Fourth Clue: The Greenland Crisis—A Strategic Diversion to Distract Europe.

The Trump administration's territorial claim over Greenland, Denmark, has escalated from a diplomatic incident into a major crisis in transatlantic relations. Trump not only reiterated his intention to purchase but also announced a 10% tariff on European allies such as Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, effective from February 1, with threats to raise it to 25% in June until an agreement is reached on the Greenland issue. This is already an open act of economic coercion.

The Greenland issue is by no means trivial for Ukraine. It consumes a significant amount of Europe's political attention, weakens transatlantic solidarity, and may lead Europe to soften its stance on supporting Ukraine in exchange for U.S. concessions on other issues. For Moscow, such a scenario is ideal: Europe's attention is diverted, and cracks appear within the alliance. Davos will become a key moment to observe whether Europe can coordinate a response to this crisis and prevent it from eroding support for Ukraine.

The Essence of Security Guarantees: Vague Promises and Harsh Realities

Although the term "security guarantee" has been repeatedly mentioned in the negotiations, its specific meaning remains ambiguous to this day. What Ukraine clearly wants is a firm commitment similar to NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause, but the United States, especially under Trump, is almost impossible to provide such a guarantee equivalent to membership. A more likely model is an enhanced version of the Israel model—extensive military aid, intelligence sharing, priority weapons supply, but not necessarily an automatic commitment to military intervention.

This ambiguity is particularly pronounced against the backdrop of battlefield realities. Russia's recent energy-extermination strikes on Ukraine's energy system have a clear strategic objective: to create the largest-scale humanitarian disaster during the harsh winter, undermine civilian morale, export refugee pressure to Europe, and thereby force Kyiv and its allies to capitulate in negotiations. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha has called for Russia's barbaric attacks to become a central topic for the leaders at Davos. Ukraine also advocates for establishing a Ramstein-style format in the energy sector, elevating the defense of energy infrastructure—including air defense, generators, and rapid transformer repairs—from the level of humanitarian assistance to that of national security.

This demand directly points to the core contradiction of security guarantees: if even domestic power plants and heating systems cannot be protected, any paper promises about long-term security in the future will be hollow. Ukraine attempts to argue that security guarantees must begin now, starting with the protection of critical survival infrastructure. However, whether the United States and Europe are willing to extend their existing military assistance systems to comprehensive, proactive homeland air defense protection remains a huge question mark.

Conclusion: At the crossroads of wavering between transactions and principles.

The substantive nature and inconclusive outcome of the Miami talks coexist, while the economic themes and political maneuvers of the Davos Forum intertwine, together sketching a complex picture of the current phase of Ukraine war diplomacy. Ukraine is attempting to conduct a multi-dimensional diplomatic operation under extremely unfavorable conditions: attracting Trump with economic interests, uniting Europe with shared values, and awakening the international community with the horrors of the battlefield. The ultimate goal is to transform vague security commitments into an enforceable, solid shield capable of preventing future aggression.

However, this path is fraught with thorns. U.S. policies are profoundly influenced by domestic political cycles, casting doubt on the long-term nature of its commitments. European unity is being tested by both internal divisions and external pressures. Russia, through sustained military pressure and flexible diplomatic tactics, seeks to dismantle the opposing camp.

Davos may not produce a decisive peace agreement, but it will serve as a mirror, clearly reflecting the limits of resolve, interest calculations, and strategic divisions within the Western alliance regarding the Ukraine issue. For Ukraine, negotiations on security guarantees are not only about post-war arrangements but also about whether it can secure sufficient support to survive until the war ends. As residents in Kyiv endure the cold in darkness, the discussions beneath the snowy peaks of Davos will determine whether the light they await is the dawn of lasting peace or merely another fragile ceasefire. The outcome of this game will define Europe’s security order for decades to come, with implications extending far beyond Ukraine’s borders.