More than three years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the conflict is at a pivotal point as the US and Europe push for a ceasefire deal.
Now, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is leading a new comprised of 29 Western allies, designed to support Kyiv and increase pressure on Russia president Vladimir Putin.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who joined a virtual meeting with leaders on Saturday night, has reiterated Australia’s “strong and steadfast” support for Ukraine, and said he was open to “considering any requests to contribute”.
But what would the “coalition of the willing” actually do — and Australia contribute?
What is the ‘coalition of the willing’?
The coalition of the willing is comprised of European countries along with Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO’s secretary general Mark Rutte also attended the virtual meeting.
Starmer first floated the idea a fortnight ago, but said the allies are now stepping up preparations to help Ukraine resist Russia’s invasion and secure a ceasefire agreement being Donald Trump.
While Russia has welcomed the ceasefire proposal in principle, it has also set conditions that essentially restate its war aims, suggesting that any agreement will not come quickly.
“We agreed we will keep increasing the pressure on Russia, keep the military aid flowing to Ukraine, and keep tightening restrictions on Russia’s economy to weaken Putin’s war machine and bring him to the table,” Starmer said.
Starmer said the coalition is now in an “operational phase” and will next meet on Thursday to put “strong and robust plans in place”.
“President Trump has offered Putin the way forward to a lasting peace,” Starmer said. “Now we must make this a reality.”
Britain and France both say they could send peacekeepers to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire, while Albanese has said Australia is “open to considering any new proposals to support Ukraine”.
Dr William Stoltz, executive director at the Melbourne Security Forum, said the conflict is now at a pivotal moment.
“I think what’s happened is in UK and in Europe, there’s been this realisation that American intelligence and American aid to Ukraine can’t be relied upon to sustain the war effort,” he said.
“And therefore this new coalition is required to at least, if nothing else, keep Ukraine fighting fit, keeping them in the fight in a really meaningful way.”
The US had suspended intelligence sharing and military aid following an but restored them after Ukraine .
Stoltz noted a ceasefire deal is of particular interest to European countries, who are more directly impacted by the war than Australia.
He said weapon stocks in many parts of Europe have become depleted throughout the war, increasing pressure for a deal to be made.
“Europe’s not necessarily going to be able to keep this up indefinitely,” he said.
Would the coalition have an impact on the war?
Starmer’s coalition is centred on peacekeeping in Ukraine and he has vowed to put pressure on Putin, but there have been questions about how influential the alliance could be.
Paul Dibb, an emeritus professor of strategic studies at The Australian National University and former deputy secretary of defence, said he finds it “hard to imagine” that the ceasefire would go ahead.
“We all know Putin’s views that there is no such country as Ukraine, that there’s no such language as Ukrainian language,” he said.
“And also his view, potent view, that he will not under any conditions accept Ukraine existing as a member of NATO.”
Dibb said while it was positive to see European countries become more involved, he was “pessimistic” about the likelihood of Putin agreeing to Trump’s ceasefire deal.
‘Boots on the ground’ or symbolic involvement?
As plans for the coalition progress, questions have been raised about how Australia should contribute to peacekeeping in Europe.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has rejected the idea of sending Australian troops to Ukraine, saying it would be the “wrong decision”.
“When it comes to boots on the ground, this is a matter better handled by Europe,” Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley told Sky News.
Stoltz said he believes any “boots on the ground” involvement from Australia would be “really quite limited”, and the support would be largely symbolic.
“I think Australia’s contribution, its power is in its symbolism, its power is in Australia saying that it is committed to the cause of Ukraine, regardless of what America does,” he said.
“It’s a powerful gesture from one of America’s closest allies to say essentially that we don’t entirely agree with the approach that the Trump administration is taking and that we think democracies, whether they’re in Europe or in the Indo-Pacific, should be standing up for the Ukraine.”
Dibb believes that rather than sending troops to Europe, Australia should instead focus on issues closer to home, including military provocation from China.
“If anything goes wrong in our part of the world, particularly with China attacking Taiwan … that would be of more concern to us than Ukraine,” he said.
“Particularly if Putin wins over Ukraine …it might encourage president of China Xi Jinping to try it on with Taiwan. That is a worry.”
On Sunday morning, Albanese reiterated Australia’s support for Ukraine, but said it was “premature” to speak about details of a potential peacekeeping force.
He said Russia must first agree to a ceasefire, and to stop its aggression against Ukraine.
“But Australia has a proud record, over 80 years, of participating in peacekeeping missions, including in Africa, in Cyprus, in a range of countries around the world,” he said.
“It would be a small contribution if we chose to do so, but what we want to see is peace so that we can have peacekeeping.”
With additional reporting by the Reuters news agency.
