After the Summit: A Pact of Promise — and a Dark Reminder
On a damp late-afternoon in Paris, beneath the ornate frescoes of the Élysée Palace, leaders left the room carrying a mix of resolve and unease.
French President Emmanuel Macron stood beside Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky and announced a startling, almost cinematic commitment: 26 countries had agreed to be ready to deploy forces to Ukrainian soil — on land, at sea or in the air — as part of security guarantees should a peace deal with Russia ever be reached.
It was a statement intended to reassure; a public promise to bind flesh and steel to paper. But for many who heard it — diplomats, soldiers, aid workers, ordinary Ukrainians — the pledge was also a reminder of how fragile peace remains, and how high the stakes are.
A New Kind of Guarantee
“This is not a parade of flags,” a senior French defence official told me after the announcement. “It is a line in the sand: a promise to rebuild, to rearm, to be present if diplomacy finally delivers.”
The meeting in Paris brought together 35 leaders from what Macron called a “coalition of the willing,” a loose umbrella of mainly European countries that have been negotiating the contours of post-conflict security for months. Of those, 26 have now signalled readiness to place forces in Ukraine in support roles, deterrence roles, or as part of a formal peacekeeping architecture.
The coalition’s plan centers on two strands: first, material commitments to rebuild and bolster Ukraine’s armed forces; second, the prospect of multinational troop deployments as a reassurance mechanism if and when a ceasefire crystallises. Macron and Zelensky said the group had spoken with US President Donald Trump during the summit and that Washington’s contribution would be finalised in the coming days — a crucial component, given that European ministers want American guarantees as a “backstop.”
“We don’t want theatrical gestures,” a British diplomat said. “We want credible capacity — logistics, air surveillance, demining, medical units. And we want clear US firepower in the wings if deterrence fails.”
What “presence” could mean
Expectations were deliberately vague by design. “Presence” may translate into training brigades, maritime patrols in the Black Sea, airlift capabilities, or small battlegroups embedded with Ukrainian units. It might also mean engineers to clear mines and specialists to shore up ports and power grids.
Such missions would be costly and politically complex. Germany and other countries said they would participate in rebuilding Ukrainian capabilities, but Berlin insisted it needed clarity — especially about the extent of US involvement — before committing troops.
The Brutal Counterpoint: Aid Workers Killed
The diplomatic choreography in Paris was overshadowed by a brutal reality check on the ground in Ukraine: a Russian rocket strike north of Kyiv killed two members of the Danish Refugee Council who were clearing mines near Chernihiv, around 125km from the capital.
Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, reacted sharply. “This attack underscores the brutality of this war,” she said. “Attacks on humanitarian missions are a grave violation of international law. The EU remains steadfast in supporting Ukraine and will hold those responsible accountable.”
An aid worker who asked to remain anonymous told me over a trembling phone line: “We came to make things safer, to remove the things that maim children and farmers. To die while doing that — it is a nightmare.”
Deaths like these puncture any abstract conversation about “security guarantees.” They turn diplomatic language into blood. They remind us that while generals and presidents speak in terms of battlegroups and sanctions, families bury neighbors, and villages rebuild under a sky still dangerous with drones and missiles.
Who’s In, Who’s Holding Back
Macron declined to list the 26 nations publicly. But among the countries that have publicly signalled willingness are France and Britain. Ireland — a country with a proud peacekeeping tradition — said it would consider contributing troops if a credible peace deal were reached. Ireland’s Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, Simon Harris, candidly said: “If there is a peace agreement, Ireland — as part of this coalition — will want to assist.”
Not everyone is ready to leap. Germany has taken a cautious line, saying any decision on a military role depends on the precise nature of the guarantees and how the US would back them. The coalition’s leaders have long insisted that European deployments require a US backstop — legal, logistical, and political — to be viable.
Russia pushes back
From Moscow the reaction was swift and uncompromising. Maria Zakharova, a ministry spokeswoman, dismissed any idea of foreign troops on Ukrainian soil as “absolutely unacceptable,” arguing such deployments would “undermine any security” and risk escalating tensions across Europe.
President Vladimir Putin has publicly ruled out NATO troop deployments in Ukraine as part of any settlement, while also suggesting the door to negotiations remains open “if common sense prevails.”
“Why are we interested in what Russia thinks about troops in Ukraine? It’s a sovereign country,” Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said bluntly. “Russia has nothing to do with this. I think we really have to stop making Putin too powerful.”
Sanctions, Energy, and the China Question
Alongside the military talk, the coalition has been sharpening economic levers. In their call with President Trump, European leaders urged Washington to coordinate new sanctions targeting Russia’s oil and gas sector — a key revenue stream for Moscow — and to press China to curtail financial flows that could indirectly support Russia’s operations.
A White House official said Trump emphasised that Europe must stop purchasing Russian oil and should place economic pressure on China. Whether such measures will materialise, and whether they will be enough to bend Russian policy, remains an open question.
Consider the scale: energy sales have been central to Russia’s budget. Cutting off oil and gas revenues is not an abstract punitive measure; it’s an attempt to change the material calculus of war. But it risks protracted pain for European consumers and could push global energy markets into turbulence.
What Would a Peacekeeping Mission Look Like?
There is no single template. Peacekeepers could be observers, interposition forces, humanitarian escorts, or rapid-response units. They could be multinational under an EU, UN, or ad hoc coalition banner. Each configuration brings its own legal implications, rules of engagement, and political risks.
“A peacekeeping mission needs legitimacy and a clear mandate,” said Dr. Elena Morozova, a conflict specialist. “Without clear legal backing and a political settlement, troops on the ground will be targets, not peacemakers.”
-
Primary conditions for deployment would likely include a signed ceasefire, verified withdrawal of forces from certain areas, demilitarised zones, and guarantees of humanitarian access.
-
Support services — demining teams, medical units, engineers — would be essential from day one.
-
And international judicial mechanisms would be necessary to investigate attacks on civilians and aid workers.
Why This Matters to You
This is not a European story alone. It is a test of whether middle powers can stitch together credible security in a world where great-power competition is intensifying and where traditional alliances are being questioned.
Ask yourself: who guarantees the guarantee? If a coalition promises to defend a sovereign nation, what mechanisms ensure it can actually do so without spiralling into a wider conflagration?
The answers will shape not just the fate of Ukraine, but how democracies respond to aggression in coming decades. Will Europe build autonomous capacity to deter threats? Will the US remain a reliable backstop? Will economies accept short-term pain for long-term security?
On the Ground: Voices from Ukraine
In Kyiv, a teacher named Olena said, “We want peace, not parades. We want the mines cleared, the electricity fixed, our children safe.”
A farmer near Chernihiv, boots still dusted with black earth, told me: “There is fear, yes. But also a stubborn hope. If Europe is coming to help rebuild, that hope will have weight.”
Those human voices cut through diplomatic rhetoric. They ask of leaders something simple and profound: not only strategies and maps, but protection for everyday life.
Conclusion: Between Promise and Peril
The Paris summit planted a seed — a coalition prepared to put bodies and resources into a shaky peace. But seeds require careful tending. Without clarity, legitimacy, and robust international backing, even the most well-intentioned deployments can become liabilities.
For now, the commitment is a promise on paper, and a pledge on camera. Whether it becomes a reality will depend on the messy, painful work of negotiation, on the willingness of powers to accept costs, and on the simple, human imperative to shield aid workers and civilians from harm.
As you read this, consider: in a fractured world, how do we choose to guarantee peace? With words? With money? With soldiers? With patience — or with courage? The answer will determine not only the fate of Ukraine, but the shape of international order for years to come.
