Remember the last ‘Coalition of the Willing’? (Iraq 2003, Tony Blair’s ‘Dodgy Dossier’?)

Is Sir Keir’s new EU alignment more of a ‘Coalition of the Mostly-Unwilling and Militarily-Inadequate’?

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2025

Facts4EU presents an alternative to the PM’s rhetoric on Ukraine his latest EU pivot

Yesterday in London a meeting of 11 EU leaders and others was convened by Sir Keir Starmer to discuss Ukraine. After the meeting was called, it suddenly assumed even more importance following the dramatic exchanges which took place in the Oval Office on Friday between President Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

In the light of the wall-to-wall TV coverage at the weekend, (as if there were almost no other news), the Facts4EU think-tank raises a few awkward questions for Sir Keir Starmer and the Government. And in our ‘Observations’ below, we comment on whether President Trump ‘bullied’ President Zelenskyy on Friday, as has been claimed throughout the mainstream media.

Is Starmer trying to sound almost Churchillian?

Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a press conference following the meeting of the various leaders, in which he deployed portentous phrases such as a “crossroads in history”, a “coalition of the willing”, and having to do the “heavy lifting”.

In November 2002, US President George W Bush, in Europe for a NATO summit, stated: "Should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."

History now tells us that the then Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, presented evidence to Parliament which became known as 'the dodgy dossier', detailing Saddam Hussein's supposed programme of chemical and biological weapons manufacture. In the event, the US invasion of Iraq with the UK as its second partner in a 'coalition of the willing', found no evidence of this.

In this report we present an alternative to the rhetoric of Mr Starmer yesterday. With the PM talking of putting British boots on the ground in Ukraine and thereby putting the lives of British servicemen in harm’s way, it is only natural that the British public will want the facts before wishing to support whatever military plans the Government is considering – particularly in relation to the EU.

Who attended Sir Keir’s meeting?

The meeting was officially billed as the ‘Leaders Meeting on Ukraine, London, 2 March 2025’

“Today, I hosted counterparts from across Europe including Türkiye, as well as the NATO Secretary General and the Presidents of the EU Commission, EU Council and Canada, in London to discuss our support for Ukraine.”
- Sir Keir Starmer, London, Sunday, 02 March 2025
[Note from Facts4EU: Justin Trudeau is in fact the Prime Minister of Canada, not the President.]

According to Downing Street, the leaders of 16 countries attended, plus three leaders or representatives of non-EU countries, plus three leaders of organisations :-

United Kingdom
Ukraine
France
Germany
Denmark
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Spain
Canada
Finland
Sweden
Czechia
Romania
Turkey
NATO Secretary General
President of the EU (‘European’) Commission
President of the EU (‘European’) Council

Of the 16 countries represented, 11 were from the EU. The other five, including the UK, are members of NATO but apparently were not invited. Notable by their absence, were of course any representatives of President Trump’s administration.

Nor were there any representatives of the other 16 EU countries. Quite inexplicably, No.10 forgot to invite the leaders of the three EU Baltic countries: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and Sir Keir was forced to make an apologetic phone call to them after the meeting.

Sir Keir’s and No.10’s mistake is even harder to understand, given that the UK leads the Joint Expeditionary Force, an existing coalition of 10 countries including the three Baltic countries, where the UK has been deploying troops, fighter jets, and naval vessels since June 2018.

What was decided at this meeting?

It seems that nothing was agreed yesterday. There have been no statements outlining even the broadest of actions to be taken. Separately the UK made announcements about the provision of further weaponry to Ukraine, but this was not part of the meeting to plan a peace.

As for the composition of this ‘Coalition of the Willing’, it currently seems that no-one wishes to announce anything. In his press conference, Sir Keir referred to "the UK and France, and possibly one or two others." This does not sound like a very impressive coalition.

In fact, with so many EU countries having spent so little on defence for decades, even if they did sign up they would not be much help.

Less a ‘coalition of the willing' and more of a 'coalition of the mostly-unwilling and militarily-inadequate’.

The EU Commission President also made a statement of her own…

EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, 02 March 2025

“We have discussed everything that is around peace through strength. And of course, security guarantees are of utmost importance for Ukraine. But we need comprehensive security guarantees.
“This includes that we have to put Ukraine in a position of strength, that it has the means to fortify and protect itself from economic survival to military resilience. “It is basically turning Ukraine into a steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders.”
“The second element I brought to the table is that we urgently have to rearm Europe.”

“So how’s the re-arming of ‘Europe’ going, Frau von der Leyen?”

Below we show the latest position of the 24 EU countries who are also members of NATO, in relation to their defence spend in the last full year for which NATO published its estimates: 2023. This information comes from NATO’s report in June last year.

As can be seen, only eight out of the 27 EU countries managed to spend the NATO minimum of at least 2% of GDP on defence.

Some of these sub-2% countries are trying to catch up, but it is only in the last few years – since President Trump had his first term in office and lambasted EU countries for not doing what Sir Keir calls “the heavy lifting” – that we have seen some movement by these countries. The backlog of what they should have spent is now enormous.

Under 15 months ago, the overall average percentage of GDP spent on defence (1.92%) by EU countries who are also NATO members still stood at under the NATO minimum of 2%, at the end of 2023.

Observations

A great deal has been written and said in the media about the events of late Friday afternoon, with President Trump variously being described as having bullied President Zelenskyy and having laid 'an ambush' for him. We would like to posit an alternative for readers to consider.

Unfortunately, for more on this, readers will have to tune in to GB News just after 11am today, where are our Chairman is taking part in a live debate and all will be revealed!

STOP PRESS 10.20am : GB News have now changed their news agenda and our Chairman will no longer be needed. We will review this article later and will add what our Chairman was going to say on television.

On Trump, negotiating styles, giving offence, and getting results

When about to embark on a negotiation, an experienced protagonist knows first to decide his or her upper and lower positions. These are the optimal position (maximum demands met, without risking a gross insult to the other side) and the ‘just above walk away’ position (below which he or she would not do a deal).

What marks out President Trump’s style is that he doesn’t seem to care much if his optimal position is so outrageous no-one could possibly imagine he would dare demand it. A classic example was his demand on Tuesday (7 January) that NATO members should spend 5% of their GDP on defence. This opening position was so extreme it caused uproar in the EU, with its average spend among EU NATO members of 1.92% of GDP. (Latest full-year figures from NATO, for 2023.)

Yet here we are, only two months later, with President Emmanuel Macron of France telling the French press at the weekend that EU countries should spend 3.5%. This is even more interesting when considering that France’s latest percentage is barely above the EU average: 1.96%. And it is below the NATO minimum of 2%, albeit only just. Whilst 3.5% advocated by Macron is not the 5% President Trump demanded, he never for one moment expected that. What he did was to set the bar far higher, knowing that the 3.5% he wanted would then be far more likely.

Some might argue that when it comes to negotiating techniques this is very basic stuff indeed. Everyone knows it is always better to ask for more than you want. However this misses the point that the US President goes far beyond the normal and the acceptable when negotiating. And he does so in a machine-gun style which is at times confusing, at times contradictory, but which always gets the main message across.

Understanding that would have helped a lot of commentators in the mainstream media before they chose to attack President Trump for what happened in the Oval Office on Friday.

On Sir Keir Starmer and the array of insults to Trump

Imagine President Trump watching Sir Keir suddenly striding down the Downing Street pavement and giving a slightly surprised President Zelenskyy a decidedly clumsy man-hug in greeting. Then further imagine him watching Starmer doing the same to President Macron later, before repeating the move once again on poor Volodymyr.

As if this weren’t enough to say “We’re on the side of President Zelenskyy and the EU”, Sir Keir then instructed His Majesty the King to give the Ukrainian leader the full royal treatment at Buckingham Palace. This, when only days ago he had given President Trump a personal invitation from King Charles (instructed by the Government) to come to the UK for a State Visit. Knowing what importance the US President places on such things, the invitation to visit the King at Buckingham Palace within 48 hours of the Oval Office exchange can surely only have been a coded, calculated move.

Finally, we turn to Sir Keir, the EU, and the ‘Road to Return’

The opportunity for Sir Keir to demonstrate his solidarity with the EU over the issue of Ukraine must have come as manna from heaven.

Just as with the insult the US President clearly felt he had received from the Ukrainian President, Sir Keir’s words and his body language when dealing with the leaders of EU countries and organisations at the weekend will have cemented over any lingering doubts about where the British Prime Minister’s loyalties ultimately lie.

From the point of view of EU leaders and that of the Presidents of the EU Commission, the mood music from Downing Street could not be more welcome. A converging, or ‘alignment’, of the UK Government’s policies with the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy is yet one more move which will make a return into the EU’s clutches that much easier. When the subject of funding assistance to Ukraine comes up again on Thursday at the EU Council, it should not be surprising if EU leaders’ minds turn to a possible ‘combining of efforts’…..

Please, please help us to carry on our vital work in defence of independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom by donating today. Thank you.

[ Sources: The White House | No.10 | EU Commission ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, 03 Mar 2025

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 8

1. Have You Wondered , Monday, March 03, 2025, 07:42:

.
Sunday's meeting: Trump threatens EU with tariffs. Starmer comes back empty handed and offers £1.6bn in Belfast missiles. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Antonio Costa have issued identical statements in Ukrainian supporting President Zelensky but not much in arms - probably more for self defence? So - the EU and UK side with Zelensky and offer EU membership - sideline the US. Place the war at NATO's doorstep?
.
Was that what Trump wanted when he staged the dispute because he doesn't want another 'Vietnam/Afganistan' on his books? Plus has the penny dropped that the minerals allegedly in Ukraine might not be so plentiful as per the decades old survey suggests. Approximately 70% of its mineral wealth is located in regions currently under Russian control, such as Donetsk and Luhansk. But then I don't think he's that clever. Probably more of a dogs dinner between all concerned?
.

2. Sparky , Monday, March 03, 2025, 10:39:

Clearly an Ambush on Friday, Vance was there to provoke an argument.
.
The FT ran an enlightening piece in July 24 "UK military unprepared for conflict of any scale" which outlines to level of forces around the world. Clearly Europe will need to rebuild, the USA will likely benefit a great deal.
.
Good move and snub by King Charles to Trump in meeting Zalenski.

3. LuxuryBalloon , Monday, March 03, 2025, 11:33:

A close ally of Putin has approached the Trump administration to support the restart of North Stream 2.

4. Major Graham Lear , Monday, March 03, 2025, 12:47:

This war is because NATO ( USA) broke an agreement with Russia before the Berlin Wall came down, not to infringe on ex Soviet territory.
Within a few years, in 1997, NATO had invited Czechia, Hungary and Poland
Then, on 29 March 2002, NATO invited Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia as NATO members.
Did you know that Putin once expressed interest in Russia joining NATO? He seriously proposed the idea to President Clinton, asking if it was possible for Russia to become a member. Clinton reportedly found it an intriguing suggestion and said he would consider it. However, after consulting with advisors, he ultimately declined the proposal later that same night.
In hindsight, the idea had merit. NATO was originally established to counter the Soviet threat, which effectively dissolved when the Soviet Union broke apart and its satellite states gained independence. If Russia and those former satellite states had joined NATO, it could have created an unparalleled military alliance—one so powerful that even China would struggle to pose a challenge. But such a vision didn’t align with U.S. policy at the time. A missed opportunity, and perhaps a short-sighted decision.

5. Gazzablack , Monday, March 03, 2025, 13:19:

The EU are making urgent moves to rush supplies of USB-C cables we tethered bottle caps to the Ukrainian front lines in a clear move to counter the withdrawal of US support.
Germany are still blocking the supply of 1,000 helmets and a broom handle.
.
*** BREAKING ***
A Message to our servicemen from Kier Starmer
.
I plan to send you to Ukraine
Some of you may die
But that's a sacrifice I am willing to make.
.
And we WILL pursue any who return through the courts for alleged war crimes
.

6. terence patrick hewett , Monday, March 03, 2025, 13:34:

It's a cast iron law, that the further away from the conflict a protagonist is, the more militant they are.

7. Gazzablack , Monday, March 03, 2025, 14:40:

4, mgl
.
It's a myth that NATO promised not to expand Eastwoods after the Soviet Union dissolved.
.
In 2014 Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that NATO's enlargement "was not discussed at all" at the time.
.
Not a single European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up either.
.
Indeed the only formal agreement signed between NATO countries and the USSR, before it's breakup in 1991, was the
'Treaty of Final Settlement in Respect to Germany'

8. LuxuryBalloon , Monday, March 03, 2025, 17:20:

4 Major … in addition to Gazza’s valid point, the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed on 5 Dec 1995. In this agreement, Russia, the USA and the UK agreed to ‘refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against the Ukraine, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.’
Fascinating to see how Putin and Trump are collaborating together to screw over the Ukraine.

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.