64 years ago, when the world was hit by the fear of a nuclear confrontation between superpowers, France, then President Charles de Gaulle, reported a question to John F. Kennedy during a visit to Paris: Was the US President ready to sacrifice New York to save Paris?
Kennedy apparently never replied directly and replied that the Russians believe it.
Fast lead by 2025, and the same question remains the focus of the collective core defense. The current President of France, Emmanuel Macron, has essentially invited other European countries – and all who live in their capitals – essentially to ask a similar question from him.
In a prime time speech on Wednesday evening, Macron spoke to the war in Ukraine, in the middle of fears that Donald Trump could give up his ally Ukraine, but possibly also the 70-year-old NATO military alliance. Trump did not only cut Ukraine from the delivery of arms that were able to hold it against the invasion of Russia for three years, but also repeated the Russian propaganda over the NATO start of the war and has not met any public demands from Russia to stop his attacks.
With a Russia led by Vladimir of Putin, which is an increasing threat to the security of the continent, Macron said that he would open the talks with European allies as to whether the roof of the nuclear arsenal in France could also be extended.
Unreliable ally?
“I would like to believe that the United States will stay by our side, but we have to be ready if this is not the case,” Macron said to his country.
In contrast to Great Britain, whose nuclear warheads are delivered at the end of the American rockets and whose command and control systems are connected, Macron recalled his compatriots that the France atom system is completely separated.
“It is completely sovereign and completely French,” said Macron. “In response to the historical reputation of the future German Chancellor, however, I decided to open the strategic debate about the protection of our European continental allies through our deterrent.”
From 2024, Russia has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world with more than 5,500, according to the Federation of American Scientists, which is suitable from the USA.
France is far back at 290 and Great Britain has even less, 225, but they are the four and fifth largest such arsenal in the world.
Experts who have studied the politics of the nuclear deterrence say that it is not necessarily the number of explosive heads that count – it is whether your opponent believes that you are using them when the ascent reaches the escalation manager at the top.
“Now the question would be:” Would a French President or British Prime Minister for Tallinn (Estonia) really risk Paris or London? That is the real challenge, “says David Blagden, professor of international security and strategy at the University of Exeter in England.
“In the Cold War, we have developed various ways to increase this credibility. So things like what was often referred to as” trip wire “systems by floor troops -for example NATO troops or American, British, French troops in West Berlin … and so that the theory makes the extended deterrent more credible.”
Sovereign arsenal
According to Blagden, the two nuclear forces between France and Great Britain, France is able to offer the continent of what Macron calls “nuclear umbrella” because it has more opportunities to use such weapons, and thus more funds to project the deterrent.
For example, some of his fighter planes can fit with nuclear missiles, which can then be stationed in other countries to send a pointed message and possibly deter any potential Russian action.
Great Britain, on the other hand, has a so -called “sole nuclear platform” when its rockets can only start through his fleet of U boats from the sea.
Military strategists are invisible under the water and say that the subs is less useful to signal or send directed deterrent messages to an opponent.
The United States cut Ukraine from crucial and potentially life -saving secret services in the war against the full invasion of Russia. The Trump government suggests that it could be stopped again if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy complies with the US efforts to terminate the conflict.
The United States currently stationed nuclear weapons in six bases in five NATO countries: Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. In theory, Blagden says that nothing prevents the same countries from exchanging them for French nuclear weapons.
“It can be done – but it really depends on France’s willingness to bear the potential escalation risks and escalation costs that would go hand in hand with it.”
Misdirected idea?
Others who have examined the dynamics of the nuclear deterrence are less convinced that France is able to take over the nuclear defense of Europe – or that even if this is the case, it would dissuade the aggression from leaders like Putin.
“I think this is a deeply misguided idea,” said Pavel Podvig, an independent analyst in Geneva, which leads the Russian nuclear forces of the website who pursues problems with nuclear weapons.
According to Podvig, nuclear deterrence is a doubtful concept, precisely because it believes that it is unlikely that a country will sacrifice its own cities to try to save those in another country.
“Over the years (the Cold War), Europeans always had doubts about the strength of (American) commitment,” he told CBC News.
Podvig claims what did not keep peace between the Soviets and Americans in many exciting decades – instead it was “the system of norms, understanding and agreements between the states”.
Historians agree that it was de Gaulle’s distrust of the United States that led to the development of a “sovereign” nuclear arsenal of France – and after Macron’s speech on Wednesday, French politicians quickly consisted of developing what France’s president of his finger will still be on the button.
Germany’s probably in -depth Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he supported the discussion, as well as the leaders in the Baltic States, Denmark, Poland and Sweden.
Threat for Russia
However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Macron’s nuclear rhetoric was a threat.
“Paris’ ambitions to become the nuclear ‘patron saint’ throughout Europe have broken openly,” says a statement by the country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “This will not lead to the security of France himself or its allies.”
In a speech in the Chatham House in London on Thursday on Thursday, the Ukrainian general, who directed the successful defense of Kyiv in the early stages of the Russia’s complete invasion, said that the NATO days are numerous, which is repeated the feeling of urgency that is now feeling about the continent.
“Washington’s non -recognition of the aggression of (Russia) … is also a new challenge and not only for Ukraine, but also for all of Europe”
“Not only Russia … tries to destroy the world order, but the United States actually destroy them completely.”
If this turns out to be the case, Europe from the University of Exeter says that Europe will be attributed to the kind of strategic situation with which it is confronted for a large part of the Cold War of the Cold War.
In this dynamic, the Soviets held a considerable advantage in conventional forces and workers, while the West was dependent on its nuclear arsenal so -called tactical weapons in order to improve things.
“NATO is only as good as the conviction that the members, especially the most powerful member (the United States), will actually act to defend the other members.”
