For the first time since the end of the Cold War, European capitals are discussing how to develop their own nuclear deterrence capabilities, citing sources familiar with the situation who refer to talks between military and governments, Bloomberg reports, writes UNN.
Details
Europe relies on the US for its so-called nuclear umbrella, consisting of US weapons based on the continent and NATO's mutual defense pact. If the US can no longer be trusted, Europe faces the ominous prospect of being left alone with a neighbor, Russia, which possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal, the publication writes.
Currently, only the UK and France have nuclear weapons.
French President Emmanuel Macron is expected to propose nuclear deterrence to the rest of Europe in his speech this month,
He already mentioned the possibility of extending the French umbrella to the rest of Europe last year after the events in Ukraine.
"With enough money, other European countries could theoretically acquire nuclear missiles. But this would require painful choices: high costs and violations of international treaties if countries want to develop their own arsenal, or accepting that signing a contract to protect an ally comes with a likely compromise in the form of an attack on themselves," the publication states.
"Imagine Russia invades Estonia," said Pavel Povdig, a senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research. "So, France has this calculation – they have the ability to inflict a lot of damage on Russia, but Russia will certainly inflict a lot of damage on France in return. Is that something Paris is willing to consider?"
Europe is treading carefully. "In addressing this issue, officials are carefully monitoring what signals they are sending to Russia, conducting negotiations in a bilateral or trilateral format between countries that have strong trust," said a person familiar with the negotiations.
"The countries involved in the negotiations typically host US military assets, are close to Russia, and feel directly threatened by Vladimir Putin," said a person familiar with the negotiations. "They are happening at a deep military level, and even ministers may not be aware of them," the person added.
Nuclear deterrence will be a hot topic at the Munich Security Conference, which begins on Friday. According to people familiar with the timing, "Macron's nuclear speech will take place later, in France, after consultations with the president's advisors."
According to experts, replacing the American "umbrella" with new European weapons is unaffordable for most countries, among other problems. The continent is already spending heavily on expanding conventional military power. In 2025, the European Union and the United Kingdom together spent over $530 billion on defense, which is more than half of Poland's entire gross domestic product.
For now, the best step for Europe would be to develop its advanced arsenal of non-nuclear weapons that can threaten valuable targets inside Russia and deter invasion, says Daria Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.
"I don't see a pan-European nuclear deterrent," Dolzikova, author of a recent report on nuclear deterrence in Europe, said. "I don't think it's possible. What I do think is possible is the question: 'How do the French and British think about their own internal deterrents, and how does that impact European security?'"
France and the UK have about 400 deployed warheads. This compares to 1,670 in America, and that number could increase after the New START treaty between the US and Russia, which controlled nuclear weapons, expires this month.
Despite a smaller arsenal, French and British warheads have enough explosive power to destroy hundreds of cities, according to Dolzikova. Russia, by contrast, is more flexible, its vast arsenal, including smaller weapons, gives it more options for targets and ways to respond in the event of any escalation.
The UK and France together spend about $12 billion each year to maintain their weapons. This is more than half of the entire defense budget of Sweden, NATO's newest member.
"Convincing voters to accept that expensive nuclear weapons cover other countries – even if costs don't increase – can be a difficult 'sell.' Paris and London are already facing taxpayer discontent as governments make difficult budget decisions," the publication states.
The two countries are holding discussions on how best to coordinate their nuclear forces. Last year, they signed the Northwood Declaration, which states: "Our nuclear forces are independent but can be coordinated and make a significant contribution to the overall security of the Alliance, as well as to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region."
France could deploy nuclear-capable fighter jets in other European countries, such as Poland, according to a report by the Paris-based think tank IFRI. Simpler options include increasing the participation of NATO countries in French nuclear exercises or closer cooperation between France and NATO's Nuclear Planning Group.
"Individual countries could invest in 'turnkey' capabilities, meaning having all the elements to build nuclear weapons if necessary. But even that requires nuclear power plants, complex and expensive enrichment facilities, and the political willingness to violate non-proliferation agreements," according to a person familiar with European nuclear discussions.
"This is a very complex issue because the French nuclear deterrent is not the actual nuclear umbrella that NATO offers us," Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told Bloomberg. "When you talk about nuclear weapons, it means spending a lot of money."
From the perspective of their partners, it is also not a guarantee that the UK and France will always have governments committed to the idea of protecting the rest of Europe, said IFRI researcher Eloise Faye. France is due to hold presidential elections next year, and Marine Le Pen and her right-hand man Jordan Bardella have loudly protested against any idea of sharing nuclear deterrence.
"Our allies may start to think they cannot rely on us," Faye said. "Trust requires quick and responsive action to form habits."
Meanwhile, NATO is doubling down on its unity messages. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has repeatedly stated that the Americans remain fully committed to the transatlantic alliance. A US Department of Defense official in Washington said that the US continues to extend nuclear deterrence to its allies, the publication writes.
Rutte named reasons why it is beneficial for the US to remain in NATO21.12.25, 19:05 • [views_5039]
Indeed, when the US talks about Europe taking care of its own security, it refers to conventional defense, the publication writes. US President Donald Trump did not mention the nuclear umbrella, and the US also did not raise the issue privately, according to people familiar with the matter. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
For its part, the UK's arsenal is closely linked to the US. Although the UK has operational independence in its nuclear deterrent, and its submarines are manufactured in the UK, its missiles are built by the American defense company Lockheed Martin Corp.
Unlike France, the UK has also assigned its nuclear deterrent to NATO defense since 1962, being the only European country to do so. This means it does not need to negotiate and sign bilateral agreements with other members.
But the difficulties and costs of developing nuclear weapons that could compete with the US will most likely make European goals more modest, the publication notes. "If you want a multi-layered nuclear umbrella, then you are very close to becoming a world power," said Belgian De Wever. "I'm not sure if Europe should go all the way."