International Spotlight: Europe’s “Needless” Coalition

In the past week, the term coalition of the willing has become a topic of discussion regarding foreign security issues, especially in Europe. Britain and France are the pioneers of the coalition. Their goal is to show the world that Europe can defend itself and is willing to step in to help Ukraine.

Basically, coalition of the willing is translated into Indonesian as an alliance of people or groups with the same views. This term first appeared in the opinion column of the New York Times July 21, 1971 edition by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) international relations expert Lincoln P Bloomfield. He argued that the world needed an alliance of like-minded countries to support various peacekeeping efforts mandated by the United Nations (UN).

This term later gained prominence in 2003 when the United States (US) announced that it was forming the coalition to invade Iraq. The US argued that diplomacy had failed to persuade Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to disarm and step down. Additionally, there was a narrative that Saddam Hussein was developing biological weapons. Dialogue would not succeed, thus Saddam Hussein had to be removed by any means necessary.

This coalition led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Members of this alliance included countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and smaller nations like Mongolia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. Not all countries sent troops and weaponry; many provided assistance in the form of funds and logistics.

However, investigations by various mainstream media outlets in the U.S. have found that not all members of this coalition joined voluntarily. In fact, many countries, especially smaller nations, were pressured by President George W. Bush's administration to join the coalition.

The progressive media Salon published news on March 12, 2003 that the US threatened to stop development aid, impose economic sanctions, or limit bilateral trade if the countries refused. As a result, the term was distorted into coalition of the unwilling, aka an alliance of forced people.

This time, the coalition of the willing was formed because of Europe's tight situation. It all started when US President Donald Trump said he no longer wanted to help Europe's defense, including through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Trump argued that NATO had already given the US enough pressure, while some of its member countries did not pay their dues according to the provisions, namely 2 percent of their respective gross domestic products (GDP).

This was further exacerbated by Trump's dispute with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Indeed, Zelenskyy later sent a letter of apology to Trump, which was warmly received. However, the United States had already hastily halted the supply of weapons and intelligence to Ukraine.

Responding to the situation, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer held an emergency meeting with European countries. The core of the meeting was that Europe must prepare for the worst. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, Europe must increase their defense budgets and build their combat capabilities.

Starmer then brought up the matter of an alliance. The aim was to open the possibility for Europe to deploy peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. This was intended to deter Russia from attacking Ukraine. From the U.S. side, they were unwilling to get involved in sending peacekeeping forces. For Trump, if the U.S. could mine rare earth metals in Ukraine, the presence of U.S. companies there would be sufficient to make Russia reconsider.

Quoting the daily Telegraph on March 7, 2025, Starmer said there were 20 countries that expressed their willingness to join the coalition. All European countries, except Hungary whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Outside Europe, Canada and Turkey expressed their willingness, as long as there is a clear mandate.

"I would like to believe that the US is always willing to help us, but that hope is hard to maintain these days. Europe must act," French President Emmanuel Macron said.

In addition to the idea of placing European peacekeepers and friends in Ukraine, there was also discussion about increasing the defense budget of each NATO member. Britain planned to increase their budget to 2.5 percent of GDP, but that turned out to be not enough.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said the budget increase should be at least 3 percent of each country's GDP. European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen announced the EU would spend 800 billion euros to boost the bloc's defense.

According to NATO studies, Russia continues to increase its military capabilities. By 2030, Europe is worried that Russia will have enough power to attack them. Therefore, Macron proposed that Europe use nuclear weapons to deter Russia.

In addition to France, NATO member countries that have nuclear warheads are the UK and the US. In terms of numbers, the US has the most. Based on data from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Stockholm Peace Studies Institute (SIPRI), the US has 5,044 warheads. A total of 1,770 of their warheads are spread across Europe at 31 permanent NATO bases.

France has 290 nuclear warheads and the UK has 225. Meanwhile, Russia has 5,580 nuclear warheads. There are 1,710 Russian warheads deployed, one of which is in Belarus.

Russia responded angrily to Macron's statement. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov even accused Macron of wanting to emulate Napoleon Bonaparte who tried to invade Russia in 1812. The invasion attempt ended in failure. According to Lavrov, if Europe sees Russia as a threat and arms itself, it is they who are the threat to Russia.

The formation of the alliance by Britain and France was born out of a complicated situation. Under international law, only the UN can send peacekeeping troops. The process is through a mandate from the UN Security Council. That is why the US coalition's attack on Iraq in 2003 drew global condemnation for overstepping UN authority.

However, it is unlikely that the UNSC can mandate the sending of peacekeepers to Ukraine. This is because Russia is a permanent member of the UNSC. They would certainly veto any resolution proposing sending troops to Ukraine.

The second problem is if the peacekeeping force is mandated by NATO. The defense pact's rules state that any NATO action must be approved by all members. If the US says it does not want to be involved in the coalition of the willing, its formation plan is practically doomed.

So far, it is not known how Starmer, Macron and the European countries will woo Trump. The hope is that even if the US does not want to engage with the force, Trump will not block its formation and deployment.

Trump himself has the view that only he can resolve the Ukraine War. In a tweet on the Truth Social platform, Trump said he was considering imposing major economic sanctions on Russia. Russia recently attacked Ukraine's power infrastructure.

"Russia is really beating Ukraine up. I'm thinking sanctions and tariffs," he tweeted.

Trump said that Russia and Ukraine should come to the negotiating table as soon as possible. If not, he will impose various economic penalties. However, Trump admitted that it was easier for him to have a dialogue with Putin than with Zelenskyy.

The second issue is the effectiveness of the creation of European coalition forces and their deployment in Ukraine. Russia has said since before invading Ukraine on February 24, 2022, that it does not want NATO bases in countries that directly border them.

If Europe sends peacekeepers to Ukraine, Russia could accuse NATO of direct interference. The war will not end. Is there a big enough willingness from the coalition of the willing?