Perhaps I'm showing my unsophistication but I'm not sure how much the fine details concerning the co-ordination of nuclear weapons will be amount to.. They are the co-ordination of weapons that will never be used anyway. But the institutionalization of the Coaltion of the willing sounds to me to be very signficant. I suspect the Ukrainian war will rumble on for a long time (bar a sudden collapse of the russian economy) and this institutionalization of an organization not dominated by the whims of US leadership really matters. I had heard of this but hadn't realized the full significance of this. It could be as significant as the formaiton of NATO. I learn stuff when I read this Substack!
I’m happy to hear this was insightful ! The nuclear coordination move is very important because nuclear deterrence is one of Europe’s greatest dependencies on the US. Essentially, the role of nuclear weapons is to deter war and the more convincing Europeans manage to be on their own, the better.
If Russia's economy doesn't collapse and Putin stays in power I'd guess there's every chance he'll start of continue wars in Europe regardless of who has nukes and how well they are co-ordinated. But there can be no two opinions that the more convincingly Europeans manage to be on thier own the better.
Thanks, Minna. BTW, Richard Blumenthal has been very supportive of Ukraine and Zelensky, visiting Ukraine many times. Just wanted to defend him. As to the "reassurance force," if there is a cease fire and this force is deployed in the 3 ways you outline, my hope is that this would all stay in place and if Putin breaks the ceasefire, from that point forward he would essentially be at war with this European coalition of the willing. And/but where is Germany in all this? Its full publicly pledged support would be an important addition to this new initiative.
Merz is actually quite actively trying to get Trump to sell some patriots to Germany to be donated to Ukraine. And Germany has been one of the drivers of the Franco-British nuclear coordination announcement as Germany is understandably very anxious about US commitment to extended deterrence…
Just saw you and Phillips on the livecast...great fun to watch and very informative! My suggestion for next time: a deep focus on the difficulties and challenges that the European nations face in rationalizing and efficiently coordinating the defense integration that lies ahead. Including "details" such as which countries have what particular strengths at this time. Are there legal obstacles facing this process? How might recalcitrant countries be dealt with? etc. This integration process is going to be a mighty interesting story...and eventually book. Hey who's going to write it?
This is really great news. While I disagree with about 99% of Trump’s policies, I do think many Americans, including myself, think it’s past time for Europe to begin developing a stronger, united defense policy. In this case, the US stepping back, is leading to the beginning of stronger European defense planning and coordination with the new French-British nuclear cooperation and coordination as a leader and center piece for the future. Thank you for this detailed news and analysis!
Yes. But securing the Atlantic - and the oceans were the highway for victory in both wars and their loss would have cost the allies dearly had Germany spent more on u boats - requires America and keeping America politically on the side of liberating camps rather than building them.
Also...
The idea was that a militarised Europe is trouble. Off shoring military might was preferable to tooled up national identities within the continent. So... I don't know that this is a win.
The formalization or institutionalization of the coalition of the willing is a back door way to get Ukraine what it needs and also keep the US and Hungary out of the loop. Somewhere, Churchill and DeGaulle and simultaneously wincing and smiling at the nuclear cooperation between the two UK and France. Wincing because they each wanted control, smiling because it is against the common enemy that has finally been recognized.
This is indeed a welcome development and one hopes it quickly matures into a fully operationalised reality. It maybe also have some potential implications for the Indio- pacific and Australia given its AUKUS nuclear submarine program. Australia abruptly cancelled the contract to buy French made submarines and decided to opt for a US nuclear powered fleet of unspecified design at vast expense and multiples of the French contract. Many view this as a strategic calamity on several fronts so perhaps growing UK and French nuclear cooperation may help unwind this disaster before more money is wasted . This projective force offensive marine capability is viewed by many as unnecessary , strategically and technologically and subsumes Australian sovereignty very much to the US interests.
As reported in The Guardian on 2/6/25 whilst it is claimed Pillar 1
of the AUKUS is on schedule the ability to manufacture the 12 nuclear reactor cores to propel the subs is very much in doubt thereby threatening the likelihood of Australia getting its 5 as projected in the 2040’s.
“But the UK government’s own major projects agency has described the UK’s plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the Aukus submarines as “unachievable”.
In its latest annual report, released in January this year, the Infrastructure and Major Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority), gave the nuclear reactor core project its lowest evaluation.
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,” the report said.
“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
Now combine that with the known and widely publicised reports of the inability of the US submarine building to meet a required 2-3 boats per year versus the current 1.2 boats per year and you have a complete project failure in the making. Australia is committed to funding capability building both in the US and the UK to the tune of 8bn and 5bn dollars respectively over 10 years . Some 3 bn has already been paid to the US.
If you care to read the evidence submitted by the UK commander of the AUKUS program you will find his comments directly asserting g that the whole program across the 3 partners is in fact critically dependant on the US provided technology. As we don’t have a design yet it pointless for me to provide you with evidence of what may or may not be UK specific systems or indeed Australian systems to the new boat. Your assertion that the French vessels being “oil powered’ offers no strategic capability flies in the face of the decision to purchase it, no doubt determined at the highest levels of the Defence Department I would respectfully suggest.
The UK Royal Navy commenced work on a replacement for their Astute class submarines in 2018. A new class under the AUKUS treaty called SSN AUKUS is very much on the design phase with the first one of 12 to be built in Scotland due supposedly by 2038. So I correct in asserting it is currently an unspecified design. The proposed nuclear powered propulsion system developed by Rolls Royce is in fact based on a US design. Almost all of the key weapons, stealth, command and control systems will be US supplied kit because inter-operability is a key feature of the AUKUS agreement. It is for naval designers , as ever to work out and manage the extremely complex system integration issues footing such kit into a new designed shell. That is where i believe bulk of the design work in fact will be. Australia will end up with 5 of the AUKUS class to be built in Australia and 3 ex surplus US sourced Virginia class submarines. It is my understanding that existing UK submarines are unable to fire their nuclear arsenal without US supplied codes. I therefore stand by my point that these vessels are in very large measure US sourced. As the former PM Paul Keating put it in this deal Australia is the only one with a chequebook.
May I suggest you investigate evidence instead of simply assuming that UK systems are, by default, the same as US. For example, your assertion of interoperability at the level of nuclear deterrents is untrue. Moreover, simple external physical differences between UK and US submarines show a very different design approach.
And, of course, the real deciding factor between UK/US and French submarines is that the French are oil-powered, so require a snorkel, and have limited range. They are, therefore entirely incapable of serving as a strategic resource.
After reading this amazing article I am so pleased to acknowledge that this is best news I have heard for Europe and its citizens. Europe deserve to take this direction and it has been along time coming. France and UK has taken the right action and collaboration to spearhead this formation without the US. I am sure the technological cooperation and coordination with all European nations will be phenomenal. The sooner Ukraine is supported with the right aid and defence and joint military action against Russian invasion and aggression will put an end to this war.
This is also a time in history that Europe and Indo-Pacific nations seal this alliance in an agreement without the US and start a coalition different from NATO for Europe to make their own decisions and take their own independent actions for the sovereignty of Europe.
Thanks again Minna for this article! Enjoying your contributions very much. Don't know whether the institutionalization is a mere positive sign, it has some bureaucratic side effects. But altogether this looks like a giant leap forward. Both NATO and the coalition of the willing seem to emphasize a porcupine strategy for European defense, including Ukraine. By providing air security, Europe would help Ukraine a lot. But would that be enough? What would be the next step forward for Ukraine in defeating Russia?
I’m afraid that the politics of a deployment is more complicated than the military feasibility, which is the main holdup. But unless we can figure out a more effective way to support Ukraine in countering the recently further intensified Russian air attacks, there might be no other way. Right now Europe is still preoccupied with making sure Ukraine gets what it needs even without the US. But bolder moves might be forced upon Europe, and I remain optimistic - necessity is the mother of invention after all !
This is good news and nice to see Europe's 2 nuclear powers taking a lead. Let's hope it's the start of being more assertive, more supportive of Ukraine and using military and economic power to keep Russia off balance and worry them about more than the latest Truth Social statement or phone call from his Orangeness.
Encouraging perspective indeed. Hopefully the strategic cooperative mood will also spill over to the Future Combat Air System program, which seemingly is hampered with "traditional" rivalry between European defence bureaucracies.
France and the UK teaming up on nuclear stuff is a big shift—France has always kept that super tight and solo. Plus, the new coalition HQ for Ukraine support shows Europe’s serious about stepping up without relying so much on the US.
Thanks for these notes. It's good to have an European perspective and a very knowledgeable one. I really like that Europe is stepping up, a good consequence of the rudderless American shift under Trump!
On the coalition of the willing as “a way for Europeans to coordinate with … Indo-Pacific partners”, have there been concrete outcomes so far?
(I initially read this as a nod to Australia’s, Japan’s and New Zealand’s attendance of the coalition planning meetings, but I was surprised to read that New Zealand has 97 personnel deployed in Europe in support of Ukraine and that their deployment has been extended to December 2026.)
The main task of the coalition of the willing is to coordinate support for Ukraine. But why the new headquarters is significant is that it can lead to coordination and even cooperation on other issues as well - if you’re already meeting to talk about one thing, it’s easier to add other items to the agenda.
This new European 'project', if it survives and if it has a 'real' life, ought to lead to the EDO (European Defence Organisation), which would then replace (all) individual states within NATO.
If, Europe were to use all existing laws, etc. that enable NATO, then this might come about quite quickly, IF our dear leaders actually want it.
---
EDO could also be a partner for other defence 'organisations' independent of NATO that span the Atlantic (Canada, South Africa, Brazil, ....) and the Pacific (ANZAC, Japan, Taiwan, ....), i.e. anyone able & willing to pool resources to defend democracy.
This is good news! Q on one point you mention - does this mean Europe might venture into air defense against missiles and drones over Ukraine itself at some point??
"• Secure Ukraine’s skies: The Coalition will provide safe skies alongside Ukraine’s Air Force using Coalition aircraft to deliver Air Policing, reassuring the Ukrainian population and establishing the conditions for normal international air travel to re-commence."
I am heartened by the positivity of you, Minna and this article creates hope, that things are really going in right direction, which has not been always certain during past 3,5 years, not to talk about earlier time, when Russia's occupatio of Crimea & eastern Ukraine was rewarded with Nord stream pipelines.
As authoritarian world is flocking together to challenge free democracies, it is important to hold our commitment to our values and find the strength in our democratic system, which is only known way to guarantee freedom from oppression, but only, if we are willing to defend it accordingly.
While our system are flawed in many ways - especially our government's unwillingness to not rise to the occasion because of possible electoral backlash - it offers a viable alternative for the rest of the world who may think should they strive for democratic system or authoritarian one.
This test presented to us by Russia is maybe first since the end of the WW2, but certainly not the last. trouble is brewing in Asia and climate change will devastate continents and human societies alike during next decades, propably centuries to come.
Democracy and freedom of speech, thought and mind is not to be taken for granted. It can too easily be taken away by those, who would use our complacency to seize power and turn it against ourselves. Democracy has to be chosen every time again, in every election, in every country.
We don't know how future historians interpret this time, whether Russia's war against Ukraine is seen as a final twitch of a dying empire or a pivotal moment, when world order was changed permanently away from freedom and towards oppression, but I know this: Choice is in our hands in this very moment and if we don't make it, it will be made for us and our children and whole world will pay the price.
Let's be responsible and carry our responsibility, with words of Gandalf:
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”
Perhaps I'm showing my unsophistication but I'm not sure how much the fine details concerning the co-ordination of nuclear weapons will be amount to.. They are the co-ordination of weapons that will never be used anyway. But the institutionalization of the Coaltion of the willing sounds to me to be very signficant. I suspect the Ukrainian war will rumble on for a long time (bar a sudden collapse of the russian economy) and this institutionalization of an organization not dominated by the whims of US leadership really matters. I had heard of this but hadn't realized the full significance of this. It could be as significant as the formaiton of NATO. I learn stuff when I read this Substack!
I’m happy to hear this was insightful ! The nuclear coordination move is very important because nuclear deterrence is one of Europe’s greatest dependencies on the US. Essentially, the role of nuclear weapons is to deter war and the more convincing Europeans manage to be on their own, the better.
If Russia's economy doesn't collapse and Putin stays in power I'd guess there's every chance he'll start of continue wars in Europe regardless of who has nukes and how well they are co-ordinated. But there can be no two opinions that the more convincingly Europeans manage to be on thier own the better.
Thanks, Minna. BTW, Richard Blumenthal has been very supportive of Ukraine and Zelensky, visiting Ukraine many times. Just wanted to defend him. As to the "reassurance force," if there is a cease fire and this force is deployed in the 3 ways you outline, my hope is that this would all stay in place and if Putin breaks the ceasefire, from that point forward he would essentially be at war with this European coalition of the willing. And/but where is Germany in all this? Its full publicly pledged support would be an important addition to this new initiative.
Merz is actually quite actively trying to get Trump to sell some patriots to Germany to be donated to Ukraine. And Germany has been one of the drivers of the Franco-British nuclear coordination announcement as Germany is understandably very anxious about US commitment to extended deterrence…
Just saw you and Phillips on the livecast...great fun to watch and very informative! My suggestion for next time: a deep focus on the difficulties and challenges that the European nations face in rationalizing and efficiently coordinating the defense integration that lies ahead. Including "details" such as which countries have what particular strengths at this time. Are there legal obstacles facing this process? How might recalcitrant countries be dealt with? etc. This integration process is going to be a mighty interesting story...and eventually book. Hey who's going to write it?
Thanks ! Will write your suggestion down and we’ll compile a list of wishes.
This is really great news. While I disagree with about 99% of Trump’s policies, I do think many Americans, including myself, think it’s past time for Europe to begin developing a stronger, united defense policy. In this case, the US stepping back, is leading to the beginning of stronger European defense planning and coordination with the new French-British nuclear cooperation and coordination as a leader and center piece for the future. Thank you for this detailed news and analysis!
Yes. But securing the Atlantic - and the oceans were the highway for victory in both wars and their loss would have cost the allies dearly had Germany spent more on u boats - requires America and keeping America politically on the side of liberating camps rather than building them.
Also...
The idea was that a militarised Europe is trouble. Off shoring military might was preferable to tooled up national identities within the continent. So... I don't know that this is a win.
The formalization or institutionalization of the coalition of the willing is a back door way to get Ukraine what it needs and also keep the US and Hungary out of the loop. Somewhere, Churchill and DeGaulle and simultaneously wincing and smiling at the nuclear cooperation between the two UK and France. Wincing because they each wanted control, smiling because it is against the common enemy that has finally been recognized.
This is indeed a welcome development and one hopes it quickly matures into a fully operationalised reality. It maybe also have some potential implications for the Indio- pacific and Australia given its AUKUS nuclear submarine program. Australia abruptly cancelled the contract to buy French made submarines and decided to opt for a US nuclear powered fleet of unspecified design at vast expense and multiples of the French contract. Many view this as a strategic calamity on several fronts so perhaps growing UK and French nuclear cooperation may help unwind this disaster before more money is wasted . This projective force offensive marine capability is viewed by many as unnecessary , strategically and technologically and subsumes Australian sovereignty very much to the US interests.
Indeed, especially pending the AUKUS review Elbridge Colby has commissioned…
As reported in The Guardian on 2/6/25 whilst it is claimed Pillar 1
of the AUKUS is on schedule the ability to manufacture the 12 nuclear reactor cores to propel the subs is very much in doubt thereby threatening the likelihood of Australia getting its 5 as projected in the 2040’s.
“But the UK government’s own major projects agency has described the UK’s plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the Aukus submarines as “unachievable”.
In its latest annual report, released in January this year, the Infrastructure and Major Projects Authority (now the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority), gave the nuclear reactor core project its lowest evaluation.
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable,” the report said.
“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”
Now combine that with the known and widely publicised reports of the inability of the US submarine building to meet a required 2-3 boats per year versus the current 1.2 boats per year and you have a complete project failure in the making. Australia is committed to funding capability building both in the US and the UK to the tune of 8bn and 5bn dollars respectively over 10 years . Some 3 bn has already been paid to the US.
If you care to read the evidence submitted by the UK commander of the AUKUS program you will find his comments directly asserting g that the whole program across the 3 partners is in fact critically dependant on the US provided technology. As we don’t have a design yet it pointless for me to provide you with evidence of what may or may not be UK specific systems or indeed Australian systems to the new boat. Your assertion that the French vessels being “oil powered’ offers no strategic capability flies in the face of the decision to purchase it, no doubt determined at the highest levels of the Defence Department I would respectfully suggest.
I was under the impression that the Australians had opted for Royal Naval vessel designs. Which are definitely not US sourced.
The UK Royal Navy commenced work on a replacement for their Astute class submarines in 2018. A new class under the AUKUS treaty called SSN AUKUS is very much on the design phase with the first one of 12 to be built in Scotland due supposedly by 2038. So I correct in asserting it is currently an unspecified design. The proposed nuclear powered propulsion system developed by Rolls Royce is in fact based on a US design. Almost all of the key weapons, stealth, command and control systems will be US supplied kit because inter-operability is a key feature of the AUKUS agreement. It is for naval designers , as ever to work out and manage the extremely complex system integration issues footing such kit into a new designed shell. That is where i believe bulk of the design work in fact will be. Australia will end up with 5 of the AUKUS class to be built in Australia and 3 ex surplus US sourced Virginia class submarines. It is my understanding that existing UK submarines are unable to fire their nuclear arsenal without US supplied codes. I therefore stand by my point that these vessels are in very large measure US sourced. As the former PM Paul Keating put it in this deal Australia is the only one with a chequebook.
May I suggest you investigate evidence instead of simply assuming that UK systems are, by default, the same as US. For example, your assertion of interoperability at the level of nuclear deterrents is untrue. Moreover, simple external physical differences between UK and US submarines show a very different design approach.
And, of course, the real deciding factor between UK/US and French submarines is that the French are oil-powered, so require a snorkel, and have limited range. They are, therefore entirely incapable of serving as a strategic resource.
After reading this amazing article I am so pleased to acknowledge that this is best news I have heard for Europe and its citizens. Europe deserve to take this direction and it has been along time coming. France and UK has taken the right action and collaboration to spearhead this formation without the US. I am sure the technological cooperation and coordination with all European nations will be phenomenal. The sooner Ukraine is supported with the right aid and defence and joint military action against Russian invasion and aggression will put an end to this war.
This is also a time in history that Europe and Indo-Pacific nations seal this alliance in an agreement without the US and start a coalition different from NATO for Europe to make their own decisions and take their own independent actions for the sovereignty of Europe.
Thanks again Minna for this article! Enjoying your contributions very much. Don't know whether the institutionalization is a mere positive sign, it has some bureaucratic side effects. But altogether this looks like a giant leap forward. Both NATO and the coalition of the willing seem to emphasize a porcupine strategy for European defense, including Ukraine. By providing air security, Europe would help Ukraine a lot. But would that be enough? What would be the next step forward for Ukraine in defeating Russia?
I’m afraid that the politics of a deployment is more complicated than the military feasibility, which is the main holdup. But unless we can figure out a more effective way to support Ukraine in countering the recently further intensified Russian air attacks, there might be no other way. Right now Europe is still preoccupied with making sure Ukraine gets what it needs even without the US. But bolder moves might be forced upon Europe, and I remain optimistic - necessity is the mother of invention after all !
This is good news and nice to see Europe's 2 nuclear powers taking a lead. Let's hope it's the start of being more assertive, more supportive of Ukraine and using military and economic power to keep Russia off balance and worry them about more than the latest Truth Social statement or phone call from his Orangeness.
Encouraging perspective indeed. Hopefully the strategic cooperative mood will also spill over to the Future Combat Air System program, which seemingly is hampered with "traditional" rivalry between European defence bureaucracies.
France and the UK teaming up on nuclear stuff is a big shift—France has always kept that super tight and solo. Plus, the new coalition HQ for Ukraine support shows Europe’s serious about stepping up without relying so much on the US.
Thanks for these notes. It's good to have an European perspective and a very knowledgeable one. I really like that Europe is stepping up, a good consequence of the rudderless American shift under Trump!
Many thanks - an interesting read.
On the coalition of the willing as “a way for Europeans to coordinate with … Indo-Pacific partners”, have there been concrete outcomes so far?
(I initially read this as a nod to Australia’s, Japan’s and New Zealand’s attendance of the coalition planning meetings, but I was surprised to read that New Zealand has 97 personnel deployed in Europe in support of Ukraine and that their deployment has been extended to December 2026.)
The main task of the coalition of the willing is to coordinate support for Ukraine. But why the new headquarters is significant is that it can lead to coordination and even cooperation on other issues as well - if you’re already meeting to talk about one thing, it’s easier to add other items to the agenda.
This new European 'project', if it survives and if it has a 'real' life, ought to lead to the EDO (European Defence Organisation), which would then replace (all) individual states within NATO.
If, Europe were to use all existing laws, etc. that enable NATO, then this might come about quite quickly, IF our dear leaders actually want it.
---
EDO could also be a partner for other defence 'organisations' independent of NATO that span the Atlantic (Canada, South Africa, Brazil, ....) and the Pacific (ANZAC, Japan, Taiwan, ....), i.e. anyone able & willing to pool resources to defend democracy.
This is good news! Q on one point you mention - does this mean Europe might venture into air defense against missiles and drones over Ukraine itself at some point??
"• Secure Ukraine’s skies: The Coalition will provide safe skies alongside Ukraine’s Air Force using Coalition aircraft to deliver Air Policing, reassuring the Ukrainian population and establishing the conditions for normal international air travel to re-commence."
Yes that has been a part of the reassurance force planning throughout the spring. Politics needs to catch up…
That would be a huge game changer for Ukraine! Excellent if they commit
I am heartened by the positivity of you, Minna and this article creates hope, that things are really going in right direction, which has not been always certain during past 3,5 years, not to talk about earlier time, when Russia's occupatio of Crimea & eastern Ukraine was rewarded with Nord stream pipelines.
As authoritarian world is flocking together to challenge free democracies, it is important to hold our commitment to our values and find the strength in our democratic system, which is only known way to guarantee freedom from oppression, but only, if we are willing to defend it accordingly.
While our system are flawed in many ways - especially our government's unwillingness to not rise to the occasion because of possible electoral backlash - it offers a viable alternative for the rest of the world who may think should they strive for democratic system or authoritarian one.
This test presented to us by Russia is maybe first since the end of the WW2, but certainly not the last. trouble is brewing in Asia and climate change will devastate continents and human societies alike during next decades, propably centuries to come.
Democracy and freedom of speech, thought and mind is not to be taken for granted. It can too easily be taken away by those, who would use our complacency to seize power and turn it against ourselves. Democracy has to be chosen every time again, in every election, in every country.
We don't know how future historians interpret this time, whether Russia's war against Ukraine is seen as a final twitch of a dying empire or a pivotal moment, when world order was changed permanently away from freedom and towards oppression, but I know this: Choice is in our hands in this very moment and if we don't make it, it will be made for us and our children and whole world will pay the price.
Let's be responsible and carry our responsibility, with words of Gandalf:
“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”
I've been saying for a while that Macron is the new leader of the West. More thoughts at https://ericterzuolo.substack.com/p/the-new-leader-of-the-west?r=1g49a