"Guarded Optimism" at Davos: The Illusion and Reality of Ukraine's Peace Process
21/01/2026
The snowscape of Davos, Switzerland remains tranquil, yet the air at the 2024 World Economic Forum is tinged with the smoke of conflict from Eastern Europe. On January 20, a statement by Kirill Budanov, Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, during a panel discussion, rippled through the international community like a stone cast into a frozen lake, stirring waves of speculation about the future of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. "We are moving forward," Budanov remarked in his characteristically calm tone, "cautious optimism—this is the term I use to clearly define the current situation." This statement, rather than a declaration of imminent peace, reads more like a diplomatic text filled with geopolitical calculation and strategic ambiguity. It reveals the subtle yet crucial shifts in strategic focus and negotiating posture of Kyiv and its Western allies as the war enters its third year.
Budenov's "Davos Signal": Decoding Ukraine's Negotiation Narrative
Budanov's speech at Davos was by no means improvised. As a core aide to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and the head of the intelligence system, every public statement he makes is carefully calibrated. For this forum, Ukraine dispatched a large delegation, including First Lady Olena Zelenska, with one of its key tasks being to refocus international attention on Ukraine's peace plan and, amid signs of potential fatigue in Western aid, to demonstrate Kyiv's initiative and pragmatic stance.
Budanov's speech conveyed multiple layers of information. The first layer is positioning. He explicitly defined this war as the bloodiest and most terrifying conflict on European territory since the end of World War II. This characterization not only aims to seize the moral high ground but also serves to remind the global elites at Davos that the Ukraine crisis is not a distant regional conflict. Instead, it represents a systemic risk that directly impacts global supply chains, energy security, and financial stability. In a setting crowded with business leaders, this discourse, which directly links security issues to economic consequences, is highly targeted.
The second layer demonstrates action and unity. Budanov explicitly stated that tremendous efforts are being made, first on our side, on the American side. This statement is crucial. It publicly confirms the active coordination between the United States and Ukraine in advancing a certain peace process, transforming Washington from a potential pressure-applier and negotiator into a co-driver standing alongside Kyiv. This serves both as a response to domestic voices questioning U.S. commitments and as a signal to Moscow: Ukraine is not isolated, and its negotiating position is backed by key allies.
The third layer is managing expectations and setting conditions. Budanov quickly poured cold water on it: we cannot say that peace will definitely come tomorrow. If someone says that, it certainly isn't true. This kind of cautious optimism is a classic form of diplomatic risk management. It shows hope to the international community, avoids the spread of pessimistic despair, and reserves space for what could be a long, winding, or even failed negotiation process. More importantly, he largely attributes the uncertainty of the final outcome to the Russian Federation. "You understand who we are dealing with," this phrase implies that Moscow's unpredictability and irrationality are the main obstacles to peace, cleverly pre-assigning responsibility for any future deadlock to the other side.
The Connotation of "Fundamental Solutions": Ukraine's Bottom Line and Strategic Ambiguity
Budanov claims that Ukraine is on the path to seeking a fundamental solution to the war. What is a fundamental solution? This powerful yet semantically open term is the key to understanding Ukraine's current negotiating position. It is by no means simply a return to the pre-February 24, 2022 border status.
Based on recent statements from Budanov and senior Ukrainian officials, the so-called fundamental solution includes at least three unshakable pillars: just peace, security guarantees, and a clear reconstruction plan.
Just Peace first and foremost implies territorial integrity. Although Budanov did not directly mention Crimea or Donbas at Davos, the Ukrainian Constitution and official stance have never relinquished sovereignty claims over these territories. However, the term "just" leaves room for interpretation—it could point to adjudication based on international law, or it might imply a certain realistic arrangement based on power dynamics. Amid the current battlefield stalemate, Ukraine's definition of justice may focus more on ensuring national survival and sovereign independence, rather than immediately restoring every inch of land.
Security Guarantees are a core concern for Ukraine in any future peace agreement. Budanov emphasized that Ukraine requires security assurances, directly addressing the lesson learned from the failure of the 2014 Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine seeks a legally binding multilateral or bilateral security guarantee system, backed by substantive commitments from major military powers, including the United States, rather than empty declarations. This could be a mechanism similar to NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause, or specific security agreements provided by countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. Without reliable security guarantees, any territorial concessions are viewed by Kyiv as a fatal gamble with the nation's future.
A Clear Revival Plan directly ties post-war reconstruction to the peace process. Ukraine's estimated reconstruction costs have already reached hundreds of billions of dollars. By raising this point at Davos—a global gathering of capital—Budanov aimed to send a message to international investors and donor countries: peace signifies not only the cessation of hostilities but also a significant economic opportunity. Incorporating the reconstruction plan into the peace negotiation framework is intended to ensure long-term political and economic commitment from Western nations, preventing Ukraine from being marginalized after the conflict.
Budanov also refuted the argument that Ukraine should have a seat at the negotiation table. He emphasized Ukraine's direct involvement in the negotiation process, which may seem tautological but actually serves as a counter-narrative to the notion that Ukraine is a passive recipient of arrangements made by major powers. Ukraine insists on its agency, meaning any peace plan must be led by Ukraine and negotiated based on the conditions proposed by Ukraine, rather than being imposed by external forces.
U.S.-Ukraine Coordination and Russian Variables: Unknowns in the Peace Equation
The most intriguing part of Budanov's speech is his public confirmation of U.S.-Ukraine coordination and his characterization of Russia's role. This outlines the basic triangular dynamic in the current peace game.
Deepening of US-Ukraine Coordination signals a potential new phase in the U.S. strategy toward Ukraine. In the early stages of the war, the core objective of the United States and NATO was to help Ukraine survive; this later shifted to assisting in reclaiming lost territories. Now, against the backdrop of the counteroffensive failing to achieve decisive breakthroughs and the front lines stabilizing, the goal may be transitioning toward securing the optimal negotiation position for Ukraine through comprehensive means (military + diplomacy). This coordination extends beyond weapons deliveries to encompass top-level design elements such as negotiation red lines, bargaining chips, and phased objectives. The Biden administration, facing domestic election pressures, must demonstrate efforts to promote peace to address the demands of some voters while avoiding being perceived as betraying Ukraine. Close coordination with Kyiv to jointly manage the pace of negotiations has become its optimal strategy.
The Variable Nature of Russia is a key point deliberately emphasized by Budanov. Many aspects depend on the Russian Federation—a statement that appears objective on the surface but subtly positions Moscow as a potential disruptor of peace. The Kremlin’s current public stance remains firm, setting Ukraine’s demilitarization, denazification, and recognition of new territorial realities as preconditions for negotiations, which starkly contrasts with Ukraine’s position. The implication in Budanov’s remarks is that Ukraine and the West have already demonstrated the willingness and actions to seek solutions; if peace fails, the responsibility clearly lies with Russia, which refuses to compromise. This narrative aims to sustain international moral and diplomatic pressure on Russia.
However, the geopolitical logic in reality may be more complex. Has Russia truly completely refused negotiations? Information from multiple channels suggests that informal, low-level contacts may never have been entirely severed. Moscow might also be waiting for the outcomes of a series of key events in 2024 (such as the U.S. presidential election and the European Parliament elections), hoping for a shift in the international situation in its favor. Therefore, Budanov's cautious optimism may also include expectations that, within a certain time window, leveraging the battlefield stalemate and continued Western aid could force Russia back to a more realistic negotiation path. The current movement may precisely be the process in which both sides are conducting complex battlefield preparations, coordinating with allies, and laying the groundwork in public opinion for a formal showdown or compromise at some future moment.
Beyond Davos: The Bumpy Reality and Future Scenarios of the Path to Peace
Outside the spotlight of Davos, the harsh reality of war provides a chilling footnote to any cautious optimism. Around the time of Budanov's remarks, Russia launched a new round of large-scale airstrikes on multiple Ukrainian cities. From Kharkiv to Kherson on the front lines, intense positional warfare and war of attrition continue, consuming both sides' manpower, equipment, and willpower day by day. The battlefield situation remains the ultimate cornerstone of any diplomatic solution.
Based on the signals released by Budanov and the current situation, the following scenarios may emerge in the coming months:
Scenario 1: Pseudo-Initiation of Negotiation Process. The United States and Ukraine engage in more frequent secret probes with Russia through third-party channels (such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, etc.), and may even reach limited agreements on secondary issues like prisoner exchanges or local ceasefires (e.g., around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant), aiming to build trust for more comprehensive negotiations. However, core territorial and security issues will remain deadlocked. Budanov's cautious optimism will be maintained at this low level of progress.
Scenario 2: The Summer Campaign Determines Bargaining Chips at the Negotiation Table. Both sides utilize the spring for rest and regrouping, launching new offensives in the summer. Ukraine's objective may be to sever the land corridor to Crimea, while Russia might seek to fully occupy the Donetsk region. Any significant military success by either side will drastically alter their negotiation demands. At that point, the substance of a fundamental solution will be redefined based on the new front lines.
Scenario 3: Frozen Conflict and Long-Term Stalemate. If the battlefield remains deadlocked and external assistance (for Ukraine) or endurance capacity (for Russia) reaches a certain balance, the conflict may gradually freeze, forming an informal ceasefire line. However, this is not peace but an unstable truce. Ukraine will use this period to fully integrate into the Western system (EU negotiations, security agreements), while Russia consolidates the occupied territories. The movement mentioned by Budanov will evolve into a long-term geopolitical competition measured in years.
Budanov set the tone for Ukraine's peace efforts with cautious optimism in Davos, which in itself is a sophisticated political maneuver. It is neither naive triumphalism nor despairing pessimism, but rather a narrative construction serving complex strategic objectives: uniting the people internally, maintaining external support, exerting pressure on the enemy, and keeping all options open for the future.
The path to true peace is inevitably fraught with thorns. It will not be born atop the snowy peaks of Davos, but will depend on the muddy trenches of Donbas, the congressional debates in Washington, the decision-making chambers in Moscow, and Kyiv’s difficult balancing act between survival and principle. Budanov’s speech reminds the world that Ukraine is actively shaping the endgame of this war, yet the dawn of a fundamental solution remains shrouded in the thick fog of geopolitics. The outcome of this most severe conflict in Europe since World War 2 will not only shape Ukraine’s destiny but also redefine the international order and security rules of the 21st century.
Reference materials
https://www.unian.ua/war/viyna-v-ukrajini-budanov-zrobiv-zayavu-pro-dosyagnennya-miru-13261470.html
https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/4849011-budanov-sdelal-zaiavlenye-o-zavershenyy-voiny