The discussions around Ukraine’s proposed “peace formula” and the likely February 2024 summit have been characterized by cautious optimism and careful diplomacy. Officials close to the Ukrainian leadership have repeatedly framed the event as a milestone that would not only test ideas but also measure real progress on the ground. The message from the Ukrainian side stresses that the gathering is meant to catalyze tangible steps toward reducing violence and advancing diplomatic engagement, rather than serve as a ceremonial photo opportunity. The emphasis remains on moving from talks to action, with a particular eye on how day-to-day gains on the battlefield and in humanitarian corridors can be translated into concrete policy decisions that shape the broader peace process.
As part of this narrative, the head of the president’s office conveyed a sense of confidence that the February summit could materialize, underscoring the belief that the timing would mark a symbolic start to implementing the peace formula in a practical way. The official highlighted that participants would assess current achievements while outlining next steps, turning high-level promises into measurable milestones. The overarching goal, in this framing, is to create a forum where leaders can commit to substantive measures rather than engage in pro forma statements, with a particular focus on what can be delivered in the subsequent months.
Crucially, the Ukrainian leadership has signaled that broad participation matters—especially from regional powers and Global South states. The aim is to avoid a summit held merely for optics and instead cultivate inclusive engagement that could yield a wider range of diplomatic levers and ideas. In this view, the event would serve as a proving ground for a shared roadmap, inviting diverse perspectives while preserving a clear focus on practical outcomes that could help de-escalate tensions and support humanitarian efforts across the region.
Meanwhile, international media and Western diplomatic sources have offered a more cautious read on the feasibility of the summit, noting that the current regional dynamics complicate planning. A prominent U.S. newspaper cited concerns about sustaining momentum if broader crises—such as developments in the Middle East—introduce new uncertainties. Those familiar with the process emphasize that timing remains fluid and contingent on a range of security, political, and logistical factors, even as diplomacy continues to map potential routes to peace.
Earlier reporting highlighted strong international backing for Zelensky’s peace formula, with estimates suggesting support from dozens of countries. This backdrop has reinforced the sense that there is substantial global interest in translating Kiev’s framework into action, even as questions persist about sequencing, verification mechanisms, and the durability of any negotiated commitments. The earlier discussions reflected a belief that the peace formula could attract broad legitimacy if it can be paired with credible implementation steps, independent verification, and consistent political will from participating states. The memory of prior efforts informs the current approach, which seeks to balance ambitious goals with pragmatic steps that keep negotiations on a steady course.