The year kicked off with an unprecedented summit in Paris dubbed the ‘Coalition of the Willing’, bringing together representatives from around 30 (mostly European) countries to discuss security guarantees and post-ceasefire arrangements for Ukraine. 

While allied coordination on Ukraine has been ongoing since 2022 through NATO, EU, and ad hoc formats, the Paris summit marked the first attempt to consolidate these efforts under a single political framework focused on post-ceasefire security guarantees, rather than wartime assistance. Interesting, too, was the presence of US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, a move interpreted as reinforcing security guarantee discussions reportedly held between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy a week prior.

So, what exactly is a ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ why was it formed at this particular moment, and what, if anything, has actually been concluded? 

A ‘Coalition of the Willing’ is best understood as an ad-hoc grouping of states prepared to coordinate Ukraine-related security commitments outside NATO or EU decision-making, where, as Sky News’ Michael Clarke explains it, unanimity requirements and political reluctance in some capitals can constrain action. Thus, such an approach allows like-minded NATO members to coordinate outside the NATO umbrella, avoiding vetoes from notoriously ‘unwilling’ states like Hungary and Slovakia. 

Leading the summit were the UK and France. On January 06, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron, alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, signed a declaration of intent outlining a framework for post-ceasefire security guarantees for Ukraine. 

Under this framework, both countries pledged readiness to establish “military hubs” across Ukraine after a ceasefire, designed to secure skies and seas and support Ukraine’s defensive needs, but, importantly, not along the line with the Russian-occupied territories. This is intended as part of a ‘multinational effort’ that could include other countries in the ‘peacekeeping format’. Macron has claimed France could contribute “several thousand” French troops as part of a broader multinational reassurance force, while Starmer, as willing as he appears, clarified that any deployment of British troops would require a vote in the UK Parliament before it could proceed. 

 

Beyond troop deployments, coalition participants preliminarily agreed on the outlines of “binding obligations” to assist Ukraine in the event of a renewed Russian military conflict. According to reporting from the Paris talks, these commitments are said to last at least 15 years and could include the use of military capabilities, intelligence sharing, logistical support, and additional sanctions against Russia (some of which are already in the making). 

Leaders also agreed in principle to establish a continuous ceasefire monitoring and verification system, to be led by the U.S. with international participation. Officials have said the mechanism would rely on drones, sensors, and satellite surveillance, rather than U.S. ground troops.

Other European countries signalled a more cautious stance. Germany suggested that while it could contribute to monitoring efforts, any German forces would likely be based in a neighbouring country. Chancellor Friedrich Merz insisted “We will certainly have to make compromises”, adding that “we will not achieve textbook diplomatic solutions”. 

Belgium indicated it could support the effort through naval and air force contributions. Spain also opened the door to joining a post-ceasefire mission, but stressed that any decision would require domestic consultations with parliamentary groups.

Evidently, several countries ruled out troop deployments altogether. Italy reiterated that it would not send troops on the ground, while Croatia and Czechia similarly declined to participate in any post-ceasefire force. Poland, despite having one of Europe’s strongest militaries, expressed reservations tied to its own security concerns along NATO’s eastern flank. Turkey, meanwhile, signalled interest in a maritime role, emphasising Black Sea security as a priority in the post-ceasefire architecture. 

As in previous discussions, Ukraine’s prospective EU membership has been mentioned as part of the broader security framework, though key territorial issues remain unresolved. Russia, for its part, has given no public indication that it would accept the arrangements under discussion and has reiterated its opposition to the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine.

Whether the “Coalition of the Willing” becomes a real deterrent or simply a placeholder for post-war uncertainty will depend on whether political declarations turn into enforceable security guarantees. While recent statements by Trump on Venezuela and Denmark have reinforced existing concerns among European leaders about the reliability of future U.S. security commitments to Ukraine.