The war in Ukraine: "France and the UK clearly stand out"

“We gather here today because this is a once-in-a-generation moment for the security of Europe,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said during a Ukraine summit in London on March 2, 2025.

Together with French President Emmanuel Macron, he gathered European leaders to discuss Ukraine’s security. The outcome was the declaration of a "coalition of the willing” to help safeguard Ukraine.

A coalition of the willing is a form of cooperation in which countries participate voluntarily in a military operation outside established frameworks such as the UN or NATO. Each country decides for itself whether and how it will contribute.

In September 2025, France announced that 26 countries had committed to providing military forces on land, at sea, or in the air following a ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine. 

This force was dubbed the Multinational Force Ukraine.

What would such a force do?

“A coalition of the willing has been the talk of the town, but there has been very little public information about what the force is meant to do, what countries are willing and able to contribute, or how realistic a deployment would be," says John Karlsrud, a senior researcher at NUPI.

Together with Yf Reykers from Maastricht University, he leads a research project that maps which countries in the coalition are willing and able to provide military support in and around Ukraine.

“We wanted to fill this knowledge gap. We brought together 16 experts from allied countries and asked what their governments are willing and able to contribute militarily in and around Ukraine,” he explains.

The project also includes contributions from the United States and Ukraine.

“The United States is not part of the coalition, but it's a crucial factor. Washington is expected to provide security guarantees and act as a backstop. And Ukraine is the most important actor of all. The key question is what kind of support actually meets Ukraine’s needs,” says Karlsrud.

Strong political will, limited military capacity

The main finding is clear, according to Karlsrud.

“There is strong political will, but much more limited military capacity,” he says.

In many European countries there is still broad political support for helping Ukraine, especially in the Nordic and Baltic countries. 

At the same time, decades of underinvestment have weakened European armed forces. For most countries, it therefore appears unrealistic to deploy large ground forces in Ukraine.

“France and the United Kingdom clearly stand out. They are, in practice, the only European countries that combine political will with the military capacity needed to deploy a significant number of troops on the ground,” says Karlsrud.

They need support now

Both the United States and Ukraine warn against devoting too much attention to what might happen after a potential ceasefire. 

They argue that Ukraine needs military and financial support now.

“There is a risk that a coalition of the willing draws focus away from the most urgent priority: supporting Ukraine now,” Karlsrud says.

From Kyiv’s point of view, the most urgent needs are air defence systems, ammunition, technological assistance, and funding – not foreign soldiers on Ukrainian soil. 

As a result, Ukraine sees financial aid and non-combat support behind the front lines as the coalition's most realistic contributions.

A political forum in a time of crisis

Even so, Karlsrud believes such a coalition is of great value today.

“They provide a political arena where states can talk and find solutions when established institutions are paralysed by internal disagreements,” he says.

According to Karlsrud, such coalitions could in principle also become relevant in other security contexts, for example in the High North and around Greenland.

From peace agreement to ceasefire

All plans for a multinational force rest on one crucial assumption: that the fighting in Ukraine stops.

“Previously, the discussion centred on a peace agreement. Now the language has shifted,” says Karlsrud.

In recent statements, coalition members increasingly refer to the need for a “credible cessation of hostilities.”

In January, the Norwegian government also signalled that Norway could contribute troops to a security force in Ukraine following a credible ceasefire.

What qualifies as 'credible,' who determines that, and how long it must last before troops could be deployed are political questions without clear answers.

This uncertainty makes planning difficult and contributes to many countries attaching significant caveats to their commitments.

“It may sound technical, but the difference is substantial. A ceasefire might be achievable. A peace agreement can take a long time, and may never materialise. The devil is in the details,” says Karlsrud.

This makes both planning and expectations for a future multinational force uncertain.

Read more about the research project on NUPI's site.

This content is paid for and presented by NUPI

This content is created by NUPI's communication staff, who use this platform to communicate science and share results from research with the public. The Noprwegian Institute of International Affairs is one of more than 80 owners of ScienceNorway.no. Read more here.

More content from NUPI:

• 

  How Iran’s regime exploits emotions to crush protests

• 

  Improving the impact of the UN Peacebuilding Commission

• 

  Controversial calories: How do we measure hunger?

• 

  How Norway and the EU can collaborate in the minerals and battery sector

• 

  Nigerian authorities plan to close refugee camps housing a million people

• 

  How Central Asia can help the global energy transition