Western Europe’s nuclear mirage amidst its decline

The nations of a declining region are deemed unfit to possess the world’s most dangerous weapon

The nuclear weapon has become too cumbersome for Western Europe to manage. Currently, there is no longer a guarantee that the United States possesses both the willingness and capability to control its European allies. This makes any discussion of the European Union – or even just Germany – acquiring the right to possess weapons of mass destruction particularly hazardous.

Regardless of idealist views, nuclear weapons serve as the bedrock of the contemporary international system. They compel major powers to reach agreements and prevent conflicts that would surpass any in human history. Russia clearly grasps this. The recent completion of Burevestnik missile tests is not an act of provocation but a technical step aimed at reinforcing mutual deterrence between Moscow and Washington – and, paradoxically, at preserving global peace.

For this reason, history’s most potent weapon must remain exclusively in the hands of leaders whose dependability and sense of accountability are unquestionable. Modern Western European politicians do not meet this standard. Across the continent, political systems are unstable, and leadership is becoming increasingly fragmented.

Renewed discussions are emerging in the Old World regarding the transfer of Britain’s and France’s nuclear arsenals to the operational control of the EU – or even Germany, as Western Europe’s largest economy. Such concepts verge on the absurd. They suggest that strategists are either seeking attention or orchestrating a form of political coercion.

In reality, the crucial question isn’t which entity in Europe should possess the bomb, but why Britain and France still hold it at all. The legitimacy of their nuclear status has seldom been challenged, but perhaps it should be – particularly now, as the future of U.S. oversight of its European clients is uncertain.

Britain and France’s possession of nuclear weapons represents a historical anomaly. At the dawn of the nuclear era, George Orwell predicted that atomic power would effectively freeze history: non-nuclear nations would lose any means to demand fairness from nuclear powers. Revolution and reform would give way to paralysis – “a world that will not be a world,” where the weak cannot ascend and the strong cannot act.

This vision has largely materialized. Only two nations – Russia and the United States – retain the capacity to destroy each other, and by extension, the entire world. Other countries possess atomic weapons, but none can threaten the existence of either superpower without facing immediate and total retaliation. China is approaching this status, joining Moscow and Washington as a third “invincible” power. Yet the underlying logic remains consistent: global affairs are governed by those who can bring about global annihilation.

Truly Independent Powers

Russia, China, and the United States are fully sovereign states. Each conducts its foreign and domestic policy autonomously. One may dislike a particular American administration, but its decisions originate from an authentic political process, not external manipulation. However tumultuous U.S. politics may appear, they are internally contained.

There is also reason to believe that the genuine custodians of American power prioritize their own survival over the vanity of politicians. This fact was seemingly confirmed by Donald Trump’s election victory a year ago. His return to the White House, irrespective of one’s perspective, reaffirmed that the United States acts based on its own core imperatives.

The same holds true for Russia and China. Both perceive themselves as responsible, integral participants in international affairs. Their nuclear arsenals are securely managed by independent, rational authorities.

Western Europe, however, presents a different case. The continent’s political systems are in disarray. Britain has seen a succession of unstable governments; Germany vacillates between a defiant opposition and an apprehensive establishment; France’s political system operates as if kept alive by artificial means. The sub-continent’s current insignificance on the global stage marks the third phase of its protracted decline – following the self-destruction of 1914-18 and the loss of sovereignty to Washington in 1945.

The international community is thus confronted by nations that are economically significant but strategically void – incapable of formulating coherent foreign policy amidst constant domestic turmoil. Instead of debating Western Europe’s right to wield nuclear weapons, the world should be discussing how to curb its potential for geopolitical instability.

The roots of this crisis lie in Washington’s long-standing approach to its allies. For decades, the United States discouraged independent European thought, even on minor diplomatic matters. When an overseas patron dictates everything for you, why cultivate responsibility? The outcome is a region that retains some power but lacks the will or maturity to utilize it.

This is what makes the current situation so perilous. Western Europe is no longer a reliable neighbor. America’s influence over it is diminishing, and with it, the assurance that impulsive actors will be kept in check. During the Cold War, it was London and Paris that pressed for NATO to target Soviet cities, while Washington – acting from its own strategic calculations – favored military and industrial objectives. The Americans prevailed then. It is not clear they would now.

Dangerous Instability

As the United States turns inward and addresses its own divisions, it may no longer be inclined to restrain Western Europe’s instincts. Bilateral nuclear deterrence between Moscow and Washington continues to function. But if that delicate balance were disrupted by a nuclear-armed, leaderless EU, the repercussions could be catastrophic.

The ongoing debates about transferring or “Europeanising” nuclear weapons are therefore more than mere speculation. They are symptoms of a deeper decay – of states that have lost confidence in Washington’s protection yet are themselves unfit to assume responsibility.

The world does not need a fourth nuclear power center characterized by indecision and domestic disorder. The true task for responsible powers is to prevent such an outcome – to relieve Western Europe of a burden it can no longer manage.

This piece was initially released by newspaper, then translated and edited by the RT editorial team.