What is the coalition of the willing?
– What is the coalition of the willing?
At least 31 countries have signed up to help defend a peace deal in Ukraine, once one is struck, in an effort to ward off a future attack by Russia.
The UK is among those 'willing', with the Government prepared to put 'boots on the ground and planes in the air', Sir Keir said when he unveiled plans for the coalition at London's Lancaster House in March.
But it is not the first of its kind.
Former US president Bill Clinton suggested in 1994 that sanctions could be imposed by a 'so-called coalition of the willing', to quell North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and his successor George W Bush announced a similar alliance in the early-2000s to disarm the then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
– Who has signed up?
Leaders from the UK, France, Germany, Finland and Italy have all indicated their willingness to defend a peace deal in Ukraine.
They joined Donald Trump, who has not signed up to the coalition, and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in the White House this month.
A total 31 countries are in the coalition, according to the Government's National Security Strategy 2025. Beyond Europe, it has attracted support from the Canadian and Australian prime ministers Mark Carney and Anthony Albanese.
– Will British troops go to Ukraine?
After Sir Keir's commitment to put 'boots on the ground and planes in the air together with others' to militarily defend a peace deal, No 10 unveiled its support for a Multinational Force Ukraine, in an effort to help regenerate Ukraine's own armed forces.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (Jordan Pettitt/PA)
Military chiefs have previously met in Paris to agree a strategy for the force, and to coordinate plans with the EU, Nato, the US and more than 200 planners from 30 international partners.
And in Washington, European leaders discussed early-stage proposals for a security guarantee, similar to Nato's article five principle – that an attack one member is an attack on the entire bloc.
– What has the coalition achieved?
'The coalition of the willing has been successful in advocating for Ukraine and communicating with Trump and the US administration during its outreach to Russia,' says Edward Arnold from the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) think tank.
'Moreover, it has undertaken lengthy military planning and has established a leadership and command structure. However, much remains uncertain, especially the nature of any agreed ceasefire or whether a broader peace process is on the cards.'
But the US's commitment is 'far from certain', he told the PA news agency, and warned that 'European planners cannot progress the planning until the US position is agreed'.
– What is Nato's role?
Nato's Mark Rutte has attended meetings of the coalition of the willing, and Mr Trump appeared pleased with his efforts at their meeting when he described the secretary general as 'a great, great political leader'.
But Mr Arnold warned that an article five-style mutual defence deal could amount to 'de facto' membership of the bloc for Ukraine, something which Russian president Vladimir Putin 'is unlikely to agree to'.
He said: ''Nato article five-style' guarantees are being talked about but Nato is a unique alliance which is not able to be replicated for Ukraine.
'Moreover, if any coalition of the willing member signed a mutual defence clause with Ukraine, and then Ukraine was attacked further, that could conceivably draw that Nato member into direct conflict with Russia, thereby potentially triggering article five.'
Sir Keir has welcomed 'some sort of article five-style guarantees', which he said 'fits' with some of the coalition's work, and Mr Trump who met Mr Putin in an Alaska summit claimed Moscow will 'accept' multinational efforts to guarantee Ukraine's security.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Vladimir Putin 'reveals his three demands' that will stop Russia's invasion
Vladimir Putin has told his generals what he needs in return for bringing the Ukraine invasion that has killed hundreds of thousands to an end, according to sources. The Russian president is demanding that Volodymyr Zelensky give up the whole of the eastern Donbas region, renounce his ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country. Putin made the demands after meeting Donald Trump in Alaska, according to three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking. Meeting for the first Russia-US summit in more than four years the pair spent almost all of their three-hour closed meeting discussing what a compromise on Ukraine might look like, according to Kremlin sources. Russian sources claim Putin has essentially compromised on previous demands which required Kyiv to give up the entirety of the four provinces Moscow claims as part of Russia: Dontesk, Luhansk which make up the Donbass, plus Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Kyiv rejected those terms as tantamount to surrender. In his new proposal, the Russian president has stuck to his demand that Ukraine completely withdraw from the parts of the Donbas it still controls. In return, Moscow would halt the current front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, sources said. The sources cautioned that it was unclear to Moscow whether Ukraine would be prepared to cede the remains of the Donbas, and that if it did not then the war would simply continue. 'If we're talking about simply withdrawing from the east, we cannot do that', Zelensky told reporters on Thursday. 'It is a matter of our country's survival, involving the strongest defensive lines.' A fourth source said Putin understood the economic vulnerability of Russia and the scale of the effort needed to invade further into Ukraine. Trump has said he wants to end the 'bloodbath' of the war and be remembered as a 'peacemaker president'. He said on Monday he had begun arranging a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, to be followed by a trilateral summit with the US president. More Trending 'I believe Vladimir Putin wants to see it ended,' Trump said beside Zelenskiy in the Oval office. 'I feel confident we are going to get it solved.' Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday that Putin was prepared to meet Zelensky but that all issues had to be worked through first and there was a question about Zelensky's authority to sign a peace deal. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany have said they are sceptical that Putin wants to end the war. 'There are two choices: war or peace, and if there is no peace, then there is more war,' one of the Kremlin sources said. MORE: 'Trump's sanitising history for his own power – we've moved beyond an Orwellian world' MORE: Russian anti-war protester found dead in London after asylum claim was rejected MORE: Is this where Putin and Zelensky talks could be held?
Scottish Sun
an hour ago
- Scottish Sun
‘Well done to Starmer for making it difficult for girl of 12', blasts Lucy Connolly's husband after riot-tweet mum freed
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) RIOT-tweet mum Lucy Connolly was freed from jail to rejoin her husband and 12-year-old daughter — after more than a year as a victim of 'two-tier justice'. Husband Ray, a Tory on Northampton Town Council said she had coped 'relatively well' with jail, adding: 'The only person who hasn't is our daughter.' Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 6 Lucy Connolly with husband Ray, who says Starmer deserves a 'pat on the back' for 'making it so difficult for a girl of 12' Credit: SWNS 6 Lucy Connolly was caged for stirring up racial hatred after the Southport killings Credit: PA 6 Lucy left HMP Peterborough in a taxi at 10am Credit: picture Stone Ltd 'It will be good to have her home. We are thankful for the support. 'Our focus will be to try to sort out our lives and for my wife to reconnect with our daughter.' Lucy, 42, caged for stirring up racial hatred after the Southport killings, left HMP Peterborough in a taxi at 10am. Her punishment sparked a major debate, with PM Sir Keir Starmer accused of 'two-tier justice'. Thanked public for support Tory councillor Ray added sarcastically: 'Well done to Starmer for making it so difficult for a girl of 12. Let's all give him a pat on the back.' He said the family were delighted Lucy was coming home after more than a year and thanked the public for their support. Ex-childminder Lucy wore pink for her low-key departure from HMP Peterborough — crouching down in a white Skoda estate at 10am. She did not immediately return to the family's £400,000 semi in Northampton and is understood to be staying away from her home. In all she spent over a year behind bars — two months held on remand before she was sentenced at Birmingham crown court. She was freed at the automatic release point, after serving 40 per cent of her term in prison. Lucy Connolly is freed after jail term for racist tweet over Southport attack She will serve the remainder on licence under supervision. Reform deputy leader Richard Tice MP, who visited her in jail, told The Sun: 'I'm delighted that Lucy is finally out of prison. 'She should never have been inside in the first place. 'I understand she is doing OK and am sure it was a very emotional reunion for her. 'The family will now need some time and space to readjust and welcome Lucy home. 6 Lucy was arrested on August 6 and later pleased guilty to stirring up racial hatred 6 Her husband Ray, a Tory on Northampton Town Council, said she had coped 'relatively well' with jail Credit: PA 6 PM Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of 'two-tier justice' Credit: AFP 'We all need to keep the pressure on the Government and Keir Starmer as to why she was prosecuted in the first place. 'Given that, in 2013, while Director of Public Prosecutions he introduced guidelines that would have kept Lucy out of jail he is the biggest hypocrite in the country. 'This case just confirms that we have two-tier justice.' Lucy tweeted on July 29, 2024, hours after Axel Rudakubana killed Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice Da Silva Aguiar, nine, at a dance class. Lucy was charged with stirring up racial hatred — an offence that doesn't even require intent to incite violence. Toy leader Kemi Badenoch Her post called for 'mass deportation now' and urged followers on X to 'set fire' to migrant hotels. It was viewed 310,000 times in the three hours before she deleted it. Lucy was arrested on August 6 and later pleaded guilty to stirring up racial hatred. During her appeal against her sentence in May, the Court of Appeal heard the news of the Southport murders had sparked a resurgence of the anxiety caused by her son Harry's death at the age of 19 months, 14 years earlier. When Sir Keir was DPP in 2013, he introduced guidance saying prosecutors should consider being lenient to suspects who 'swiftly' deleted tweets or showed remorse. Speaking after Lucy's release, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said 'Her punishment was harsher than sentences handed down for bricks thrown at police or actual rioting. 'After Southport, Keir Starmer branded all protesters 'far-right' and called for fast-track prosecutions. "Days later, Lucy was charged with stirring up racial hatred — an offence that doesn't even require intent to incite violence. "Why exactly did the Attorney General think that was in the public interest? Meanwhile, former Labour councillor Ricky Jones called for protestors to have their throats slit. 'Law itself is broken' 'Charged with encouraging violent disorder, he pleaded not guilty and was acquitted by a jury who saw his words as a disgusting remark made in the heat of the moment, not a call to action. 'Juries are a cornerstone of justice, but we shouldn't have to rely on them to protect basic freedoms. 'Protecting people from words should not be given greater weight in law than public safety. 'If the law does this, then the law itself is broken and it's time Parliament looked again at the Public Order Act.' Sir Keir defended Lucy's sentence in May saying: 'I am strongly in favour of free speech. 'But I am equally against incitement to violence against others. I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' Lucy was one of around a dozen lags freed from 1,200-inmate all-female HMP Peterborough yesterday. She had been put on a 'basic regime' after refusing to return to her cell. It meant she had £5.50 a week to spend in the canteen. Mr Tice claimed she was bruised after being manhandled by guards. Yesterday ex-prison governor Ian Acheson suggested Lucy could sue, which would mean jail logs would be disclosable to her lawyers. He added: 'I've no idea whether this will happen, but features of her treatment alleged in media were so perverse it's a real possibility. Interesting times ahead.' LOCKED UP FOR ONE TWEET IS SCANDAL By Lord Toby Young, from The Free Speech Union I was glad to see Lucy Connolly finally walk free today, but the fact that she has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet -- quickly deleted and apologised for -- is a national scandal, particularly when Labour MPs, councillors and anti-racism campaigners who have said and done much worse have avoided jail. The same latitude they enjoyed should have been granted to Lucy. Sir Keir Starmer said in May that Lucy's sentence was justified because her tweet was 'incitement to violence against other people'. But was it? The test we employ when deciding whether to prosecute someone for supposedly inciting violence should be the same as it is in the United States, namely, was it intended to cause violence and was it likely to? I don't think Lucy's tweet met either limb of that test (and for speech not to be protected by the First Amendment in America it has to meet both). Had she urged her followers to burn down a particular asylum hotel, maybe it would have failed those tests. But she did not and she added the words 'for all I care', suggesting she was indifferent as to whether asylum hotels in general were burnt down and not inciting people to set fire to them. Had she pleaded not guilty, she might well have been acquitted by a jury, just as the ex-Royal Marine Jamie Michael was after being charged with the same offence. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, paid for Jamie's defence and we offered to pay for Lucy's. But unlike Ricky Jones, the Labour councillor who urged people to cut the throats of anti-immigration protestors, she was not granted bail and worried that if she pleaded not guilty she would have to spend longer in prison awaiting trial than if she pleaded guilty. As it turned out, she was wrong about that, but then she was not expecting to be sentenced to more than two-and-half years, which is longer than some members of grooming gangs have received after pleading guilty to child rape. What Lucy has suffered at the hands of the British state is a clear case of injustice. She has become Exhibit A for those of us raising the alarm about the assault on free speech in Starmer's Britain. And if it's any consolation to her, that alarm is now being heard across the world, from the White House to Quinta de Olivos in Argentina. Let's hope the people of Britain wake up to this attack on their right to freedom of expression before they lose it entirely. Lord Young is the founder and director of the Free Speech Union.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Lucy Connolly has suffered at hands of the British state – let's hope Brits wake up to this attack on their free speech
I WAS glad to see Lucy Connolly finally walk free today, but the fact that she has spent more than a year in prison for a single tweet -- quickly deleted and apologised for -- is a national scandal, particularly when Labour MPs, councillors and anti-racism campaigners who have said and done much worse have avoided jail. The same latitude they enjoyed should have been granted to Lucy. Sir Keir Starmer said in May that Lucy's sentence was justified because her tweet was 'incitement to violence against other people'. But was it? The test we employ when deciding whether to prosecute someone for supposedly inciting violence should be the same as it is in the United States, namely, was it intended to cause violence and was it likely to? I don't think Lucy's tweet met either limb of that test (and for speech not to be protected by the First Amendment in America it has to meet both). Had she urged her followers to burn down a particular asylum hotel, maybe it would have failed those tests. But she did not and she added the words 'for all I care', suggesting she was indifferent as to whether asylum hotels in general were burnt down and not inciting people to set fire to them. Had she pleaded not guilty, she might well have been acquitted by a jury, just as the ex-Royal Marine Jamie Michael was after being charged with the same offence. The Free Speech Union, the organisation I run, paid for Jamie's defence and we offered to pay for Lucy's. But unlike Ricky Jones, the Labour councillor who urged people to cut the throats of anti-immigration protestors, she was not granted bail and worried that if she pleaded not guilty she would have to spend longer in prison awaiting trial than if she pleaded guilty. As it turned out, she was wrong about that, but then she was not expecting to be sentenced to more than two-and-half years, which is longer than some members of grooming gangs have received after pleading guilty to child rape. What Lucy has suffered at the hands of the British state is a clear case of injustice. She has become Exhibit A for those of us raising the alarm about the assault on free speech in Starmer's Britain. Lucy Connolly is freed after jail term for racist tweet over Southport attack And if it's any consolation to her, that alarm is now being heard across the world, from the White House to Quinta de Olivos in Argentina. Let's hope the people of Britain wake up to this attack on their right to freedom of expression before they lose it entirely. Lord Young is the founder and director of the Free Speech Union. 3
