Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni categorically rejected the possibility of Italy joining the so-called “coalition of the willing” — an initiative that provides for the deployment of European troops in Ukraine after a potential peace agreement with Russia.
This concept, initiated by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Keir Starmer, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, aims to strengthen the security and military presence on the territory of Ukraine, even after the ceasefire is reached. The authors believe that the peace agreement should not reduce support for Kyiv — on the contrary, it should ensure that Russia cannot use the pause in hostilities to regroup forces.
The USA/Europe dilemma is childish and frivolous
However, Maloney made it clear that Italy is not participating in this format. She emphasized that such initiatives should be implemented in close coordination with Washington, and not through the actions of individual European countries. In her opinion, effective promotion to the world is possible only under the conditions of the unity of the Western world — primarily NATO — and clear cooperation between the European Union and the United States. In an interview Financial Times Maloney rejected the idea of having to choose between the United States and Europe, calling such a dilemma “childish” and “superficial.” She emphasized the importance of overcoming tensions in transatlantic relations and noted that the reaction of some European leaders to the policies of US President Donald Trump was “too politicized”.
Speaking on the sidelines of the summit of Ukraine’s partners, Maloney also said that Italy will continue to provide support to Kyiv in the defense, humanitarian and financial spheres, but is not ready to participate in the deployment of troops on the territory of Ukraine even after several agreements to end the war.
With this position, Meloni is obviously trying to avoid the escalation of the conflict and continues to keep a cautious, pragmatic line in Italy’s foreign policy. Her statement also demonstrates that not all Western leaders are ready for radical steps related to a direct military presence in the conflict zone.
Maloney instead offered another approach. It proposes to provide Ukraine with security guarantees similar to those provided for in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, without the country’s formal accession to NATO. In her opinion, this will provide Ukraine with stable, long-term and effective security guarantees, which are more effective than sending European troops to monitor the ceasefire regime. Maloney also expressed the opinion that Russia is unlikely to invade Ukraine while Donald Trump is the president of the United States, but does not rule out such a threat after his term ends.
The reaction of other countries
French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer actively promote creation of European forces to ensure security in post-conflict Ukraine. They plan to send military representatives to Kyiv to develop specific plans aimed at protecting sensitive objects and deterring future Russian aggression.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz instead expresses caution regarding the deployment of international troops in Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of American security guarantees and the need for joint responsibility on the part of the United States and Europe for the security of Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government in its turn interested in obtaining more detailed information about Maloney’s proposal to extend NATO Article 5 to Ukraine without full membership in the Alliance. Kyiv seeks reliable security guarantees from its Western allies before possible peace talks with Russia. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine supports this initiative and is in contact with Italian partners to clarify the details of the proposal. The spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Heorhiy Tyhiy, noted that Ukraine welcomes this statement as part of the discussion on providing long-term guarantees of security and ensuring peace.
In addition, Deputy Prime Minister Olga Stefanishyna described Meloni’s idea as “very pragmatic”.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi also emphasized the importance of obtaining specific security guarantees from Western partners before possible peace talks with Russia. He noted, that some leaders support the idea of providing Ukraine with security guarantees by analogy with certain states, where in case of aggression, a separate circle of countries is involved by all available means.
In general, the Ukrainian side positively perceives Meloni’s initiative and seeks to obtain more detailed information for further discussion and implementation of possible mechanisms for ensuring Ukraine’s security.
Greece against the “Coalition of the Willing”
Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis recently confirmed, that Greece will not participate in efforts to arm or send troops to Ukraine. During discussions at international summits, he clearly stated that Greece is not among the countries ready to send troops to Ukraine as part of the “Coalition of the Willing”. Mitsotakis emphasized that the discussion of this issue is “somewhat divisive” and diverts attention from the main goal of the international community – to achieve a peaceful settlement through a ceasefire. He noted that Ukraine agreed to the proposal for a 30-day truce, but Russia has not yet accepted this proposal. Mitsotakis emphasized that now the main emphasis should be on putting pressure on Russia to stop its attacks on critical infrastructure of Ukraine and ensure the implementation of the ceasefire.
In response to proposals for international security guarantees for Ukraine, Mitsotakis said that the strongest security guarantee is the strengthening of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and not the involvement of other countries in military assistance. In his opinion, Greece should support Ukraine in its right to self-defense, but is not ready to provide military assistance or send its troops. This position of the Prime Minister reflects the pragmatism of Greece regarding participation in the war, where it prefers diplomatic and economic efforts, rather than active participation in military actions.
This strategy can be caused by several factors. First, Greece is trying to avoid aggravation of international tensions and disagreements within the EU, where individual countries may have different views on military support for Ukraine. Secondly, Greece seeks to preserve its own national interests, avoid escalation of hostilities and at the same time support Ukraine in its right to self-defense through non-violent methods. It also shows caution in foreign policy matters, when a balance needs to be maintained between the support of the international community and the minimization of risks to Greece’s national security.
Croatia is also against
In addition to Italy and Greece, Croatia also expressed serious concern about Macron and Starmer’s initiative to create a coalition of those willing for a possible military presence in Ukraine. On March 27, Croatian President Zoran Milanovych clearly stated his country’s unwillingness to participate in any form of involvement in the war in Ukraine. His position is based on legal and diplomatic arguments: according to Milanovich, the basic conditions for the formation of a peacekeeping mission are missing — there is neither a peace agreement nor consent from one of the parties to the conflict, which is Russia.
This statement became another signal of the presence of a deep chasm among European states in the matter of strategic response to the war in Ukraine. While Great Britain and France are increasingly pushing the idea of direct military support or presence, citing the need to deter Russian aggression and guarantee European security, other countries — such as Italy and Croatia — are showing caution and even resistance, focusing on the risks of escalation and the lack of a legitimate framework for such actions.
This indicates not only tactical differences, but also deeper ideological and political contradictions within the European Union itself and among its closest partners. Some see the conflict in Ukraine as a decisive moment for European unity and geopolitical initiative, while others see it as a dangerous zone where every step must be carefully weighed in order not to drag Europe into a large-scale war.
“Axis of caution”
The latest statements by Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Maloni, who refrained from supporting the initiative of France and Great Britain regarding a possible “coalition of the willing” for action in Ukraine, caused a wave of criticism and highlighted deeper political contradictions in Europe. Maloney’s stance indicates a pragmatic approach, but her refusal to engage in potential peacekeeping or military action, along with statements by Croatian President Milanovic, demonstrates the formation of an “axis of caution” among some European leaders.
In public discourse, particularly in Western European countries, Maloney is associated with the far-right wing of European politics, along with such figures as Viktor Orbán, Herbert Kickl and Alice Weidel. Critics accuse her of lacking real distance from her fascist roots, questioning her ability to act within the framework of European unity. As evidenced by the comments of users of social platforms, including Europeans from the Netherlands, Italy and other countries, far-right leaders are seen as a threat to the stability and strategic course of the EU. Maloney, despite her pro-Ukraine rhetoric, is considered an unreliable partner in European defense, and her potential rapprochement with the policies of Trump or Putin is worrisome.
In general, against the backdrop of a complex geopolitical situation, European left and centrist forces are calling for unity against the far-right, which, in their opinion, undermines European values from within. They demand the exclusion of any forms of cooperation with far-right parties, in particular at the level of coalitions.
Georgia Maloney’s proposal to provide Ukraine with security guarantees similar to Article 5 of NATO, but without formal membership, raises many questions regarding its implementation.
Is Maloney’s proposal realistic from a military point of view?
The main problem in the implementation of such a proposal is the lack of a real mechanism for the implementation of such guarantees. Article 5 of NATO means automatic military protection of a member state. If Ukraine does not become a member of NATO, any guarantees will remain purely political obligations, and not legally binding measures for implementation. As an example, the Budapest Memorandum, which did not work in 2014.
In order for the guarantees to be effective, it is necessary to have a clear agreement with specific military obligations of the guarantor countries; readiness of Western states to quickly respond with military action in the event of aggression; the permanent presence of foreign troops or the deployment of a nuclear deterrent.
To date, neither the US nor the key European players (except, perhaps, Great Britain) are ready to give such commitments.
Is it realistic from a political point of view? Maloney seeks to offer an “intermediate option” between NATO membership (which blocks the US) and the absence of security guarantees. The problem is that this compromise may not suit either Ukraine or Russia: Kyiv wants clear guarantees, not yet another promise without a mechanism for implementation. Moscow may perceive such an initiative as a continuation of Ukraine’s integration into NATO, which will only strengthen its aggression.
Maloney’s idea looks more like a diplomatic initiative than a real alternative to Ukraine’s membership in NATO. Without clear mechanisms and commitments, it risks becoming another “Budapest Memorandum 2.0”. If the West really agrees to such guarantees with a military component, it will actually mean Ukraine’s hidden membership in NATO without official status.
