Vladimir Putin was able to throw European discussions into the headlines, which had long been pushed out of the field.. Does Europe now or in the future need its own nuclear arsenal to deter a potential strike

During the Cold War and in the years after it, this issue seemed already resolved.. European NATO members will be protected by the US nuclear " As participants in the transatlantic " To respond to a potential Russian strike, the allies will be able to drop them from their own planes, Bloomberg writes..

In addition to American weapons, France and Britain have their own nuclear arsenals.. But Paris has always taken its warheads outside the overall strategy of the Western alliance.. France is the only country of NATO's 30 allies not participating in the alliance's Nuclear Planning Group.. Even before Putin unleashed a full-scale war against Ukraine this year, some Europeans were worried that the American umbrella was becoming less reliable.. The United States has changed its geopolitical focus from the Atlantic to the Pacific, focusing in particular on confronting China, which is now building up its arsenal. Thus, Washington needs to maintain two nuclear umbrellas at once and plan for two wars at the same time.. Scholars such as Maximilian Terhalle in Germany and Francois Geisburg in France warn that Washington, if forced to choose, could prioritize commitments to Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan..

Worse, former US President Donald Trump scared the Europeans when he questioned the wisdom of joint NATO defense and even suggested that Washington might withdraw from the alliance.. Trump is not in the White House right now.. But he or someone like him might come back.. In the long run, the US appears to be a less reliable protector than it used to be.. And in addition to all these circumstances, Putin began to speak frankly about the possible use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine or Western countries if they intervene in the war unleashed by him.. Now everyone thinks he's bluffing. But from the Baltics to Poland and elsewhere, Europeans would like to know what the continent's contingency plan is..

[see_also ids\u003d"

In one scenario, France could extend its nuclear umbrella to the entire EU (which the UK is no longer a member of). President Emmanuel Macron often speaks of European " So theoretically he should agree with such a decision. In practice, the French have neither the desire nor the opportunity. Since the time of Charles de Gaulle, Paris has always insisted on total sovereignty over its arsenal and all decisions related to it.. Therefore, the idea of \u200b\u200ba Europeanized force de frappe, as the French call their nuclear weapons, faces the same problem as the idea of \u200b\u200b\u200b\u200bcreating a " Without the United States of Europe, it is not clear who, when and how will command everything.

Moreover, the French arsenal is not suitable for the defense of all of Europe.. It consists of approximately 290 nuclear weapons.. In the event of a full-scale war, an enemy like Russia, which has thousands of warheads, could try to blow up these French stockpiles with a preemptive strike.. Deterrence only works if a response is guaranteed. Also, French nuclear weapons are not of the right type.. It is " This means that these weapons are intended for use only in the event of an all-out war, in order to demolish entire cities on enemy territory..

But if Russia escalates, it will do so with tactical nuclear weapons, i.e., smaller, short-range warheads, to intimidate the enemy into surrender or win individual battles.. It is inconceivable that France or any other nuclear country would respond to a first and limited tactical strike with the launch of a strategic nuclear weapon that Armageddon would arrange..

This leads to the conclusion that the US, France, and the UK should add tactical means to their arsenals for flexibility in response to potential Russian aggression.. The EU, led by Germany and France, can organize cooperation in this area. But even so, the Europeans have to solve old questions about the command structure.. Alternatively, countries like Germany could build their own nuclear bombs.. But for this, Berlin will have to withdraw from the international agreement on nuclear non-proliferation, which opened the way to the unification of the country.. Moreover, Germany will have to change its entire political culture, which appeared after the Second World War.. Many of today's leaders of the country have grown up protesting the deployment of American missiles and nuclear weapons in general..

[see_also ids\u003d"

Therefore, for now, the most realistic response to Putin's threats is to keep and " Placing more U.S. tactical assets in different locations is a language Moscow and Beijing understand well. This is the only way to slow down the pace of friendly and hostile countries in building their own nuclear arsenals.. But the entire American political class must clearly reassure its allies that the US is ready to defend them, even if Trump becomes president again or there is a flood..

What is most depressing, however, is that the world is entering a new tactical nuclear arms race.. He is moving in the opposite direction to the views on which the 86 non-nuclear-weapons Agreement on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons rests.. Instead of getting rid of arsenals once and for all, humanity is looking for new ways to curb their use.. And it's all Putin's fault. He attacked Ukraine 28 years after Russia guaranteed its security in order for Kyiv to give up its nuclear weapons, which were inherited from the USSR. Putin broke taboo by threatening nuclear escalation in non-nuclear war. This is how Putin made pacifism and naivety unsustainable. The EU, deservedly called the greatest "