In recent months, French President Emmanuel Macron championed a new European security initiative dubbed the “Coalition of the Willing.” This coalition is an ad-hoc group of nations prepared to bolster military support for Ukraine and even contribute to a peacekeeping mission on Ukrainian soil if needed.

The concept, co-led by France and the United Kingdom, reflects Macron’s broader push for greater European military capability and autonomy. It emerged against the backdrop of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and concerns about the reliability of U.S. support, aiming to ensure Europe can “do the heavy lifting” in securing Ukraine’s future.

The sections below outline the coalition’s goals, membership, support to Ukraine (including potential troop deployment), its relationship to NATO, and reactions from Macron and other leaders.
 
Goals and Tasks of the Initiative

The primary goal of Macron’s “Coalition of the Willing” is to strengthen Europe’s role in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security and deter future Russian aggression. In the short term, this means ramping up military aid (for example, expediting deliveries of ammunition and missiles) to help Ukraine defend itself. 

In the longer term, the coalition is formulating plans to “protect peace” in Ukraine should a ceasefire or peace deal be reached. Macron has emphasized building a “sustainable and durable Ukrainian army model to prevent Russian invasions” and providing concrete European security guarantees to Kyiv. A core task is planning an international peacekeeping or “reassurance” force that would deploy once Ukraine and Russia agree to a peace; its mission is to monitor and enforce any truce and ensure it is lasting.

In Macron’s words, European armies would thus help “defend a sustainable and durable” peace by standing guard against any renewed Russian attacks. 
 
To this end, military strategists from coalition countries have been meeting to sketch out operational details. By March 2025, the initiative had moved into an “operational phase,” with European defense chiefs discussing force structure and rules of engagement for a potential Ukraine mission. 

One proposal is a multi-tier security arrangement: a line of international observers or peacekeepers separating the warring sides, backed by the Ukrainian army, then a layer of coalition forces, and an ultimate guarantee provided by allied air power. While the exact plans are still being fine-tuned, the overarching task is clear – to give teeth to any peace agreement by having willing nations ready to deploy and thus deter Russia from reneging.

If diplomacy fails and the war drags on, coalition members have also signaled readiness to increase military support and even tighten sanctions to ensure Russia pays a higher price. In sum, the coalition’s mandate spans helping Ukraine win the war and securing the peace thereafter, with Europe taking a lead role. 
 
Participating Countries and Their Positions

Macron’s coalition has drawn a broad mix of about 30 like-minded countries in Europe and beyond. These nations have pledged stronger support for Ukraine than the average and, crucially, indicated a willingness to be part of a post-war peacekeeping presence on Ukrainian territory. The table below summarizes key participants and their stated positions regarding the coalition and potential contributions:

Table: Key participants in Macron’s “Coalition of the Willing” and their positions on contributing to Ukraine’s security.

As the table indicates, the UK and France are spearheading the coalition’s efforts, leveraging their status as Europe’s two most powerful militaries and only nuclear-armed states. Several Northern and Eastern European countries – such as the Baltics, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway – have all signaled strong support for the initiative (many of their leaders attended coalition planning meetings). Ukraine is involved in these discussions; President Zelenskyy has been present at coalition summits, welcoming Europe’s “clear support” for a just peace that doesn’t compromise Ukraine’s sovereignty. Several non-European allies – notably Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – have also joined talks, reinforcing that support for Ukraine comes from the wider democratic world. On the other hand, a few European governments remain outside the coalition. Notably, Hungary and Slovakia have opposed or hesitated at deeper military involvement in Ukraine; their resistance to sanctioning Russia or to any NATO role in Ukraine is one reason the coalition was formed as a voluntary group outside of NATO/EU structures. Despite such divergences, roughly 30 nations are now cooperating under this framework, underscoring a broad consensus (beyond just NATO’s eastern flank) that Ukraine’s security is intertwined with Europe’s own.
 
Support for Ukraine and Potential Deployment of European Troops

A central role of the coalition is to bolster Ukraine’s defense in the here-and-now, while preparing to deploy European troops if needed once fighting stops. In practice, this has involved concrete support such as continued weapons transfers, training, and financial aid. Coalition members have pledged to “continue supplying Kyiv with weapons” for as long as it takes. For example, at the coalition’s London summit, the UK announced a £1.6 billion export finance deal enabling Ukraine to buy air defense missiles. European leaders agree that Ukraine must keep receiving arms to both resist current Russian offensives and, in the event of a peace deal, to ensure it can deter any future aggression. In Macron’s words, “we will do everything that we must so that Russia does not win”, indicating that no form of assistance – even the deployment of European forces – is off the table if it helps Ukraine prevail. 
 
The most high-profile (and sensitive) aspect of the coalition’s support is the idea of deploying European troops on Ukrainian soil as peacekeepers. This would mark a significant escalation of Europe’s direct involvement. Macron and Starmer have both indicated they are willing to put troops on the ground in Ukraine under the right circumstances. Planning for such a mission is underway: military officials from more than 30 coalition countries met in March 2025 to outline options for an international peacekeeping force that could be sent to Ukraine once a ceasefire is in place. The goal of any deployment would be to “deter Vladimir Putin from rearming and attacking again in the future” by having a credible multinational force present. Coalition leaders stress this would be a defensive, stabilization force – essentially a guarantee to Ukraine that the peace will hold. As the Sky News defense analyst Michael Clarke noted, by acting as a coalition (rather than under NATO’s banner), these nations can sidestep vetoes and objections that might otherwise prevent a unified deployment. 
 
Importantly, the envisioned troop deployment is limited and conditional. Macron has clarified that the Franco-British blueprint “doesn’t aim to deploy a ‘mass’ of soldiers in Ukraine”. Instead of a large occupation army, each participating country might contribute a few thousand troops stationed at strategic points. Their duties would likely include training Ukrainian forces, supporting local defense units, and monitoring compliance with the ceasefire. In essence, they would serve as a robust “tripwire” and mentoring presence, embedding with Ukrainians to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses long-term. For example, one proposal is to deploy these contingents around critical infrastructure or along a demilitarized ceasefire line as observers while leaving frontline security largely to Ukrainian troops. Such an approach would demonstrate enduring support for Kyiv without placing an overwhelming foreign force on Ukrainian territory. Reports suggest figures of 10,000–30,000 troops have been discussed for the entire coalition force – a size often termed a “reassurance force” – though final numbers would depend on how many nations commit troops and the situation on the ground. 
 
Crucially, any coalition deployment would occur only at Ukraine’s request and after a peace accord – it is not an active combat intervention against Russian forces, but rather a post-conflict stabilization measure. Macron underscored that Russia’s permission is not needed: “Ukraine is sovereign. If it asks for allied forces to be on its territory, it’s not up to Russia to accept or not”, he told French media. Thus, the coalition’s troops would be in Ukraine with Kyiv’s consent, under an international mandate or bilateral agreements, and ideally with broad international legitimacy. Some leaders, like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, insist on a United Nations framework for any troop deployment. Indeed, coalition planners have considered involving non-European “white helmet” peacekeepers under a UN flag in the first line of any ceasefire monitoring. However, given Russia’s veto power at the UN, the coalition is prepared to act on a voluntary basis if needed, rather than through a formal UN peacekeeping mission. This flexibility is by design – it allows willing NATO/EU members and partners to act collectively but outside of NATO’s command, avoiding internal roadblocks. As British officials noted, “not every nation will feel able to contribute, but that can’t mean we sit back… those willing will intensify planning now – with real urgency”. In sum, the coalition is readying a carefully calibrated military support force for Ukraine: one that continues to supply and train the Ukrainian army and can insert peacekeepers if a truce comes, thereby reinforcing any diplomatic outcome with hard security guarantees on the ground.
 
Relationship to NATO and Complementarity

Macron’s “Coalition of the Willing” is explicitly designed to complement NATO, not compete with it. The coalition is composed largely of NATO member states (along with a few close allies outside NATO), but it operates outside the formal NATO framework. The rationale is to allow swift action by those nations ready to do more for Ukraine without being held back by the requirement for consensus among all 31 NATO members. Within NATO, a single member like Hungary or Turkey could veto any alliance-wide decision to deploy forces or offer Ukraine certain security guarantees. Similarly, the European Union is constrained by unanimity – and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has consistently blocked EU unanimity on robust Ukraine measures, even suggesting the EU should negotiate directly with Russia instead. By forming a voluntary coalition, Macron and his partners have created a “club” of countries that can act in concert politically and militarily, but without a NATO/EU flag on the operation. This approach mirrors previous instances (e.g. the 2003 Iraq coalition) where willing allies joined forces outside established institutions to pursue a specific mission. In the Ukraine context, it means NATO countries can contribute troops as part of an independent mission – thereby avoiding a direct NATO vs. Russia confrontation while still leveraging NATO members’ capabilities. 
 
NATO’s leadership has been kept closely informed, and indeed supportive, of this initiative. The coalition’s planning meetings have included officials from NATO and the EU as observers. (Notably, former Dutch PM Mark Rutte, who is projected to become NATO Secretary-General, participated in the London Summit as a sign of NATO’s engagement. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (and his likely successor) have emphasized that any arrangement must strengthen Ukraine’s security without fragmenting Western unity. In practice, the coalition would act as a “European pillar” reinforcing NATO’s objectives. Macron himself frames it as Europe taking more responsibility within the alliance. His longstanding doctrine of “strategic autonomy”for Europe is meant to “enhance NATO, rather than weaken it”. By building up European capacity to act – such as peacekeeping troops deployable in Ukraine – the coalition arguably lessens the burden on the United States and NATO. This is in line with NATO’s own goals of higher European defense spending and capability. As one analysis notes, “coalitions of the willing” can be a powerful tool for improving Europeans’ capacity to act, bridging gaps when consensus is elusive. 
 
At the same time, the coalition members acknowledge that U.S. support remains vital. They do not intend to replace the U.S. role, but to ensure a safety net if U.S. policy shifts. Britain’s Starmer has said the coalition’s success would ultimately depend on “strong US backing” to be truly effective. Coalition plans have been shared with Washington, and the U.S. is being encouraged to endorse whatever security arrangements are forged (even if America itself does not contribute troops). This outreach is particularly important given that, as of 2024–25, U.S. politics have introduced uncertainty: President Biden’s administration strongly supports Ukraine, but former President Trump (who could return to office) has been ambivalent and even “spooked European and NATO allies” with his lukewarm stance. The coalition can thus be seen as a hedge by Europe – a way to insure against a waning U.S. role by formalizing European commitments. Should the U.S. reduce its involvement, the coalition would step up proportionally; if U.S. support continues robustly, the coalition still complements it by sharing the load. NATO as an institution remains the ultimate guarantor of European security, but for the specific case of Ukraine (which is not yet covered by NATO’s Article 5 defense clause), this coalition offers a tailored solution. In summary, Macron’s initiative operates within the spirit of NATO solidarity but outside NATO’s bureaucracy, enabling agile action. It bolsters the alliance’s eastern flank by marshaling those members most willing to deter Russia, and it reassures Ukraine without formally extending NATO’s umbrella. Far from undermining NATO, the coalition is filling in the gaps that NATO’s consensus rules and political constraints currently leave, thereby strengthening the overall Western position in the Ukraine crisis.
 
Macron’s Statements and Reactions from Partners

President Macron has been outspoken about the need for Europe to take the initiative in Ukraine. In late February 2024, he convened an impromptu conference in Paris with 20 European leaders to showcase European resolve. There, Macron pointedly remarked that many who say “never” to certain steps (like deploying troops) were the same who once said “never” to sending tanks or jets – implying that Europe must be open-minded and proactive. “Nothing should be excluded”, Macron told reporters on Feb 26, 2024, adding, “We will do everything that we must so that Russia does not win”. He also cautioned that Europe “should not depend on the United States to fight in Ukraine,” signaling his view that European allies must be ready to act on their own if necessary. This set the stage for the coalition idea. Over the ensuing months, Macron worked closely with British leaders (initially PM Rishi Sunak’s government and later Sir Keir Starmer, who took over in the UK by 2025 in this scenario) to develop a joint blueprint. By March 2025, Macron announced that “we will conclude our work… on the security guarantees that European armies can provide,” inviting President Zelenskyy and allied leaders to Paris to “fine-tune” the coalition’s plans. In a briefing to French newspapers, Macron detailed that the plan did “not aim to deploy a mass of soldiers” but rather would station allied troop units at “key points” in Ukraine to train and buttress Ukrainian forces. He explained this would serve as a “guarantee of security” for Ukraine and revealed that “several European nations, and also non-European, have expressed their willingness to join such an effort” when it materializes. Macron has consistently framed the coalition as part of a larger vision: Europe taking charge of its destiny. His public comments often stress urgency – e.g. saying the process “will be finalized in the coming days” – and unity, praising those allies ready to stand with Ukraine. Notably, Macron has also sought to reassure that this initiative is “totally peaceful”and defensive, countering any narrative that European troops would be intervening unilaterally or seeking conflict with Russia. 
 
European and NATO partners have had a range of reactions, mostly supportive but with varying levels of commitment. The United Kingdom has been the closest partner and cheerleader. Prime Minister Starmer (and even the previous UK leadership) embraced the coalition concept wholeheartedly. Starmer hosted the initial “securing our future” summit in London in early March 2025 to launch the effort, famously greeting Zelenskyy with a hug and declaring this was “not a moment for more talk… It’s time to act”. The UK explicitly offered substantial contributions – Starmer stated “the UK is prepared to back this with boots on the ground, and planes in the air”, making Britain’s commitment clear. British officials also acknowledged that not every ally would join but insisted that those willing must move forward regardless. This British stance has been praised by some as principled leadership for Europe. Other key Western European leaders like Dutch PM Mark Rutte (before moving to NATO) and Danish PM Mette Frederiksen, have signaled agreement with the coalition’s aims, attending planning meetings and likely contributing forces or support. 
 
Reactions in Eastern Europe have been mixed, mainly over the troop deployment issue. Countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland – who feel directly threatened by Russia – are strongly in favor and ready to contribute, as noted earlier. They see a peacekeeping mission as a natural extension of their robust support for Ukraine to date. Poland, while fully backing Ukraine politically, has been more cautious about sending its troops abroad. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated flatly, “We do not plan to send Polish soldiers to the territory of Ukraine,” reflecting concern about Poland’s security if its forces deployed next door. Instead, Poland offers to support the mission indirectly (logistics, political cover) and focuses on arming Ukraine and guarding NATO’s flank. This stance is understandable given Poland’s long border with Belarus/Ukraine and the risk that Poland could be a target if Russian aggression reignites. Romania and the Baltic states, in contrast, have smaller militaries but a strong interest in deterring Russia – they are expected to at least contribute some troops or engage actively in training Ukrainian forces, though specific statements from their leaders are less public. 
 
Among big Western European NATO members, Germany and Italy have been the more hesitant voices. Germany under Chancellor Scholz supported the idea of providing security guarantees to Ukraine (Scholz joined coalition calls), but he repeatedly ruled out sending Bundeswehr troops to Ukraine. Germany’s reluctance was partly due to its post-WWII doctrine of restraint and wariness of escalation. However, German politics were in flux – by early 2025, Scholz’s government was outgoing, and his likely successor signaled a tougher line on Russia (including willingness to send advanced weapons like Taurus missiles that Scholz had declined). Observers noted it “remains to be seen” if a new German leadership might reconsider the troop question. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni took a firm stance that Italy would not deploy troops except possibly in a UN-sanctioned operation. This reflects Italy’s domestic political constraints and Meloni’s need to balance support for Ukraine with her right-wing coalition partners’ skepticism. Still, Italy joined the coalition meetings and pledged to help craft other security guarantees (such as financial aid, training, or reconstruction assistance) for Ukraine. Spain has quietly aligned with the coalition, despite internal divisions in Spain’s government. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez indicated Spain “will take part” in a European mission, showing solidarity even if Spain’s role may be limited by its lower defense spending. 
 
Within NATO and the EU institutions, official reactions have been cautiously positive. NATO’s (future) Secretary-General applauded European allies for planning how to uphold a potential peace deal, reiterating that the alliance’s unity remains paramount even as a subset prepares to act. The presence of NATO and EU representatives in coalition summits suggests tacit approval that this effort complements a broader Western strategy. The EU’s foreign policy chief and many EU leaders (except Hungary) welcomed the initiative as a way to keep supporting Ukraine, as evidenced by EU Council statements vowing continued military aid in parallel with coalition plans. Hungary, however, has been openly critical. Orbán’s letter to EU officials argued that the EU should engage Russia directly rather than endorse a coalition that might antagonize Moscow. Hungary did not join the coalition and even blocked an EU joint declaration in Ukraine until other leaders bypassed him. This underscores why the coalition, for now, exists outside formal EU structures. Russia, for its part, has reacted negatively to the idea of Western troops in Ukraine. The Kremlin has said any NATO or EU peacekeepers would be unacceptable, though Russian officials hinted they might tolerate a neutral multinational force (hence their stated preference for UN “blue helmets”). In ceasefire talks, Russia demanded an end to Western military aid to Ukraine as a condition – a non-starter for coalition members, who have flatly rejected pausing support. 
 
Overall, Macron’s coalition initiative has been met with strong support from most of Europe’s pro-Ukraine camp, and cautious endorsement from NATO while exposing a divide with a few holdouts like Hungary. It has elevated Macron’s profile as a leading voice for European strategic responsibility alongside Britain’s newfound proactive stance. In the words of one expert, these moves by Europe were necessary because earlier peace efforts (like U.S.-brokered talks) excluded the Europeans; now, “Europe needed to step up… and it did.”Zelenskyy has expressed gratitude, leaving a coalition meeting noting he obtained “Europe’s clear support” for Ukraine’s peace terms. While some analysts warn that the coalition’s plans might be hard to implement or could provoke Moscow, the consensus among coalition members is that a credible European military commitment strengthens the chances of a just and lasting peace. As Macron and Starmer have conveyed, this is about sending a message of resolve: Europe will stand by Ukraine not only with words and weapons but, if necessary, with its troops on the ground to secure the future.

Olena Ruta