Many people in Europe believe that Trump has diminished NATO’s nuclear defense capabilities

A new era has emerged in Europe. The days of unwavering American support for Europe’s defense against Russia are behind us.

In their place, particularly during Donald Trump‘s presidency, a more transactional approach has taken hold, raising the stakes significantly.

US Vice President JD Vance emphasized the need for Europe to significantly enhance its own defense capabilities during a meeting with key decision-makers in Munich this past February.

In response, Europe has committed to increasing its defense spending domestically and for Ukraine, with a focus on procuring European-manufactured weapons. However, a more ambitious proposal has also been suggested: the establishment of a European “nuclear umbrella.”

While the United States has traditionally served as Europe’s protector, France and the United Kingdom are also established nuclear powers, leading some European leaders to contemplate whether the most effective deterrent against Moscow might originate from within Europe itself.

Although the majority of the world’s nuclear arsenal is owned by the US or Russia, France possesses approximately 290 nuclear warheads, while the UK has 225 Trident missiles designed by the US.

In recent weeks, there has been a surge of discussions among European leaders about strengthening their collective defense under a British or French nuclear umbrella, as confidence in Washington’s reliability appears to be diminishing.

Earlier this month, French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to initiate a strategic discussion regarding the deterrence protection of European allies.

This statement followed remarks from Friedrich Merz, the likely next Chancellor of Germany, who advocated for discussions with France and the UK about expanding their nuclear defense commitments.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk noted that the French initiative was “not new” and had been previously discussed, expressing his endorsement of the concept.

Leaders from nations traditionally opposed to nuclear armament, such as Sweden and Denmark, also expressed their approval of France’s outreach to its European partners.

Since General Charles de Gaulle established France’s nuclear capabilities in the late 1950s to ensure Paris’s central role in global affairs, the program has been characterized by its sovereignty—described by Macron as “French from end to end.”

Historian Yannick Pincé from France’s Interdisciplinary Center for Strategic Studies (CIENS) pointed out that during the Cold War, France actively sought to extend its nuclear protection to its European allies.

While the UK has not publicly indicated any intention to modify or expand its nuclear defense commitments, its warheads are already integrated into the US-led NATO framework, providing a level of strategic security to European partners.

Nevertheless, some leaders continue to seek enhanced support from the United States.

On Thursday, Polish President Andrzej Duda urged President Trump to consider stationing US nuclear weapons in Poland, drawing a parallel to Russia’s 2023 decision to position some of its nuclear missiles in Belarus.

Duda expressed to the Financial Times, “I believe the time has come, and it would enhance safety if those weapons were already stationed here.”

significant challenge to any nuclear umbrella centered around Europe

In terms of military capability, France’s nuclear arsenal, while not as extensive as Russia’s, has only allowed it to threaten strategic retaliation, which means delivering a significant counterstrike to deter aggression, according to nuclear historian Yannick Pincé in an interview with CNN.

The relatively small size of France’s nuclear stockpile compared to that of the US has led to its capabilities being underestimated, even by senior military officials, as noted by retired General Michel Yakovleff, a former deputy commander of NATO forces in Europe.

In addition to its immense power, the size and variety of the American nuclear arsenal provide a crucial advantage in nuclear conflict: the ability to limit the scale of any thermonuclear exchange. Pincé explained that the US can implement what is known as a “graduated response,” potentially allowing for a targeted strike rather than deploying its entire stockpile.

Conversely, France’s nuclear capabilities, which include missile-equipped submarines and nuclear-capable bombers, were historically designed as a last resort against Cold War-era Russian threats, likely aimed at launching a concentrated attack on critical targets within Soviet territories to compel an enemy retreat.

Such differences present a significant challenge to any nuclear umbrella centered around Europe.

Yakovleff noted, “One aspect that Europeans lack is a nuclear culture. They have always assumed that the Americans would handle it.” He speculated that Macron might be considering the idea of educating interested parties on nuclear dialogue.

Macron has suggested that allies should take part in France’s classified nuclear exercises to gain insight into the nation’s capabilities and decision-making processes.

However, he has made it clear that he will not relinquish control of the “nuclear button” to allies or even to Brussels. He stated in a national address that the authority to initiate a nuclear strike “has always remained and will remain” with him.

According to Lukasz Kulesa, director of the proliferation and nuclear policy program at the UK-based think tank RUSI, the UK military has been “very active in enhancing what is referred to as the nuclear deterrence IQ at NATO,” ensuring that all allies are informed and comprehend the principles of nuclear deterrence.

This indicates that if Macron’s proposal were to materialize, “France wouldn’t be starting from scratch. These are nations that have been under the protection of extended nuclear deterrence for decades,” Heather Williams, director of the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained to CNN.

Importantly, she emphasized that the US has not indicated any intention to withdraw from its commitment to safeguard NATO allies.

This week, a US bomber capable of carrying nuclear weapons flew over central Stockholm to commemorate the one-year anniversary of Sweden joining NATO, a move rich in symbolism.

In a related development, a report released in February by the Federation of American Scientists highlighted “growing evidence from three years of documentation and observations” suggesting that the US is preparing to redeploy nuclear warheads to its primary airbase in the UK for the first time in over 15 years. CNN has reached out to the US Department of Defense for a response.

This potential action may reflect Washington’s serious concerns regarding the escalating tensions in Europe.

Countering Moscow

When comparing arsenals, Europe’s nuclear capabilities are significantly outmatched by those of Moscow.

According to Kulesa from RUSI, enhancing Europe’s nuclear arsenal would require “years, if not decades,” of investment and development.

However, deterrence is not solely about the quantity of missiles; it is also crucial to demonstrate the operational reliability of Europe’s nuclear forces.

Kulesa emphasized that stronger collaboration with allies regarding nuclear capabilities would significantly enhance deterrence. This could involve air-to-air refueling support for French bombers or anti-submarine warfare measures to safeguard British or French nuclear submarine operations.

Given the decline in investment in the British military over the past several decades, there are concerns about the effectiveness of Britain’s conventional and nuclear deterrents, especially considering its dependence on a US supply chain.

In the past eight years, the UK has publicly acknowledged two unsuccessful nuclear missile tests, including one off the coast of Florida, where dummy missiles failed to launch as expected.

Last month, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged what the government has termed “the largest defense spending increase since the Cold War” in response to a world that is becoming increasingly perilous.

In addition, other European allies without nuclear capabilities are also increasing their investments in conventional arms, which analysts believe is significant.

Kulesa emphasized that “nuclear weapons are not a panacea.”

He stated that effective deterrence against Russia will require both conventional and nuclear capabilities, and under Trump’s leadership, “the critical issue is whether the American commitment and engagement can be relied upon.”