## Europe’s Defining Moment: Forging an Independent Nuclear Shield
On a poignant day, May 8th, the venerable 92-year-old Greek songstress, Nana Mouskouri, lent her voice to “Je chante avec toi, Liberté” (I sing with you, Freedom). This stirring anthem, set to the evocative melody of Verdi’s “Va Pensiero” – the celebrated Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves from *Nabucco* – resonated with profound meaning. Performed under the majestic Arc de Triomphe in Paris, backed by the esteemed Orchestra of the Gendarmerie’s Garde Républicaine, it was a powerful contribution to a concert for peace. The lyrics themselves are a testament to freedom, portraying Liberty as a living entity for which one would willingly lay down their life.
### The Enduring Quest for Liberty
At the heart of any truly republican ideal lies the unshakeable principle of Liberty. Without it, the aspirations of Equality and Fraternity remain distant dreams. History offers a stark lesson: nations that have surrendered their freedom and independence invariably did so because they faltered in their self-defense. The bedrock of any nation’s security rests upon robust military capabilities, designed not for aggression, but to deter potential adversaries. The core principle is simple yet profound: an attack must be rendered too costly for any aggressor, thanks to the defender’s formidable deterrent.
For a deterrent to truly succeed, it must possess an undeniable credibility. A would-be aggressor must be convinced that the defending nation possesses not only the capability but also the unwavering resolve to employ it. The most successful deterrent, of course, is the one that prevents conflict without ever having to be activated. The chilling policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the Cold War, for instance, proved effective largely because both the US and the USSR committed to a no-first-strike doctrine and adhered to a series of treaties that mitigated the existential threat of nuclear war.
### A Shifting Global Landscape and Europe’s Precarious Position
Throughout the 20th century, the United States consistently played the role of Europe’s indispensable guardian, intervening five times: in the First and Second World Wars, through the transformative Marshall Aid Plan, during the long vigil of the Cold War, and, albeit reluctantly, in the volatile Balkan conflicts following eight years of strife in the former Yugoslavia.
However, the political winds shifted dramatically. By the close of President Trump’s first term, it became unequivocally clear that the US was no longer content with Europe’s continued reliance on its security guarantees. Trump’s stark warnings to NATO members who failed to meet the 2% GDP defense spending target sent tremors through the alliance. His rhetoric rattled even smaller nations, pushing them to boost defense spending out of sheer panic, often without a clear strategic rationale. Simultaneously, his disconcerting interactions with Vladimir Putin further amplified alarm among European NATO leaders, eroding confidence in the US as a steadfast partner in European defense.
Then came Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, unveiling Putin’s brazen ambition to resurrect a 19th-century Russian Empire. The most formidable long-term challenge for Europe stems from Russia’s vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. Ominously, in recent years, Putin has unilaterally abandoned the USSR’s former no-first-nuclear-strike doctrine. Russia now reserves the right to employ nuclear weapons, potentially starting with tactical variants, if confronted by an overwhelming conventional assault from NATO.
This strategic pivot compounds a long-standing “niggling doubt” that predates even the Trump administration. Would the US truly risk a nuclear war to defend, say, a smaller Baltic state overrun by Russia? Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the bedrock of NATO’s mutual defense commitment, does not explicitly obligate the US to employ nuclear weapons in a European conflict. Furthermore, Trump’s alarming willingness to concede a staggering 20% of Ukraine to Russia – a territory three times larger than the Sudetenland Chamberlain handed to Hitler in Munich in 1938 – underscored that Russia could invade a sovereign nation in the 21st century with seeming impunity.
### Europe’s Urgent Nuclear Imperative
For decades, the US has effectively extended a nuclear umbrella over Europe. Yet, with Washington repeatedly signaling that Europe must shoulder its own security burden, a critical question arises: Must Europe now develop its own nuclear deterrent to counter Russia’s formidable stockpile of 5,449 warheads? Is there a viable non-nuclear alternative to deterring a major nuclear power? The sobering answer, for now, is no. Until humanity can collectively agree to the complete abolition of all nuclear weapons, Europe requires a credible nuclear deterrent. Should the US truly withdraw its protective nuclear shield, Europe risks the chilling prospect of “Finlandisation” by Russia – a historical echo of post-WWII Finland’s forced acquiescence to Soviet foreign policy.
#### Forging a European Deterrent
The path forward is fraught with challenges but essential for survival.
##### Leveraging Existing Capabilities
The UK and France collectively possess approximately 515 nuclear weapons. While these constitute credible national deterrents, they are insufficient to serve as a continental bulwark against Russia’s vast arsenal. Encouragingly, both nations have indicated a principled willingness to integrate these assets into a broader European nuclear deterrent and even explore expanding their inventories. The UK, for instance, is already planning to introduce a squadron of bombers equipped with tactical nuclear weapons. However, to approach even a third of Russia’s nuclear capacity, several other European states would need to join this effort, which would inherently entail a violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
##### A Path to Shared Control
Another intriguing possibility involves a novel arrangement with the United States. For many years, the US has strategically stockpiled 100 nuclear weapons across Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Turkey. While this has historically made these nations primary targets for nuclear strikes, could this existing risk be transformed into collective strength? The critical question is whether these countries, having already accepted the risk, would be willing to take the crucial next step: accepting operational control of these nuclear weapons. A historical precedent exists: during the Cold War, up until 1968, the US maintained nuclear weapons in Canada under joint US-Canadian operational control. This model offers an interesting blueprint for Europe.
##### Funding the Future of Security
In prior discussions on European security between the EU and NATO, a practical division of labor emerged: NATO provided the military assets, while the EU furnished the financial muscle. This effective model was swiftly deployed to support Ukraine during its crisis. It could similarly be leveraged to fund a nuclear consortium dedicated to developing and enhancing Europe’s nuclear deterrent. The “Security Action for Europe” (SAFE) fund is already established and operational. While a recent setback occurred when discussions between the EU and the UK regarding the UK’s access to SAFE faltered, the sticking point was not the UK’s non-EU member status, but rather the EU’s proposed “enabling fees.” It is imperative that the other EU members of the consortium find common ground with the UK to resolve this relatively minor hurdle.
In conclusion, the formation of a consortium of European nations willing to embrace nuclear weapons could lay the foundation for an effective European nuclear deterrent, essential to thwarting Russia’s territorial ambitions. We stand at a critical juncture: if Russia is allowed to invade even one small EU or NATO state with impunity, the consequences are dire. A weakened EU might limp on, but NATO, the cornerstone of transatlantic security, would likely dissolve overnight, leaving Europe utterly exposed.