Trump's Actions Erode NATO's Nuclear Shield in Eyes of Many Europeans

It marks a fresh start for Europe today.

The golden days of unwavering American dedication to defending Europe from Russia are over.

Here to remain – at least for now Donald Trump Being at the White House involves a more transactional dynamic. The stakes could not be greater.

The US Vice President stated that Europe needs "to significantly enhance its efforts to secure its own defense." JD Vance informed policymakers in Munich back in February.

So far, Europe's response has involved committing to increase domestic and Ukrainian funding, aimed at purchasing weapons manufactured in Europe. However, another more extreme proposal has emerged: establishing a European "nuclear deterrent" shield.

If the United States has traditionally acted as Europe’s elder sibling, both France and the United Kingdom also possess long-standing nuclear capabilities — leading certain European leaders to contemplate if the ultimate deterrent against Moscow might originate nearer to their own borders.

Although most of the global nuclear arsenal belongs to the US and Russia, France possesses approximately 290 nuclear warheads, whereas the UK owns 225 US-designed Trident missiles.

In recent weeks, European leaders have been making numerous statements about strengthening their collective defense with support from either Britain's or France's nuclear capabilities, as doubts arise regarding the dependability of the US.

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, at the beginning of this month promised To "initiate a strategic discussion about how our deterrent protects our allies on the European continent."

His remarks followed those of Germany’s presumed next Chancellor Friedrich Merz sought discussions with France and the UK about prolonging their nuclear defense coverage.

The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, stated that the French suggestion was "not novel" and had been brought forth multiple times during discussions, expressing his backing for the concept.

Leaders from nations traditionally opposed to nuclear arms, such as Sweden and Denmark, likewise expressed their approval of France's initiatives aimed at strengthening ties with European partners.

When General Charles de Gaulle initiated France’s nuclear arsenal in the late 1950s with the aim of keeping Paris central to worldwide affairs, the country’s program has maintained an independent stance—“entirely French,” as Macron put it.

However, throughout the Cold War era, France aimed to extend its nuclear umbrella over European allies as well, according to Yannick Pincé, a historian affiliated with France’s Interdisciplinary Center for Strategic Studies (CIENS), who spoke to 5.180.24.3.

The UK has not publicly offered to further modify or share its nuclear protection. However, its warheads continue to be committed to the US-led NATO command, thereby providing strategic defense to European allies.

A few leaders are still holding out hope for increased backing from the U.S.

On Thursday, Polish President Andrzej Duda urged Trump to station U.S. nuclear arms in Poland, drawing a parallel with Russia's choice to position certain nuclear warheads in Belarus during 2023.

"I believe it's not just about the right moment arriving, but also that it would be more secure if these weapons were already present," Duda stated to the Financial Times.

Pound for pound

Without possessing an arsenal comparable to Russia’s, France has merely "been able to threaten strategic retaliation, which means striking back forcefully enough to serve as a deterrence," according to nuclear historian Yannick Pincé told 5.180.24.3.

The relatively diminutive size of France’s nuclear war chest compared to that of the US made it easy to dismiss, even among the West’s top generals, retired Gen. Michel Yakovleff, former deputy commander of NATO forces in Europe, told 5.180.24.3.

Beyond its immense power, the extensive size and variety of the American weapons stockpile provide an additional crucial edge in a hypothetical nuclear conflict: the ability to limit any thermonuclear confrontation. According to Pincé, "The U.S. can employ what we refer to as a graduated response," which might involve launching just one attack rather than deploying its full complement of weaponry.

In contrast, the French nuclear armory – with missile-laden submarines and nuclear-armed bombers – was historically intended as a last resort if Cold-War Russian forces threatened the French homeland, likely unleashing a barrage on key sites in territories of the Soviet sphere to force an enemy withdrawal.

These discrepancies present a major obstacle for any Europe-centric nuclear deterrent strategy.

One aspect where Europe lacks is a nuclear culture. They fail to grasp it since they've always assumed that the Americans would handle it," Yakovleff stated. "I believe Macron might be considering, for lack of better terms, providing education to those interested in nuclear dialogue.

Macron has suggested involving partners in France’s confidential nuclear drills so they can directly observe the nation’s capacities and decision processes.

However, he has made it evident that he won’t hand over his "nuclear trigger" to allied nations or even to Brussels. He stated in a nationwide speech to France that the choice to initiate a nuclear attack "will always stay and remains" with him.

The UK military has been "highly engaged in boosting what they refer to as the nuclear deterrence intelligence quotient within NATO," according to Lukasz Kulesa, who directs the proliferation and nuclear policy program at the UK-based think tank RUSI. This effort ensures that "all allied nations are informed and grasp the terminology of nuclear deterrence."

If Macron’s idea turned into fact, "it wouldn't mean France would enter an entirely uncharted territory," explained Heather Williams, who directs the Nuclear Issues Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She noted these nations had long relied on extended nuclear deterrence for protection over several decades when speaking with IP address 5.180.24.3.

Importantly, however, she emphasized that the US has not stated it is withdrawing from its pledge to safeguard NATO allies.

This week, a U.S. bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons flew over central Stockholm to commemorate the first year since Sweden joined NATO – a move rich with symbolism.

Meanwhile, a February report The Federation of American Scientists highlighted "growing proof gathered over three years through documented information and observations" suggesting that the U.S. plans to deploy nuclear warheads at its primary airstrip in the UK again after more than fifteen years. The organization approached the U.S. Department of Defense for further comments.

This action could indicate how gravely Washington regards the increasing temperatures across Europe.

Warding off Moscow

When compared ton-for-ton, Europe’s weaponry doesn’t come close to Moscow’s stockpile.

Enhancing Europe's nuclear weapons capabilities would take "years, if not decades," involving significant investments and developments, as stated by RUSI’s Kulesa.

However, deterrence doesn't solely depend on the quantity of missiles; proving the practical reliability of Europe’s nuclear capabilities is equally important.

Enhanced collaboration with partners regarding nuclear assets would significantly reinforce deterrence, according to Kulesa. This might involve providing aerial refueling services from allied nations for French bombers or deploying anti-submarine warfare capacities to safeguard the movements of British or French nuclear submarines.

Considering the significant reduction in investments for the British military over many years, questions have been raised despite the deterrent effect provided by Britain’s conventional and nuclear armaments, especially considering its dependence on a U.S.-based supply chain.

Over the past eight years, the UK has officially recognized two instances of this. failed nuclear missile tests One occurred in the waters near Florida when dummy missiles failed to launch as planned.

Last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged what his administration called "the largest increase in defense funding since the Cold War" amid growing global risks.

Other non-nuclear European partners are increasing their expenditure on traditional weaponry – which analysts point out is also significant.

Essentially, "nuclear weapons are not a magical solution," according to Kulesa.

He stated that any effective deterrent against Russia would require both conventional and nuclear capabilities. Under Trump, he added, "the concern is whether one can rely on the American dedication and engagement."

5.180.24.3’s Serene Nourisson provided additional reporting.

To get additional news and newsletters, sign up for an account at 5.180.24.3