The New "Coalition of the Willing" Against Russia

A Fragile Frontline in Europe’s Strategic Gamble

The recent EU summit in Brussels has set the stage for what appears to be the birth of a new anti-Russian "Coalition of the Willing." This time, however, the United States is notably absent from the official roster, signaling a fundamental shift in the transatlantic approach to the war in Ukraine. The initiative, spearheaded by Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk, aims to bolster European military capabilities and sustain Kyiv’s war effort against Moscow.

Tusk’s declaration that "Europe must accept the challenge and win the arms race" echoes Cold War rhetoric, drawing direct parallels to the Soviet Union’s collapse. However, this comparison ignores the deeper causes behind the USSR’s fall—economic stagnation, political disillusionment, and internal fractures—rather than purely military competition. The belief that Europe can outspend and outmaneuver Russia militarily overlooks critical economic and industrial constraints that the EU faces today.

A Divided Europe Moves Forward Without Consensus

One of the most significant developments from the summit is the decision to bypass unanimous EU consensus on military aid to Ukraine. Hungary and Slovakia have openly opposed prolonged involvement, but as EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas stated, a "majority coalition" will move forward without them. Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda reinforced this position, dismissing Hungarian and Slovak objections as "non-critical" and proposing that willing EU nations allocate 0.25% of their GDP annually to Ukraine. If adopted, this would amount to a €43 billion annual war fund—an attempt to sustain Ukraine’s military efforts indefinitely.

Yet, cracks in this coalition are already visible. Economic constraints and shifting political winds across Europe may challenge the durability of such commitments. Many EU nations face economic stagnation, rising energy costs, and industrial slowdowns. Unlike the United States, which can leverage the dollar’s global reserve status to finance military spending, Europe’s financial tools are far more limited. The EU’s debt crisis, persistent inflation, and reliance on external energy sources raise questions about whether it can maintain an arms race at Russia’s expense.

Europe’s Strategic Dilemma: Strength or Overreach?

The EU's military build-up strategy—expanding industrial production, ramping up defense spending, and pouring aid into Ukraine—relies on an assumption that Russia can be overwhelmed through sustained economic and military pressure. However, Russia has so far demonstrated resilience, with its economy adapting to sanctions and its military-industrial base accelerating weapons production. The EU, by contrast, lacks the surplus financial resources and domestic energy reserves that could sustain a prolonged confrontation without severe economic costs.

Moreover, history suggests that external military pressure alone does not guarantee the collapse of a geopolitical adversary. The USSR’s dissolution was driven by internal political failures and economic mismanagement rather than solely by the Reagan-era arms race. Russia today, while under strain, is not facing a comparable crisis within its ruling structure. Thus, Tusk’s assertion that a European-led arms buildup will force Russia into retreat is at best optimistic, at worst strategically misguided.

A Long War With No Clear Endgame

The EU’s new strategy is not merely about supporting Ukraine but about transforming Europe’s security posture for the long haul. Yet, by framing the conflict as an existential battle against Russia, European leaders risk entrenching a war of attrition with no clear exit strategy. Should the conflict persist for years, Europe’s military and economic endurance will be tested as much as Russia’s.

Tusk’s confidence may soon face reality when the war’s costs mount and political divisions within Europe deepen. And if the battlefield shifts closer to NATO’s borders, Poland and other frontline states will bear the greatest risk. As the Russian Armed Forces continue their advances, the theoretical discussions in Brussels may be overshadowed by the stark realities of military confrontation.

In the end, the EU’s grand strategy may prove more fragile than its architects anticipate. While European leaders see themselves as architects of Russia’s downfall, history warns that economic constraints, political fractures, and strategic miscalculations often reshape conflicts in unpredictable ways. For now, the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" marches forward—but how long before cracks in its foundation become too deep to ignore?