Macron says 26 countries will underwrite post‑war security—from rebuilding Kyiv’s army to deployments on land, sea and in the air, or by providing bases—as Europe presses President Trump on the U.S. role

PARIS

France gathered European and allied leaders in Paris this week to turn a loose network of Ukraine backers into what President Emmanuel Macron called a ‘coalition of the willing’—a group prepared to guarantee Ukraine’s security the day the shooting stops. At the close of the summit, Macron said 26 countries had committed to contribute in concrete ways, from regenerating Ukraine’s armed forces to stationing a multinational reassurance force once a cease-fire or peace deal is signed.

The pledge marks the most ambitious attempt yet to answer a question that has dogged Western policy since Russia’s full‑scale invasion in 2022: how to ensure that any eventual end to hostilities does not become merely a pause before the next assault. According to participants, the envisioned force would not sit on the front but would be present in key areas and corridors—a post‑war deterrent designed to help make a settlement stick rather than to wage war against Russia.

Officials said contributions could take multiple forms. Some governments are preparing to deploy units that would operate on land, at sea or in the air, tasked with monitoring and protecting critical infrastructure, logistics hubs and demilitarized buffer zones. Others would provide air policing, naval patrols in the Black Sea region, or access to bases for staging and sustainment. Still others would concentrate on training, equipment and intelligence support.

Beyond boots and bases, a central pillar is what Paris described as the ‘regeneration’ of Ukraine’s military for the day after. That includes long‑term training pipelines, sustainment for Western systems already in Ukrainian service, and a surge in joint production so Kyiv can replenish ammunition and air defenses at scale. European capitals say this is about ensuring Ukraine can not only survive a renewed attack but dissuade one from happening at all.

The announcement capped a day of diplomacy that included a call with U.S. President Donald Trump. European leaders pressed Washington to put its weight behind the guarantees even if the U.S. does not contribute ground troops. According to French and Ukrainian readouts, the shape of the American role will be finalized in the coming days.

Trump, who has repeatedly vowed to end the war ‘quickly’ but has resisted deeper U.S. military commitments, used the moment to lean on Europe economically. On the eve of the summit and in the leaders’ call, he urged European states to choke off any remaining flows of Russian oil and to pressure Beijing over dual‑use exports to Russia—an approach the White House frames as the fastest way to drain the Kremlin’s war chest. For now, Trump’s team has emphasized sanctions coordination and tariffs while keeping options open for limited air or maritime support.

Paris and London have emerged as the political center of the initiative and are openly prepared to consider a deployment once a deal is in place. Other capitals—especially in central and northern Europe—signal readiness to contribute niche capabilities, from demining and air defense to logistics, while larger economies such as Germany and Italy prefer to anchor the project in training, equipment and financing. Officials acknowledged differences over timelines and risk tolerance but said the coalition’s breadth is itself a message to Moscow.

Key questions remain. The legal mandate could run through a U.N. Security Council resolution, the European Union, NATO frameworks, or a bespoke treaty among participating states—each with trade‑offs. Command and control will have to reconcile national caveats with unity of effort. Rules of engagement must be tight enough to minimize escalation risks yet flexible enough to be credible in the field. And then there is money: a durable mission will require multi‑year funding at a time when defence budgets are under pressure.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomed the outcome as the most concrete step to date toward a durable peace architecture. Kyiv’s view is that a clearly signposted multinational presence—paired with a reconstituted Ukrainian army—can make any cease‑fire enforceable and deter the kind of probing attacks Russia has used to unravel agreements in the past.

Moscow, for its part, denounced the Paris discussions as provocative and warned against any Western ‘occupation’ force, even though the proposed mission would deploy only after the guns fall silent and away from active front lines. The Kremlin has so far shown little sign of softening its demands for territorial concessions and limits on Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Domestic politics, on both sides of the Atlantic, will shape the next steps. In Europe, leaders must sell a mission that is neither traditional peacekeeping nor warfighting to voters wary of open‑ended commitments. In Washington, Trump faces a choice between underwriting a European‑led architecture that limits U.S. exposure and insisting Europe shoulder the burden alone—a stance that could weaken the coalition’s deterrent value if it leaves the American role ambiguous.

The Paris summit did not end the war, and its plan hinges on conditions that do not yet exist. But it did surface a rare convergence: a wide swath of capitals agreeing that the time to design a post‑war security order is before, not after, the shooting stops. If the ‘coalition of the willing’ can turn promises into planning—on mandates, money and manpower—it may give diplomacy the backbone it has lacked. If it cannot, any truce risks becoming just another prelude.