Troop deployment plans abandoned in latest Coalition of the Willing talks
The ' Coalition of the Willing ' will concentrate future discussions on sustaining Kyiv in a war of attrition against Russia's invading forces in an apparent softening of plans.
The group, hastily set up by Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron earlier this year, was created with the intention to arrange a European-led ground force to police any ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.
At a meeting called to coincide with the French president's state visit to Britain, dozens of world leaders will instead discuss plans to ramp up ammunition supplies and boost Ukraine's domestic defence industry.
Rebuilding Ukraine's energy production and post-war reconstruction of its war-stricken cities will also be discussed, according to a draft agenda shared with The Telegraph.
The decision to change the group's approach comes after months of failed attempts by the US President to convince Vladimir Putin to sign up to a truce.
A diplomatic source told the Telegraph: 'Given that Trump's strategy has not yet yielded any results, the ceasefire is still too far away to discuss how to secure it.
'What we need now is to continue to supply arms to Ukraine so that it can defend itself and, hand in hand with that, to continue to pressure Russia to start serious negotiations.'
Europeans hope that continuing to demonstrate their support for Ukraine will convince Putin to come to the negotiating table.
Trump funds weapons after U-turn
Mr Trump has also appeared to have had a change of heart after signalling he was 'not happy' with Putin for ignoring his demands for a ceasefire.
The US president said he would send more 'defensive weapons' to Kyiv, reversing a decision from days earlier to pause shipments.
But Mr Trump has said he would help fund Patriot air defence systems for Ukraine after becoming angry over Russia's drone and missile barrages on Ukrainian cities.
He said: 'We're going to send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves.
'They are getting hit very hard now.'
The Pentagon last week put weapon shipments, including surface-to-air missiles and artillery shells, on pause as part of a review over its own stockpiles.
Lack of US security guarantee
The talks on Thursday, via videolink, will be the first time the Coalition of the Willing has come together since March.
Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to join the call from Rome, where he is attending the annual Ukraine Recovery Conference.
The decision to all but end talks over a European-led troop deployment will come as a blow to the Ukrainian president, who has been calling for robust security guarantees from his allies.
Talks over the prospect of boots on the ground largely collapsed because of limited troop pledges and a refusal by Mr Trump to offer US security guarantees to European militaries stationed in the war-torn country.
A source familiar with the discussions said: 'Some realism has broken out.
'It could have duplicated existing Nato and other mechanisms, but it all fell on the issue of the US backstop and limited troop pledges.'
Plans previously watered down
The original plans for a large scale troop deployment to protect Ukraine's cities, ports and nuclear power plants had already been watered down to moving Western training missions back to the country.
It was thought that the presence of British and French military trainers would fulfil the promise to put Western boots on the ground while not provoking Russia or putting Nato's plans to defend its eastern flank in jeopardy.
Earlier this week, a French official told reporters: 'On the agenda, there's how to maintain Ukraine in a capacity to fight, how to increase pressure on Russia and how to continue the work on the next steps.'
A readout of Sir Keir's latest call with Mr Zelensky said the Coalition would also debrief on the 'significant progress being made by military planners'.
The Prime Minister told the Ukrainian president: 'The recent Russian attacks reinforced the need for Ukraine's friends and allies to focus both on ensuring Ukraine had the support it needed to defend itself, while also planning for a post-ceasefire future.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Mhairi Black: UK is following a familiar script over Gaza
On Thursday, at least 15 Palestinians – of which eight were children – were killed in an Israeli strike while queuing for nutritional supplements in front of a clinic in central Gaza. For more than 20 months, Israel has decimated Gaza with unconditional and unrestrained bombardment, and has created a man-made famine. Israeli strikes have continually targeted schools, hospitals and aid centres – all of which constitute war crimes. Yet, if you watched the UK news over the last two weeks, you might think the biggest horror facing the world right now was two bands performing at Glastonbury. READ MORE: TRNSMT main stage act calls out politicians' attempts to cancel Kneecap A report from Al Jazeera said there are satellite images showing Israeli plans to create a concentration camp in southern Gaza. The images show large tracts of land being cleared of buildings in preparation for the forced transfer of Palestinians. We know to expect this since Israel's defence minister has said it is its intention to forcibly move the entire population of Gaza – more than two million people – out of their homes. Given the atrocities inflicted upon Jewish people during the Second World War, you would expect there to be a natural degree of horror at the thought of building new concentration camps, and forcibly seeking to move or destroy an entire group of people. Of course, there is a deep history and link between the experiences and historic persecution of Jews and the creation of the state of Israel. However, it is crucial to remember that Israel is exactly that – a state. It is not a religion. Yet, our leaders in Britain continually capitulate to the idea that to criticise the actions of the Israeli government in any way is antisemitic. For example, the BBC claims to be an impartial source of news and a beacon of free speech, yet was more than happy to de-platform the unapologetically pro-Palestine band Kneecap on the basis that they are pro-Palestine. The BBC also apologised for broadcasting punk rap duo Bob Vylan's performance after the singer's 'death to the IDF' chants. You may find this distasteful or even violent but it is not antisemitic. The IDF is a military organisation, not a religion. It is a war machine used by Israel to commit war crimes. Calling for an end to a military organisation that consistently murders innocent civilians fleeing violence perpetrated against them by that very military organisation should not be controversial. The very fact that Keir Starmer, Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage are all more outraged about bands playing Glastonbury than they are at the genocide of the people of Gaza is as barbaric as it is illogical. READ MORE: Protests against Palestine Action ban set to take place this weekend However, when you consider the history of Britain's actions in the world, maybe it is logical? Its history is littered with examples of invading foreign countries to force our will and propaganda onto them, while extracting and profiteering from their wealth and resources at their expense. Any domestic resistance to this exploitation has always been immediately labelled as terrorism. Even if we only consider events from living memory, there were the mass arrests, torture and murders of Mau Mau leaders in Kenya in the 1950s. Up until 1960, in Malaya (now Malaysia), British forces herded hundreds of thousands of people into fortified camps. They heavily bombed rural areas, tortured and murdered innocent civilians for no reason other than to preserve the colonial profits Britain enjoyed from Malaya's rubber and tin. Cocoa and oil were extracted from Nigeria through exploitation. In South Africa, black labour was responsible for British diamond profits under apartheid. In Canada and Australia, indigenous kids were forcibly removed from their families to learn how to live 'sophisticatedly'. The UK's military interventions in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan just so happened to coincide with our oil and gas interests. Through the actions in both Ireland and India, we know that Britain is no stranger to creating a man-made famine. Britain has always been the portrait of privilege built by the pain of others. Modern-day Britain refuses to acknowledge or learn from the racist and imperialist mistakes of the past, mainly because those in power do not view them as mistakes. Our history is soaked with elitism, and the blood and tears of foreign generations whose toil sustained that elitism. The UK still thinks of itself as an imperial world power, able to divvy up land and resources to whoever it pleases, when the reality is that the world has moved on. Today – July 12 – Northern Ireland will see multiple Orange marches similar to the ones held in the west of Scotland last week. READ MORE: How TRNSMT's gender balance is shaping up in 2025 – see the graphs It is difficult to take Starmer and John Swinney seriously when they call for bands like Kneecap and Bob Vylan to be cancelled for an alleged, perceived religious intolerance when they criticise Israel when, simultaneously, local councils are granting marching licences for an organisation whose followers routinely sing chants about being 'up to their knees in Fenian blood', and have built a bonfire with a mock migrant boat filled with brown faces at the very top waiting to be set alight. The hypocrisy and double standards are bewildering. Maybe it is time to stop looking for logic and instead look for – and reward – honesty and bravery.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Young people don't feel part of the EU – and they're right
The former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi produced his much-awaited prescription for how to reboot Europe's economy last year. The Draghi report was rightly applauded as a rude awakening for a European Union that is far too complacent about its own obsolescence. Draghi concluded that an €800bn-a-year public spending boost would be needed to end years of stagnation. If Europe did not catch up with its rivals, he warned, it would face a 'slow and agonising' decline. And yet, one ingredient was missing from Draghi's recipe. In his nearly 400-page roadmap for rescuing the EU, the word 'democracy' is mentioned only three times (once in the bibliography). By contrast, 'integration' is used 96 times and 'defence' 391 times. It's true that Draghi's report was explicitly devoted to the future of European competitiveness (and not more widely to the Europe of the future). But if the EU can't find a way to better engage its citizens, it will be difficult to achieve any more of the integration that Draghi says is indispensable to make a still-fragmented single market more competitive and Europe more capable of defending itself. One thing is sure: the old method of decision-making that a generation of European leaders relied on is obsolete. We urgently need to reform the EU, but the top-down approach to doing so is no longer fit for purpose. True, the debate on the 'democratic deficit' is as old as the EU itself. Direct elections to the European parliament, the first and only international assembly elected in this way, were introduced in 1979 to respond to the same criticism. However, at least until the end of the last century, the discussion on European democracy was seen as a niche for thinktanks – something nice to have to complete an integration project mostly run by an enlightened elite. Today, the picture has radically changed: the European parliament's powers have increased over time, but only about half of people who are entitled to vote in European elections bother to do so. Less than 50% of those vote for the two political 'families' (centre-right and socialist) that for decades provided the consensus that the EU project required to function. And no less worryingly, according to a recent survey from Cluster17, a French polling company, the percentages of European citizens who say the EU is not democratic and instead describe it as bureaucratic and disconnected are higher among younger age groups (becoming a solid majority among those aged 34 and under). More competitiveness requires a larger EU budget (it currently stands at just 1% of GDP) and more money for European 'public goods' (goods for which there is a clear economic case for producing them at EU level, for example, satellite-based telecommunication services or trans-European high-speed trains). But you can't ask for new taxation to fund joint EU spending without more representation. More common defence should be a commonsense direction given the existential threats that Europe is facing and the inefficiencies that running 27 military budgets imply. However, it requires a sufficiently wide public perception that such spending is going to benefit every citizen of the community we want to defend. And yet, surprisingly perhaps, according to Cluster17's poll, younger people feel less European even than their parents, preferring to call themselves citizens of the world. Without a European demos, it will be difficult to create an EU army – if that is what emerges from the debates on security – but also a real European democracy. And if we have neither citizenship nor engagement, we risk a political backlash like the ones we have seen on the green deal or the austerity measures that came after the global financial crash and the eurozone crisis, even when the policies are theoretically right. Last month about 100 policymakers, politicians, journalists, academics and students from all the major European countries (EU and beyond) gathered in Siena to consider how a Europe of the future could deal with some of its biggest challenges, such as common defence, the threat posed by global trade wars and AI. The outcome is a paper that prioritises identifying ways to better engage voters in each of the big decisions. A recent European Commission initiative – a citizens' panel in which 150 randomly selected EU citizens were enlisted to help the EU decide how to spend its money in the future – was considered a good start. But the conference in Siena identified changes that will be essential if citizens' recommendations are to be included in a systematic way. In EU budgetary decision-making for example, the language must change so that citizens can understand what goal is being achieved in any spending plans. The budgetary logic must be 'zero based' (which in accountancy parlance means not decided on the basis of incremental adjustments to past spending). Such an approach could ensure that 'participatory democracy' becomes a mainstream instrument of EU policymaking. No less crucial is a set of 'positive actions' that a group led by Luca Verzichelli of the University of Siena drew up to promote the European demos. The most eye-catching proposal – and one that attracted the broadest consensus – was to make the Erasmus student programme free and mandatory for all EU students in secondary and tertiary-level education. A quarter of the money spent by the EU on farmers would be enough to cover an expanded version of Erasmus, the Vision thinktank that convened the Siena conference calculates. I have no doubt the results would be more transformational. The democracy deficit is not just a European problem. Representative institutions are suffering more broadly from what seems to be a form of technological obsolescence. The internet has massively altered the control of information, which is power. This requires a radical transformation of the mechanisms through which power is acquired, restrained and exercised; and of the instruments we use to transmit individual preferences and convert them into collective choices. The EU needs more clarity about what it is for, and it needs to go well beyond superficially involving citizens to give its messages cosmetic legitimacy. But it has the paradoxical advantage of being an unfinished project. This means it has the flexibility to experiment with new forms of participation, policymaking and citizenship. It must urgently acknowledge that the only way to protect democracy is to adapt its forms to a radically different technological context. Francesco Grillo is a visiting fellow at the European University Institute, Florence and director of the thinktank Vision
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
We're becoming inured to Trump's outbursts – but when he goes quiet, we need to be worried
In the global attention economy, one titan looms over all others. Donald Trump can command the gaze of the world at a click of those famously short fingers. When he stages a spectacular made-for-TV moment – say, that Oval Office showdown with Volodymyr Zelenskyy – the entire planet sits up and takes notice. But that dominance has a curious side-effect. When Trump does something awful and eye-catching, nations tremble and markets move. But when he does something awful but unflashy, it scarcely registers. So long as there's no jaw-dropping video, no expletive-ridden soundbite, no gimmick or stunt, it can slip by as if it hadn't happened. Especially now that our senses are dulled through over-stimulation. These days it requires ever more shocking behaviour by the US president to prompt a reaction; we are becoming inured to him. Yet the danger he poses is as sharp as ever. Consider the events of just the last week or so, few of them stark enough to lead global news bulletins, yet each one another step towards the erosion of democracy in and by the world's most powerful country. On Wednesday, Trump threatened to impose 50% tariffs – yes, he's climbed back on that dead horse – on Brazil, if the judicial authorities there do not drop the prosecution of the country's Trump-like former president Jair Bolsonaro, charged with seeking to overturn his 2022 election defeat and leading a coup against the man who beat him, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. As concisely as he could manage, Lula explained, via social media, that Brazil is a sovereign country and that an independent judiciary cannot 'accept interference or instruction from anyone … No one is above the law.' This is becoming a habit of Trump's. He made the same move in defence of Benjamin Netanyahu last month, hinting that Israel could lose billions in US military aid if the prime minister continues to stand trial on corruption charges. In both cases, Trump was explicit in making the connection between the accused men and himself, decrying as a 'witch-hunt' the efforts to hold them to account. 'This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent,' he posted, of Bolsonaro's legal woes. 'Something I know much about!' It's easy to make light of the transparent effort by Trump to forge an international trade union of populist would-be autocrats, but he's not solely moved by fraternal solidarity. He also wants to dismantle a norm that has long applied across the democratic world, which insists that even those at the top are subject to the law. That norm is an impediment to him, a check on his power. If he can discredit it, so that a new convention arises – one that agrees that leaders can act with impunity – that helps his animating project in the US: the amassing of ever more power to himself and the weakening or elimination of any rival source of authority that might act as a restraint. He is being quietly assisted in that goal by those US institutions that should regard themselves as co-equal branches of government – Congress and the supreme court – and whose constitutional duty is to stand up to an overmighty executive. Republicans in Congress have now approved a mega bill that they know will leave future generations of Americans drowning in debt and deprive millions of basic healthcare cover. Even so, they put aside their own judgment and bowed to the man who would be king. Less discussed was the bill's extraordinary expansion of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or Ice. Its budget has been increased by a reported 308%, with an extra $45bn to spend on detention and $29.9bn for 'enforcement and deportation'. It will soon have the capacity to detain nearly 120,000 people at any one time. And, remember, latest figures show that about half of all those detained by Ice have no criminal record at all. No wonder even conservative critics are sounding the alarm. The anti-Trump Republicans of the Bulwark warn that within months, the 'national brute squad' that is Ice will have twice as many agents as the FBI and its own vast prison system, emerging as 'the primary instrument of internal state power'. In this view, Trump has realised that corrupting the FBI is a tall order – though still worth trying – so he is supplanting it with a shadow force shaped in his own image. As the Bulwark puts it: 'The American police state is here.' Those most directly threatened might share clips of masked Ice agents snatching suspected migrants off the streets and manhandling them violently, just as reports circulate of appalling conditions in Ice premises, with people held in 'dungeon-like facilities', more than 100 crammed into a small room, denied showers or a chance to change clothes, and sometimes given only one meal a day and forced to sleep on concrete benches or the floor. But it is hardly a matter of national focus. Because it is not accompanied by a neon-lit Trump performance, it is happening just out of view. The same could be said of a series of recent decisions by the supreme court. They may lack the instant, blockbuster impact of past rulings, but they accelerate the same Trump trend away from democracy and towards autocracy. On Tuesday, the judges gave Trump the green light to fire federal workers en masse and to dismantle entire government agencies without the approval of Congress. Earlier, the supreme court had ruled that Trump was allowed to remove Democrats from the leadership of government bodies that are meant to be under politically balanced supervision. More usefully still for Trump, last month the judges limited the power of the lower courts to block the executive branch, thereby lending a helping hand to one of the president's most egregious executive orders: his ending of the principle that anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen of the US, a right so fundamental it is enshrined in the constitution. In ruling after ruling, the supreme court is removing restraints on Trump and handing him even more power. Small wonder that when one of the dissenting minority on the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was asked on Thursday what kept her up at night, she answered: 'The state of our democracy.' Meanwhile, Trump is succeeding in his goal of cowing the press, extracting serious cash from major news organisations in return for dropping (usually flimsy) lawsuits against them, a move that is having the desired, chilling effect. It all adds up to the steady erosion of US democracy and of democratic norms whose reach once extended far beyond US shores. Even if it is happening quietly, by Trump's standards, without the familiar sound and fury, it is still happening. The work of opposing it begins with noticing it. Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist
