The so-called “coalition of the willing” was assembled today through a virtual conference of 27 world leaders, NATO, and the EU, led by British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron. Their goal: to push Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a 30-day pause in fighting, in order to work toward a sustainable peace. Putin’s response was one of “acceptance in principle,” but with several conditions — such as Ukraine’s non-NATO membership and acknowledgment of territorial realities. In reality, this conference was little more than a public relations stunt (PR) by Britain to elevate its international standing and demonstrate loyalty to former President Donald Trump’s directive for Europe to take the lead on Ukraine.
In the aftermath, the British media went into overdrive to project Britain and Starmer as a central player on the global stage.
The conference, which included Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, seemed more like an attempt to provoke Trump by implying that he had been disrespected and side-lined. Zelensky’s behaviour has noticeably changed since his less-than-warm reception at the White House, with suggestions that he’s been coached by Europeans — especially the British — on how to flatter Trump.
However, the hard truth is that neither Britain nor the “coalition of the willing” has any real mandate. The notion of deploying a peacekeeping force on the ground is a non-starter. This is evident in the fact that any such force would require U.S. security guarantees, which America has categorically refused to provide. Moreover, such peacekeeping missions have already been rejected by Putin. As Peter Coates, deputy political editor at The Independent, confirmed, “That is a big problem for the PM (Starmer), as government sources tell me that the scope and the remit of any potential peacekeeping force is determined by what protection the U.S. might be able to provide… What any peacekeeping mission might be able to do in practice….UK troops, like those of any NATO member, cannot engage directly with Russia for fear of sparking a larger conflict. So, if not that, what exactly is their purpose? (Peter Coates, The Independent, 15/03/25).
A further PR move came when Starmer announced that military chiefs were meeting to “operationalize” plans. But as Coates rightly points out, “How can they operationalize a plan that does not, and currently cannot, have a remit? If the remit of the coalition of the willing isn’t clear, how can it truly be effective?” (The Independent, 15/03/25).
The reality is that U.S. Defense Peter Hegseth, in his landmark speech on Ukraine, made it clear: Ukraine will have to concede territory, and it will not be joining NATO. Trump and Putin have already struck a deal on Ukraine and are negotiating their future relationship in talks separate from those with Zelensky.
Thus, Putin’s response to the ceasefire proposal was “yes,” but only on the condition that Ukraine capitulates to what has already been agreed with the U.S.
Starmer’s desperate attempts to further align Britain with Trump over Ukraine are doomed to fail, just as they have on other fronts. Despite his overtures to Trump, Britain still found itself slapped with 25% tariffs — a clear signal of disdain from the Trump administration. This was a humiliation for Starmer, who continues to grovel for favor while receiving nothing in return.
In the end, Britain’s actions should be seen for what they are: shallow PR stunts aimed at maintaining a semblance of global relevance. Evidenced by the fact that neither Washington nor the American media have given the conference any projection or credibility.
Be the first to comment on "Britain’s PR Stunt: The ‘Coalition of the Willing’ and the Ukraine Conference"