Paris summit yields a framework for Ukraine’s security — but not the forces to back it
The Paris gathering of the Coalition of the Willing promised “concrete commitments to protect Ukraine.” What emerged was a sharper framework for security guarantees and a clearer alignment between Europe and the United States — without the hard numbers of troops or the operational blueprint that would turn ambition into deterrence.
- Advertisement -
The 35-nation coalition, convened by France and Britain last year to prepare for a post-ceasefire stabilization mission, issued a declaration setting out five pillars: support for a proposed U.S.-led ceasefire monitoring mechanism; immediate and long-term backing for Ukraine’s military; binding pledges to respond if Russia attacks again; and assistance to Ukraine’s defense industry. It codified goals long discussed, but did not specify who would send how many troops, or how they might be used in a multinational reassurance force on Ukrainian soil after a truce.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed “good steps forward,” even as key metrics went unspoken. Twenty-six coalition members have previously signaled readiness to contribute personnel to land, sea, or air components of a future mission, though few appear willing to deploy inside Ukraine. Ireland has said it could send peacekeepers as part of any United Nations-mandated operation.
In geopolitical terms, U.S. participation was the summit’s most consequential signal. The presence of special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — tasked by President Donald Trump with pressing Moscow toward a ceasefire — and the attendance of Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, the top U.S. commander in Europe, underscored Washington’s role in shaping the security architecture around Ukraine.
“The declaration and the summit basically demonstrated that the Europeans, but also in cooperation with the Americans, are getting closer to a really common line on Ukraine,” said Piotr Buras, head of the Warsaw office of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “But it doesn’t mean that whatever they have agreed upon will be put in practice, because all this depends on Russia’s willingness to sign up to a deal,” he told RTÉ News.
That caveat looms large. The coalition’s planning presupposes an agreed ceasefire. Moscow shows no sign of wanting one. This week, Russia warned that it would treat any NATO personnel in Ukraine as legitimate targets. On Friday, it fired an Oreshnik hypersonic missile at energy infrastructure in the Lviv region, about 70 kilometers from Poland’s border — an escalation more than a nod toward negotiation. The Kremlin said the strike answered an alleged late-December drone attack on President Vladimir Putin’s residence. Ukrainian officials dismissed the claim as false; U.S. officials have said they do not believe Russia’s account based on intelligence.
“Each time that Ukraine, the United States and Europe near an agreement on a preliminary plan, Russia does something to abort the whole process,” said Igor Gretskiy, a Russia foreign policy analyst at the International Centre for Defence and Security in Estonia. “They’re trying to raise the stakes again in order to destroy the outcome of diplomatic contacts between those three sides.”
Against that backdrop, the Paris declaration’s security guarantees attracted intense scrutiny. “U.S. security guarantees would be the strongest anyone has ever seen,” Witkoff said, promising protocols designed to “deter any attacks” and, if deterrence fails, “defend.” Zelensky said details are close to being finalized. Kushner, using more cautious language, emphasized mechanisms to address violations so “no one can carry out such an attack anymore.”
What remains unclear is the enforcement ladder. The new U.S. National Security Strategy says Washington has no interest in conflicts with other nuclear-armed powers. That signals deterrence and monitoring — notably through American satellite capabilities — rather than direct U.S. force-on-force commitments should Russia break a truce. “I’m not sure that the United States is committed or more committed to invest in security guarantees for Ukraine,” Gretskiy said. “The U.S. is trying to make Ukraine accept the so-called American deal, and then Washington could think of its commitment.” State Department and White House officials have framed the U.S. role as that of a neutral mediator, backing neither Ukraine nor Russia.
France and Britain, the coalition’s co-founders, used the summit to outline tangible steps: establishing military hubs in Ukraine if a ceasefire is reached and constructing protective facilities for Ukrainian equipment. Paris and London are also positioned to provide command-and-control capacity and training pipelines that would underpin any multinational monitoring mission.
The numbers, however, are daunting. Defense experts estimate a force of 50,000 to 100,000 troops would be required to monitor central Ukraine or parts of the east near the current front. Britain’s army has just over 70,000 full-time personnel, limiting what it could sustain in-theater. France — with more than 260,000 full-time personnel — could plausibly deploy a division of 10,000 to 20,000 troops. That still leaves a large shortfall if Germany, Poland and Italy continue to rule out deploying to Ukraine.
Berlin appeared to inch forward without crossing its red lines. Chancellor Friedrich Merz said German troops could deploy only to a neighboring NATO country in a support role, likely Poland, with any mission requiring Bundestag approval — a vote that could pass despite far-right AfD opposition. Poland reiterated that it will not send troops to Ukraine, offering instead to serve as the logistics backbone for arms and supplies, as it has since Russia’s full-scale invasion four years ago.
Elsewhere in Europe, Spain signaled it is open to contributing troops. Sweden and Denmark back the concept of peacekeepers but have small standing armies. Turkey has expressed interest in joining a multinational mission, and its involvement could prove more palatable to Moscow than that of certain NATO members — though Ankara’s posture would be scrutinized by both Kyiv and Western capitals for assurances of neutrality and reliability.
The coalition’s capacity question connects directly to its political challenge. If the United States commits “strategic enablers” — surveillance, intelligence, lift, and possibly air and missile defense — pressure rises on European armies to fill out ground formations, even if initial deployments are confined to demilitarized corridors and critical infrastructure sites under a UN or OSCE mandate. “A ceasefire in Ukraine would lead to real discussion on how exactly European countries will contribute to security guarantees,” Buras said, adding that American involvement would make it “very difficult for such important European countries, like Germany and Poland, to stick to their respective positions.”
For now, the Paris declaration clarifies the direction of travel rather than the destination. It puts legal language and political consensus behind a monitoring mechanism, a deterrence framework and long-term military and industrial support for Ukraine. It also exposes the gaps: how many troops from which countries, under what mandate, with what rules of engagement, and how far the United States and Europe are prepared to go if Russia tests the line.
Absent a ceasefire, those questions remain hypothetical — and Russia appears intent on keeping them that way. The coalition has moved closer to a common line and stronger guarantees. Converting those into credible, deployable security will depend on Moscow’s calculations, Washington’s ceiling, and Europe’s willingness to turn declaratory policy into manpower.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
