European Defense "Awakening"? Ukraine and the "Coalition of the Will" Reshape the Continent's Security Landscape
20/01/2026
The winter wind in Copenhagen seems more biting than in previous years. At the beginning of 2025, a storm triggered by controversial remarks from former U.S. President Donald Trump about Russia threatening Greenland is sweeping across both sides of the Atlantic. This is not an isolated diplomatic friction but a sharp thorn that has pierced the last trace of warmth in transatlantic relations. It has forced European politicians to gather in Brussels for an unscheduled emergency meeting of the European Council. At the core of the agenda is no longer coordination within the traditional NATO framework but a more fundamental, even somewhat taboo question: If the United States is no longer a reliable cornerstone, how should Europe protect itself? A vision for a new European defense alliance that includes Ukraine is gradually emerging from the closed-door discussions of diplomats.
The Rift in Transatlantic Trust: From the Greenland Dispute to Strategic Autonomy
The Greenland incident serves as a prism, reflecting Europe's deepening skepticism toward America's security commitments. Trump's remarks—suggesting the U.S. might take action regarding Denmark's autonomous territory of Greenland—though dismissed by many as political posturing, conveyed a chillingly clear message: under the banner of "America First," even the closest allies may find their sovereignty and interests weighed on the scales of transaction. For Europe, this is far from a mere war of words; it touches the most sensitive nerve of the post-war European security architecture: Is America's protective umbrella still unbreakable?
In fact, cracks have long existed. From the Trump era's criticism of NATO as outdated, to the unilateral decision-making during the Biden administration regarding the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and further to the high unpredictability of foreign policy caused by domestic political polarization in the United States, Europe's strategic anxiety has been growing day by day. An anonymous senior European diplomat admitted to the media: Europe has been criticized for appearing weak in front of Trump. There is some truth to this, but we have also drawn red lines. These red lines are now shifting from vague principles into concrete action plans.
This sense of distrust has given rise to a new pragmatism within Europe. An increasing number of senior officials are beginning to acknowledge, publicly or privately, that the United States is losing its status as a reliable trade partner and security ally. This shift in perception does not stem from temporary sentiment but is based on a cold assessment of geopolitical realities. As Washington's decision-making cycles are held hostage by domestic political struggles, and as its commitments to European security come with an ever-growing list of conditions, European nations are forced to confront a once-unimaginable prospect: a future without deep American involvement.
"Coalition of the Willing": From the Ukraine Aid Network to the Embryo of a New Alliance
It is against this backdrop that a mechanism known as the Coalition of the Willing has moved from behind the scenes to the forefront. This informal group, established in March 2025, was initially created to coordinate military aid to Ukraine more efficiently, bypassing the sometimes lengthy decision-making processes within NATO and the European Union. It brings together 35 countries, including core EU member states such as France, Germany, and Poland, as well as non-EU countries like the United Kingdom and Norway. Its operational model is flexible and efficient: national security advisors from each country maintain regular contact, frequently holding online and face-to-face meetings, thereby building a high level of trust.
The potential of this coordination mechanism, originally focused on Ukrainian affairs, is being reassessed. Analysis indicates that it already possesses the blueprint to become a more formal and broader security alliance. The core of this concept lies in the fact that it is not aimed at completely replacing NATO, but rather at constructing a Plan B with European nations as the main body, without presupposing inevitable U.S. participation. The new agreement does not exclude cooperation with Washington but also no longer takes it for granted as the cornerstone. This marks a fundamental shift in European security thinking—from dependence to autonomy, from free-riding to driving oneself.
Ukraine occupies a unique and crucial position within this concept. It is already an active participant in the coalition of the willing, and more importantly, after nearly three years of full-scale war, Ukraine possesses one of the largest and most combat-experienced armies on the European continent. Although its equipment still requires replenishment, its human resources and combat will are irreplaceable strategic assets. If Ukraine's military potential is combined with the industrial and technological strength of France and Germany, the global intelligence and special operations capabilities of the United Kingdom, and the determination and forward deployment of Eastern flank countries like Poland, the armed forces embodied in this coalition of the willing would be astonishing. It would simultaneously include nuclear states (France, the United Kingdom) and non-nuclear states, forming a complex that covers both conventional and strategic deterrence.
Geopolitical Chessboard: Opportunities and Deep-Seated Challenges of New Alliances
The vision is grand, but the path to reality is fraught with thorns. A European defense alliance that integrates Ukraine at its core would fundamentally reshape the geopolitical landscape at the western end of the Eurasian continent, with impacts extending far beyond the military sphere.
First of all, this directly touches upon the fundamental issue of NATO's existence. NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause is its cornerstone, but what would it mean to include Ukraine—which is still in a state of war and has territorial disputes with Russia—into a similar new alliance? Would it provide ambiguous security guarantees or clear defensive commitments? Any form of commitment could be seen as a direct escalation against Russia and would place the entire alliance on the brink of direct confrontation with Moscow. Is Europe prepared to bear this level of strategic risk and responsibility? Observations indicate significant divisions within the alliance over this matter, and major powers such as Germany and France are inevitably approaching it with extreme caution.
Secondly, the internal integration of the alliance will be exceptionally complex. Member states include both EU and non-EU countries (such as the UK), which means it cannot directly leverage the existing mechanisms and legal frameworks of the European Union. Decision-making mechanisms, defense spending allocation, command structures, and weapon system standardization—all these challenges that NATO has spent decades addressing (and is still refining)—will once again be placed on the table. Furthermore, within Europe, there already exist divisions between "old Europe" and "new Europe," as well as between Atlanticism and Europeanism. A new alliance that excludes the United States may exacerbate rather than bridge these divides.
Furthermore, Russia's response will be decisive. Moscow is bound to view this as a variant or even an escalation of NATO's eastward expansion, representing the final step by the West to completely corner it. This could trigger more radical countermeasures from Russia, including deploying additional strategic weapons in its exclave of Kaliningrad, further strengthening military integration with Belarus, or even undertaking unpredictable provocative actions. Before bringing stability, the new security architecture is likely to undergo a highly unstable and dangerous period.
Finally, the economic and industrial foundation is a hard constraint. Although Europe's defense industry is advanced, it has long relied on the United States for technology chains, supply chains, and market scale (such as the F-35 fighter jet). Establishing a complete national defense industrial system independent of the United States requires astronomical investments and a lengthy integration period. Ukraine's accession brings enormous equipment demands (conversion from Soviet to NATO standards) and the burden of post-war reconstruction, which is both an opportunity to drive Europe's military industry and a heavy financial burden.
The Contours of the Future: Multiple Possibilities and Strategic Ambiguity
In the foreseeable future, the European Defense Union is more likely to evolve in a gradual, multi-track parallel manner, rather than through a sudden institutional revolution.
The most likely path is the functional deepening of a coalition of the willing. It may initially evolve from the current military aid coordination platform into a permanent framework encompassing joint training, deep intelligence sharing, military planning coordination, and even the establishment of small-scale joint forces. Ukraine could participate as a special partner or associate member, gaining long-term security commitments and support for defense modernization, without necessarily triggering comprehensive collective defense clauses immediately. This semi-alliance status offers flexibility, enhancing Ukraine's security while preserving strategic room for Europe.
Another possibility is to establish a dual-track system with NATO. NATO would continue to function as a formal transatlantic collective defense organization, including the United States, while the European pillar would be substantially strengthened either within NATO or parallel to it. European countries could form a closer European Rapid Reaction Force within the NATO framework and gradually institutionalize the collaborative mechanisms of coalitions of the willing. Ukraine could connect with this European pillar through an upgraded NATO-Ukraine Council. This model would minimize disruption to the existing system but might not fully meet Europe’s ultimate goal of pursuing strategic autonomy.
Regardless of the path taken, Europe faces a core choice: should it pursue a fortress Europe that permanently excludes Russia, or should it leave room for coexistence with Moscow in the future European security order, even if that future is distant? Bringing Ukraine into the alliance almost certainly means choosing the former. This requires Europe to possess the corresponding strategic will, resource commitment, and internal unity.
The chill wind from Greenland may have awakened Europe from a long dream. The era of complete reliance on the United States for security is fading irreversibly. The idea of creating a new defense alliance that includes Ukraine is less a mature plan and more a mirror, reflecting Europe's strategic hesitation and awakening in a turbulent world. It reveals the deepest anxieties of the European elite regarding transatlantic relations and showcases their initial attempts to take control of their own destiny. This path is destined to be long and arduous, with internal divisions, external pressures, and historical burdens following closely behind. However, the discussion itself has already changed the rules of the game. Europe is no longer merely asking, "Will America protect us?" but is beginning to seriously consider, "How do we protect ourselves?" and "With whom do we stand?" The answer to this question will not only determine the fate of Ukraine but will also redefine Europe's identity and boundaries in the 21st century.
Reference materials
https://aif.ru/politics/politico-es-rassmatrivaet-variant-sozdaniya-alyansa-bez-ssha