THE COALITION OF THE WILLING AND A GUARDED PEACE: THE WEST BETWEEN DETERRENCE AND DISENGAGEMENT, Cristina Di Silvio

Ukraine, European Security and a New Western Balance

Abstract: The Paris summit seeks to give shape to the “after” of the war in Ukraine: security guarantees, a European force, and a U.S. supervisory role. However, the absence of dialogue with Moscow, American ambiguities, and European political fragilities make peace an still unstable construction, based more on deterrence than on reconciliation.

Keywords: #Ukraine #WarInUkraine #CoalitionOfTheWilling #Paris #Macron #Zelensky #EuropeanSecurity #Deterrence #GuardedPeace #TheWest #EuropeanUnion #UnitedStates #NATO #MultinationalForce #Geopolitics #MilitaryStrategy #Ceasefire #SecurityGuarantees #Russia #Kremlin #GlobalBalances #CristinaDiSilvio #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasJournal #ScientificJournal #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli

versione italiana

version française

Paris – Not a peace conference, but an exercise in strategic architecture. The summit of the so-called Coalition of the Willing, convened in Paris by President Emmanuel Macron, stems from the awareness that the war in Ukraine cannot simply be “frozen” without generating new instabilities. While the conflict continues on the ground, the West is attempting to envision a post-war order that does not rely solely on statements of principle, but is instead grounded in concrete mechanisms of security and deterrence.

A high-density political summit

More than thirty-five countries are seated at the table, with high-level participation underscoring the political significance of the moment. Among those present are Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The United States is represented by its envoys, confirming a role that remains central yet increasingly selective, consistent with a global strategy aimed at reducing direct engagement on the European theater.

The post-war security dilemma

The political core of the summit lies in the draft declaration circulated on the eve of the meeting. Compared with the past, the document more clearly articulates the security model envisioned for Ukraine. In the event of an agreement, the United States would take the lead in a system to monitor and verify a ceasefire, with operational contributions from European countries. Macron confirmed this openly, referring to “control mechanisms under American leadership,” the result of months of coordinated work.

Alongside this, the draft introduces a politically sensitive element: U.S. support for a European-led multinational force, to be deployed in Ukraine after a potential ceasefire. This would not be a NATO mission in the formal sense, but a structured presence with a clear deterrent function, ready to act should Moscow resume its offensive.

The European role and the American umbrella

France and the United Kingdom are positioning themselves for a leading role, while the American contribution would remain focused on strategic coordination, intelligence, and response capabilities. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stressed the need for joint transatlantic action, emphasizing that the United States and Europe must continue to act as allies to ensure Kyiv’s security. His message reflects the delicate balance of the moment: greater European responsibility, but without abandoning the American security umbrella.

Kyiv’s red line

For Ukraine, this framework represents a red line. Zelensky continues to stress that a peace without binding guarantees would amount to nothing more than a tactical truce, paving the way for a future Russian offensive. The Ukrainian president has stated that he has documents ready for security agreements with Washington, while making clear that the decisive issue remains territorial. A peace that leaves fundamental questions unresolved, according to Kyiv, would merely postpone the conflict.

The American position

On the U.S. side, Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, reiterated the desire to achieve a “definitive” peace, highlighting progress on security protocols and a bilateral framework of guarantees. Yet these statements coexist with a more complex reality: the United States appears increasingly reluctant to remain the primary “producer” of European security, preferring instead a role of oversight and support.

War on the ground and the Russian wall

On the military front, meanwhile, the war continues to contradict diplomatic ambitions. On the eve of the summit, new Russian drone attacks struck several areas of Ukraine, including civilian infrastructure. Moscow remains firmly opposed to any Western military presence on Ukrainian territory, which it views as a direct threat to its own security. The Kremlin’s conditions—recognition of territorial gains and the strategic neutralization of Kyiv—remain incompatible with the Western vision.

Fragilities within the Euro-Atlantic front

Fragilities are also emerging within the Euro-Atlantic camp itself. Governments and leaders must contend with divided parliaments and public opinions increasingly weary of a long and costly war. The summit of the Willing also serves to gauge how far Europe is prepared to assume a more autonomous strategic role, while still remaining anchored to the United States.

Macron announced the creation of a multinational force capable of operating in the air, at sea, and on land, away from the front line, with a “reassurance” function that could be activated immediately after a truce. He also stressed that security guarantees for Ukraine are inseparable from European security, announcing the establishment of a permanent coordination cell between European and U.S. armed forces. Spain, through Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, also signaled openness to contributing troops to a future peacekeeping and reconstruction mission.

A guarded peace

The final message emerging from Paris is unequivocal: if peace comes, it will not be spontaneous or neutral. It will be a guarded, guaranteed, and armed peace, founded on unstable balances and permanent deterrence. The summit marks an important political turning point because it makes explicit what had previously remained implicit: the West no longer believes in a “natural” peace, but only in a peace that is constructed and controlled.

The decisive question remains open: whether this awareness will finally translate into swift and coherent choices, or whether it will remain yet another theoretical framework, incapable of altering a paradigm that, so far, has proven insufficient.