Can French nuclear weapons protect the whole EU?
French President Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to meet with his European partners to discuss the possibility of extending the French nuclear umbrella to other countries. France and its 'Force de frappe' consisting of around 290 nuclear warheads has been the EU's only nuclear power since the Brexit. Europe's press examines the pros and cons.
Kremlin clearly worried
This deterrent could well prove effective, energy and security expert Mykhailo Honchar writes in a Facebook post republished by Espreso:
“Moscow's nervous reaction to French President Macron's statements about Paris's intentions to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella suggests that the Kremlin is concerned. ... Apparently Moscow believed that Macron would say all kinds of things but was unlikely to actually do anything, let alone make threats about nuclear weapons. Of course, France's nuclear potential is a fraction of Russia's, but it is quite enough to totally destroy the European part of Mordor [used pejoratively to refer to Russia here].”
Overcome distrust with nuclear weapons
Rzeczpospolita makes a bold suggestion:
“Any government in Warsaw would find a constellation in which Germany has nuclear weapons but Poland doesn't unacceptable. This attitude is also evident in Tusk's reaction to Emmanuel Macron's proposal to extend the French nuclear guarantees to our country: as soon as Merz requested a discussion on this subject, so did the Polish prime minister. ... Tusk did not specify what his vision is for Polish nuclear weapons. One possibility would be to coordinate our approach in this regard with Germany. Or to build joint Polish-German nuclear weapons. This would complete the reconciliation between our nations.”
It will take years to cover the demand
El País sees good intentions but not realistic goals:
“It's clear that strategic autonomy is unattainable within the space of the four years they are talking of; dependence on others will remain unavoidable. ... Regardless of whether Macron decides to extend the nuclear range of his Force de frappe to the other countries or whether Poland openly decides to acquire nuclear weapons. Even if the EU-27 were unanimously willing to respond to any threat from Russia or any other actor, there is no European defence industry (all we have are national sectors). ... It will take years for the existing companies to cover the demand of the armies. ... Even in the very best-case scenario the EU will not be able to replace the US militarily.”
Credible deterrence
Nuclear expert Benoît Grémare explains in The Conversation:
“As Macron has indicated, France could respond by stationing nuclear weapons in Eastern European countries, with the idea of eventually replacing the United States. This French nuclear umbrella would give concrete form to Europe's strategic autonomy with the deployment of fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons. This would be a sign of political solidarity in Europe and make Moscow's calculations more complicated. The visible presence of these aircraft in Eastern Europe could deter Russia from attacking the countries there with conventional means, as such an attack could provoke a French nuclear response on behalf of Europe.”
A vital message to Moscow and Washington
The Süddeutsche Zeitung stresses the importance of the discussion:
“One thing is clear: there will be no quick and comprehensive replacement for the US protective shield. Especially since the French offer raises countless complex technical and political questions - and would vanish into thin air if Marine Le Pen were elected president. In these dangerous times, it would be fatal to convey the impression that Europe is entering a state of shocked paralysis. The joint initiative by Merz and Macron is therefore a necessary signal - both to Moscow and to Washington.”
One step at a time
Aftonbladet sees such discussions as premature:
“The US has not left Nato. US troops have not been withdrawn from Europe. And we don't actually know whether this will happen at all. ... For now, our most important asset will continue to be our soft power - let's protect it. Clearly, soft power has its limits. And this is why the rearmament currently taking place across our continent is crucial. As long as the US remains in Nato and is prepared to honour its commitments, any rearmament should focus on conventional armed forces. Should the US leave Nato or start to waver on Article 5, the situation would change. But we are not there. Yet.”