Andrey Popov

journalist19:21, 12.03.25

“And they went to the city of Paris. They wandered through dark forests. They walked across wide fields. They climbed high mountains. They gave concerts in the cities along the way (with great success). And so they got to Paris” – this is a fragment of a famous Soviet cartoon, where the dog Zhuzha and the cat Makha went to Paris to save the main character Vanka and punish the villainous traitor Ulyanka.

Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron acted in roughly the same way, assembling a “Coalition of the Willing” in support of Ukraine. They “came forward” with their proposal to European capitals, even visited Washington, and finally reached Paris, where the NATO military representatives summit took place.

For the first time, NATO military directly discussed the deployment of their armies to Ukrainian territory without the participation of the United States. Even if in the “peacekeeper” format, it is still a military coalition. This is a precedent and a transition to a new stage not only of the war with the Russian Federation, but of the entire system of international relations.

After all, the security summit was attended not only by representatives of “all of NATO” except the US, but also by countries of the Pacific AUKUS – there were representatives of Australia, Japan and New Zealand . In total, the summit accepted 34 delegations. That is, pro-Western countries from Canada to New Zealand are now oriented towards Europe, not the US. More precisely, towards Paris and London, until the Germans pull themselves together after the elections.

While Ukrainians watched the negotiations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, with bated breath, our fate was actually being decided in Paris.

It was not for nothing that this summit was hastily “mobilized” for the date of March 11 – simultaneously with the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. Without this background, the outcome of the negotiations would definitely have been different.

The Europeans showed that what the Ukrainian delegation brought is the position of all sane Europe, not just Kyiv. And that Trump will not be able to ignore this proposal, because even China insisted on the participation of Europeans in the negotiations. It was not for nothing that Trump said on March 10 that the Russian Federation now also has ” no cards “. Because the “Coalition of the Willing” has become the main “trump card” in the Ukrainian “deck”.

It is important that this was not a separate “action” of the Europeans near Jeddah. This is a systemic strategy – to “reflect” all of Trump’s activity on Ukraine and the Russian Federation. For example, the Europeans organized a “support group” for us last time, when there was a “dispute” in the Oval Office – in parallel, “consultations” were taking place between European countries. The summit on March 6 and previous meetings also demonstrated that Kyiv’s position is the position of all of Europe.

When it became known that the Russian and American delegations would begin negotiations at the end of this week, Keir Starmer immediately announced the next emergency “security consultations” for this Saturday. Probably with the same participants.

This approach works.

After all, on March 11 something happened that no one expected: Trump, in a rush, literally within minutes of the end of the negotiations, resumed military supplies and access to intelligence data to Ukraine.

Even without new requirements. And the “crown” did not fall. It turns out that this is also possible.

In Jeddah, a compromise was reached between the US and Europe as something in between what Trump wanted, what Macron and Starmer proposed, and what the Ukrainian delegation brought – a truce for the same 30 days as a “test of Putin’s intentions” (the Europeans insisted), but not only at sea and in the air, but everywhere (Trump wanted this). In fact, the US supported the “stage-by-stage truce” plan that we and Europe had been promoting.

A truce that is “turned on” on the condition that the Kremlin accepts it. Which is now coming and does not want any “pauses”. In fact, the meeting ended with us “shifting the blame” to the Russian Federation and getting American military support back.

Some additional conditions were almost certainly voiced behind closed doors. Otherwise, what could we talk about for 8 hours? And the representative of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Tikhiy, reported that the topics discussed in Jeddah could only be made public “in years”, because they are, that is, very resonant. But these are all guesses. In fact, we got everything we wanted, but did not sign any obligations. All promises are purely verbal – a pure “gentleman’s agreement”. A victory for diplomacy, as is.

In fact, Macron and Starmer immediately offered the Kremlin a “stretch” between two “inconvenient” options. Washington demanded an unconditional truce with concessions only from Ukraine, as the weaker party. Therefore, few doubted the effectiveness of the negotiations in Jeddah. But things did not turn out as expected.

The White House was forced to compromise with Europe, because the failure of the negotiations in Jeddah would have been a failure not only for Kyiv, but also for Washington itself, which would have “signed” its inability to influence global processes.

Trump was forced to recognize the common “cards” of Kyiv, Paris and London in order not to lose face. It was the “Coalition of the Willing” that made it possible for Trump – at least temporarily – to stop pressuring Kyiv and was forced to turn his attention to the Kremlin. The “ball” was “kicked” into the Kremlin’s goal, which will now look like the “scapegoat” for some time.

At least until White House Special Representative Witkoff visits Moscow, after which Trump will probably make some concessions to the Kremlin (at least demonstrative ones) in order to maintain the image of a “neutral arbitrator.” These could be concessions on sanctions, the Arctic, or something else that will not affect the global situation, but which will be “inflated” in the media as a victory for the Kremlin. Or he may begin to put pressure on Ukraine again regarding the elections, which is essential for Putin (because in order to hold elections, martial law must be lifted and all mobilized forces must be disbanded – then take Ukraine “with bare hands”).

Okay, the Paris summit helped us this time. But what next? Because it is obvious to everyone that Ukraine and the EU need time to regroup and rearm. Europe is literally becoming more powerful militarily every month, although we will see the main results of the transition to “war footing” only in a couple of years.

And the Kremlin, which relies on Soviet reserves and is now attacking, on the contrary, will lose strength over time. Especially if oil prices fall. Therefore, it is clear to everyone that Putin will not directly refuse a truce, so as not to irritate his American “friend”, but will set conditions that Ukraine and Europe will not be able to fulfill, and at the same time promise Vitkoff, who represents the American business that is most “greedy” for Russian money, minerals, access to Russian markets, and the like. That is, the Kremlin will look for a reason to somehow “set” Trump on us and the Europeans again.

Ukraine, France, Great Britain and other partners understand this well, and therefore the theme of the “Coalition of the Willing” should only intensify in the near future.

In support of this will be the theme of rearmament of the EU and the “Security College” (a pan-European analogue of the National Security and Defense Council – a significant step towards a “European NATO”), which is being promoted by Ursula von der Leyen and Brussels.

An important nuance has emerged regarding the topic of EU rearmament. Previously, it was held back by a dispute between France and other EU members over where weapons would be purchased: only within the EU or from other countries as well. Macron was categorically against ordering weapons “from outside”, primarily from the US. Scholz, on the contrary, advocated maintaining supplies from America. It seems that the Europeans have found a compromise in the form of a new category of countries – “like-minded partners”, from which weapons can also be purchased, although they are not in the EU.

This is primarily Great Britain, and also Turkey and, of course, Ukraine. However, let’s wait for official confirmation. But if there is a compromise, then this is a breakthrough. The main thing now is for us to allow arms exports outside Ukraine, which will help scale up our military-industrial complex and become part of the European security infrastructure (and it was not for nothing that they adopted a program for 800 billion euros).

Plus, there are bilateral gestures of support for Ukraine and general European security (this is now one general issue). And probably not only European. In Canada, for example, instead of Trudeau, who is rather soft in his statements, they chose the “Canadian Merz” – Mark Carney.

He is known as a tough manager since his time as chairman of the Bank of England (the first foreigner to hold this position). He has openly stated his priority in power – to prevent Trump from “achieving success”. Yes, finding new “friends” is Trump’s real talent. This is important for us, because Canada is also a member of the “Coalition of the Willing”.

The next summit of the “Coalition” will take place on March 15 – this time in London, but in a virtual format.

Its task is not only to exchange opinions and demonstrate its ability to unite without the US, but also to gradually move to specifics on the issue of security guarantees for Ukraine. We can be sure that it will not be the last.

From a practical point of view, this initiative is built around the theses announced by the defense ministers of France and the Netherlands at the last summit in Paris. This is the militarization of Ukraine (a “rearmament plan for 5-10 years” is being developed jointly with the EU) and the “integration” of our country into the pan-European defense infrastructure so that Kyiv is able to repel the Kremlin in cooperation with the Europeans in the event of Putin violating the ceasefire. Lecornu directly stated that Zelensky should “reject any agreement” that contradicts these theses.

The most resonant topic is, of course, the sending of Western peacekeepers “to monitor the ceasefire.” Moreover, the tone of the statements is such that the contingent will be created even without the consent of the Russian Federation, which makes these forces not “peacekeeping” (i.e. neutral), but rather guarantors of security for Ukraine.

Moreover, judging by leaks in the media (the summit was held behind closed doors), the focus is not on the ground operation, but on the aviation component.

This is exactly what Ukraine has been asking to do since 2022.

There are no specifics yet on the number of troops (10-30 thousand people are allowed), the presence of heavy weapons, powers (will there be permission to fire “response” to the Russians), location (in the demilitarized zone along the front or at critical facilities) and their international composition.

France, Great Britain, Lithuania, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Ireland and Australia have already publicly admitted their participation. And also Turkey and Switzerland, which are “neutral” towards the Russian Federation. Germany under Scholz is “not against”, but not “for” either (for the current chancellor, the lack of decisiveness is, unfortunately, typical), but under Merz the situation may change. Of course, these are only preliminary statements.

And this already strengthens the Ukrainian negotiating position and weakens the “cards” of the White House and the Kremlin, whose only hope was that “the West is tired of Ukraine”, and it will be easy to “pressure” our lonely country into making any concessions. “The coalition of the willing” even as a theory clearly shows that we are not alone and there is simply no point in pressuring us. We will have to negotiate. And this completely changes the “game” and adds “trump cards” to us.

Andrey Popov

(C)UNIAN 2025