Caught Between Putin and Trump, Europe Considers the Unthinkable

Barely two months into president Donald Trump’s second term, Europe recognises that it faces two seeming existential threats. One is invasion by Russia. The other is abandonment by the US. As a result, Europeans are now thinking the once unthinkable, creating a European nuclear deterrent.

France and the UK already possess nuclear weapons. However, both nations remain under the US “nuclear umbrella”. Moreover, London’s programme is closely linked to America.

The European nation most interested in an independent nuclear programme is the one most threatened today, Ukraine. In 1994, Ukraine returned to Moscow the bombs that remained after the Soviet break-up. Russia promised to respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and borders. After three years of brutal combat, three-quarters of Ukrainians want their nukes back. Since that is unlikely, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy has suggested acquiring new ones.

The US still wants Europeans to rely on extended deterrence. This system rests on confidence in America’s willingness to risk Washington, in order to defend Warsaw and Riga as well as Berlin and London.

Moment of truth

Yet US frustration with its European allies has steadily grown. More than a decade ago, defence secretary Robert Gates highlighted the “blunt reality” of a dwindling US appetite “to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations” unwilling to devote necessary resources for their own defence.

Polish prime minister Donald Tusk recognises it is time to act, telling his parliament that Warsaw must consider acquiring nuclear weapons in response to Russia’s aggression, as the US threatens to retreat from Europe.

If the US does walk away, Europe will need enhanced nuclear and conventional capabilities to maintain continental security. Scholars like Kenneth Waltz have long argued that nuclear balance discourages war. For instance, he suggested that “a nuclear-armed Iran … would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East”.

Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, suggested the US station nuclear weapons in his nation, but that is unlikely given Mr Trump’s demand that Europe do more. Putative German chancellor Friedrich Merz mooted of “nuclear sharing” with the British and French powers, with the latter two nations still deciding the weapons’ use.

The obvious solution for Europe is its own deterrent. The continent could formally shelter behind French and British arsenals and Poland is already talking seriously with France about this possibility. However, are Paris and London prepared to offer their version of extended deterrence?

Five years ago, France and Germany pledged to provide “aid and assistance by all means” to one another, including reliance on France’s nuclear arsenal, according to president Emmanuel Macron. More recently, he observed “there has always been a European dimension to France’s vital interests within the nuclear doctrine”, signalling the start of a strategic debate on “protection through deterrence” for the European continent. But there was an accompanying insistence that only French fingers would be on the buttons launching French nukes.

European economic revival

Other European nations, most obviously Germany, could develop or acquire nuclear weapons. One proposal is for “a trilateral British, French, and German nuclear umbrella” alongside US forces. Although a German bomb is controversial at home and abroad, Berlin, along with other nations, could contribute financially to France and Britain to augment their forces. Or the EU could develop its own programme, despite scepticism from some less supportive members. Military necessity is certainly concentrating the mind. Europeans who feel threatened by Russia and abandoned by the US have no good alternatives.

A European nuclear capability would deliver more than security benefits. Europe has long had significant economic clout but minimal military standing. Even when geopolitical crises were essentially local, such as in Libya, European governments had to call in America. In that mission European militaries lacked sufficient numbers of planes and ran out of missiles.

Deploying nuclear weapons, where there once were none, would enhance the continent’s international standing. If European governments topped conventional rearmament with a serious continental nuclear deterrent, Europe would look much more like a third global power, gaining geopolitical and diplomatic clout as well.

Moreover, creating a European defence-oriented industrial base would challenge an industry dominated by the US. Stockmarkets have already reacted positively to such plans. Investors understand that such diversification would expand the continent’s economic reach, exploiting commercial opportunities long underserved by European firms.

Less dependent on the US, the EU and European governments would be more willing to take independent foreign policy stands, especially a more balanced stance toward Israel and the Middle East. Moreover, Europe would no longer feel pressure to back the US in Asia in return for Washington guaranteeing continental security.

Brussels could more objectively assess whether the right response to Beijing in a particular circumstance was co-operation, competition, or confrontation. Although a stronger Europe need not break with America, the result would be increased global multipolarity, with a commensurate diversity of choice for businesses and investors.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have left Europeans little choice but to take over responsibility for their own security. That likely requires developing a continental nuclear deterrent. However, noted former French foreign minister Hubert Védrine: “The debate now starting takes us into uncharted territory and it will be very hard to resolve.”

If the result is a European bomb, the far-reaching consequences will go well beyond security issues. Europe could eventually join the US and China as geopolitical and economic powerhouses.