The discussion around a potential European military deployment in Ukraine is gaining momentum, with French President Emmanuel Macron announcing a “Coalition of the Willing” that includes 26 countries.
According to reports from Sky News and LIGA.net, Greece and Turkey are among the nations reportedly prepared to contribute troops to a “credible guarantee force” for Ukraine.
Will Greece join?
This initiative, however, is explicitly linked to an agreed-upon ceasefire, a condition that currently has no realistic prospect of being met.
Greece has expressed strong support for Ukraine, but it is unclear whether it would commit to sending troops. The issue has also become part of the internal political debate as most opposition parties have criticized the government over the last few years for depleting Greece’s defense capabilities by sending military equipment to Ukraine.
Even steadfast supporters of the war-torn nation emphatically argue that Greece is a special case among European Union members, given its tense relationship with Turkey and the constant pressure it faces.
A high-risk peacekeeping mission
European political and military leaders are planning the details of this potential mission. While presented as a peacekeeping force to be deployed only after a cessation of hostilities, it would be designed to deter any future Russian aggression.
Macron has emphasized that the force would be ready to “react” in the event of an attack. This raises a critical strategic question: a military mission tasked with enforcing a fragile peace could easily be drawn into direct combat, transforming a peacekeeping role into a high-risk military operation.
The mission would require units with heavy weaponry, clear rules of engagement, and full readiness, likely involving tens of thousands of soldiers. Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, have already characterized the idea of sending European peacekeepers as “unacceptable” and a potential cause for serious escalation.
US support for the Coalition of the Willing in Ukraine?
A significant point of contention and ambiguity is the role of the United States. European leaders, including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, have stated that the mission has “US support.” However, the form of this support is unclear, particularly given President Donald Trump‘s stated reluctance to engage militarily.
Without substantial American military backing—including air cover, advanced air defense systems like PATRIOT, F-35 fighters, and critical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities—the strategic credibility and deterrent power of a European force would be severely limited. The lack of these assets, which are essential for air superiority and reliable logistics, would leave the European force highly vulnerable to a determined Russian military.
While Macron has suggested the US is “actively participating” in the security guarantees, Trump has explicitly stated that America “will not send a single marine to Ukraine.” This clear divergence highlights the strategic gap in the plan.
A statement of intent rather than a concrete plan
The “Guarantee Force” appears to be more of a strategic statement of intent than an immediately actionable military plan. The initiative faces two insurmountable obstacles: the absence of a ceasefire and the uncertain, limited nature of US military support.
Even if a ceasefire were achieved, the mission’s dual purpose—peacekeeping and military deterrence—would place it on a precarious footing, risking direct conflict with Russia. The European ambition for military autonomy is evident, but the reality of the war demonstrates that without robust US support, this remains a delicate and high-risk undertaking, highlighting a strategic imbalance rather than foreshadowing peace.
