Shortly after 8.30:12 a.m. on July 2018, XNUMX, Donald Trump asked his national security adviser, John Bolton, "Do you want to do something historic?" The President of the United States had just spent the night at the US NATO mission in Brussels and had a long day of summit meetings ahead of him. Trump was eager to make waves.
After dinner the previous night with the heads of state and government of the transatlantic alliance, he was in a bad mood. Again, most of America's NATO allies refused to pledge to increase defense spending. And on top of that, German Chancellor Angela Merkel still didn't want to suspend construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. "We're getting out," Trump announced to his startled advisers, adding: "We're not going to fight someone they're paying." That statement referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the reliance of a large number of European countries on energy imports from Russia.
At a time when Joe Biden's popularity is at an all-time low, the question is what will happen if Donald Trump returns to the White House and withdraws the US from NATO, leaving Europe alone with a dictator who violates all norms and does not hesitate to kill civilians
Bolton, as he states in his memoirs, began to wonder if he would have to resign by the end of the day if Trump carried out his plan. Together with Secretary Mike Pompeo, he succeeded in preventing the president from withdrawing from NATO. However, if Trump returns to the White House after the 2024 election, it could put a stake in the heart of the alliance.
"In the second term, I think he could withdraw from NATO," Bolton said at the beginning of March. "I also think that Putin was waiting for that".
A series of misconceptions
The war in Eastern Europe revealed several deceptions. One of them is, for example, the idea that deliveries of Russian natural gas cannot be used as a political weapon. Or that Putin's megalomania is just the usual clamor of the Kremlin.
"Those who use violence to change borders will do it again and again," German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said at the end of March. "That's why we have to strengthen together so that it doesn't happen again".
In response to Putin's aggression, Scholz said that his government intends to inject 100 billion euros into German defense, while Foreign Minister Anabela Berbok promised to develop a national security strategy by the end of the year that will reflect German interests. It is astonishing that Berlin has never had such a strategy before.
But it is already becoming clear how difficult it can be to devise a convincing plan for European security. What will happen if the US withdraws from NATO and leaves Europe alone with a dictator who violates all norms and does not hesitate to kill civilians?
This is an issue that American organizations are now focusing more on than the government in Berlin. Again, it seems as if the German government's penchant for denying reality is in full swing. "Germany's passivity toward Donald Trump when he was elected president in 2016 was shocking," said Max Bergman of the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based organization affiliated with the Democratic Party. "You know, I didn't quite understand how Europeans pretend that nothing has changed and that America is completely reliable".
That may be the case while Joe Biden is in the White House. However, the 79-year-old Democrat's popularity is at an all-time low, and with the November 2024 election looming, the party doesn't seem to have a viable replacement.
Meanwhile, within the Republican Party, there is a strong group that would like the US to turn its back on NATO. Last Tuesday, 63 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against a resolution reaffirming US support for NATO. A day later, the Pew Research Center published a poll according to which 82 percent of Democratic voters believe that the US benefits from the Western alliance, but only 55 percent of Republicans agree.
It is not an absurd thought that Trump could base his entire campaign on opposition to NATO and it could even prove successful, said Michael O. Hanlon, from the Brookings Institute and a member of the defense policy committee at the Pentagon.
"If all this goes wrong, I think Europe will be faced with a fundamental and difficult choice, and one of them may be the idea of developing a European nuclear deterrent."
Tough nuclear debate in Germany
It is a topic that has caused turmoil in the German government before. Chancellor Konrad Edanauer and Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss discussed developing a European bomb with France and Italy.
In November 1957, Strauss even signed a secret agreement with his colleagues from Paris and Rome. Their goal was to build a European nuclear shield independent of the US. The plan was eventually torpedoed by Charles de Gaulle, who took power in France in mid-1958 and wanted France to have its own nuclear weapons. The idea of a common European bomb never gained momentum again - to the displeasure of Strauss, who for the rest of his life thought it wrong for the German military to depend on the US for nuclear weapons.
Over the years, however, Strauss became increasingly lonesome in his push for the development of the bomb. NATO's dual approach decision, by which the Western alliance attempted to respond to the Warsaw Pact's nuclear weapons build-up in Europe, sparked thousands of protests in the streets of Germany and Europe during the 1980s. Resistance within Germany's center-left Social Democrats to the increase in US Pershing missiles in Europe was so great that it contributed to the fall of Chancellor Helmut Schmidt's government in 1982.
In 2010, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle even tried to make Germany a nuclear-weapon-free zone and called on the Americans to withdraw all their nuclear warheads from the Buchel Air Base in western Germany. Until recently, prominent Social Democrats such as parliamentary group leader Rolf Mutzenich blocked attempts by the German military to acquire new fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads under the NATO exchange program. And now, the EU should consider the path to becoming a nuclear power?
The war in Eastern Europe revealed several deceptions. One of them is, for example, the idea that deliveries of Russian natural gas cannot be used as a political weapon. Or that Putin's megalomania is just the usual clamor of the Kremlin.
Faced with Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the German government at least decided to order American F-35 bombers. They have the capacity to deliver American warheads deep into enemy territory.
"The NATO nuclear deterrent must remain credible," said Berbokova, opening the debate on the strategy for German national security. Nevertheless, the government's estimates still proceed from the assumption that NATO and the USA remain dependent, which is a rather irresponsible option considering the events in the USA.
"It is objectively possible that a US president will be re-elected who will question NATO and the American nuclear shield for Europe," said Ekehard Bros, president of the Federal Academy for Security Policy. "That should worry us".
Dependence on American nukes may ultimately be more dangerous than dependence on Russian gas. Putin has the fourth largest army in the world, with 900 soldiers. The German Bundeswehr has only 000 soldiers
It is clear that the reputation of the Russian fighting forces has been tarnished by their inability to capture even the Ukrainian capital of Kiev. However, Russia's military threat is not only rooted in its tanks and artillery, but also in its nearly 6000 nuclear warheads, more than enough to destroy Europe. The Russian arsenal also includes tactical nuclear weapons, which, due to their lower explosive power, are intended for the front. It can also be detonated in unpopulated areas to force the enemy to surrender.
"The fact that Putin has not yet played the nuclear card in Ukraine demonstrates the strength of NATO," said Maximilian Terhale, visiting professor of political science at King's College in London. However, the nuclear deterrent of the Western alliance is almost entirely dependent on the US, which possesses about 5400 nuclear warheads of various strengths, which can be delivered in a number of ways, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, stealth bombers and cruise missiles.
Is America trustworthy?
With the US recently shifting its strategic focus more towards China, Terhale has been calling for Europe to establish its own nuclear deterrent for years. In December 2013, he joined French political adviser François Heisborough in efforts to have France expand its rather limited nuclear shield to protect European states that do not possess such weapons.
"That commitment could include a rotating presence of French nuclear-capable combat aircraft on the territory of NATO allies in Europe, including Germany," the two scientists wrote. It is an idea that received real attention at the time only in political security circles. However, that has now changed.
"Putin's aggression against Ukraine and his nuclear threats clearly showed us again how important NATO and the American nuclear shield are," said Christoph Hosgen, former security advisor to Chancellor Merkel. "We have to understand that the US sees China as the biggest threat, and we have to monitor possible internal political developments in the US."
It is a diplomatic way of saying that Germany must prepare for a scenario where the Americans can no longer be relied upon. Hosgen worked in Merkel's cabinet for 12 years and is one of the most experienced security policy experts in Europe. In the summer of 2017, half a year after Trump's inauguration, Hosgen was sent to New York as Germany's ambassador to the United Nations, and is now the chairman of the Munich Security Conference. After his time at the UN, Hosgen is convinced that the old transatlantic certainties are no longer applicable. This prompted him to go public.
Europeans must be prepared for much more than deterrence and defense, Hosgen said. He believes that the investment of 100 billion euros in the German army is absolutely necessary. "However, in addition, I believe that we should start a strategic dialogue with France with a focus on whether and how Europeans can jointly contribute to nuclear deterrence against Russia. One model could involve the German government and other EU members contributing financially to the French nuclear weapons program, and in return participating in the planning and deployment of French atomic weapons”.
Hosgen would like such negotiations to be part of efforts to form a true political union, which would remain a partner with the US. He is also aware that there have been periodic efforts in Paris to break away from the US. It wasn't that long ago that French President Emmanuel Macron described NATO as "brain dead" - an assessment that many in Berlin saw as poor. In the end, what is the purpose of such a taunting of the transatlantic defense alliance. For Hosgen, European nuclear protection would not be an end in itself, but a certain type of insurance should NATO become unreliable.
France's limited arsenal
After Brexit, France is the only nuclear power in the EU. The other 26 EU members have promised to refrain from developing a bomb under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In addition, as part of the agreement that paved the way for German reunification in 1990, the so-called "2 plus 4" agreement, Germany pledged not to produce or possess weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, the simplest route to a European nuclear shield would be to expand France's deterrent capabilities to include the rest of the continent.
However, there are numerous obstacles, including those of a technical nature. France possesses just under 300 nuclear warheads. In theory, that's enough to be an effective deterrent. Those warheads, however, can essentially only be delivered via four submarines, of which only two are available. Security experts doubt whether such a small fleet is enough to convince Putin that Europe can adequately respond to a nuclear attack. In contrast, the US has 18 "Ohio-class" nuclear-powered submarines, each of which has the capacity to launch 24 ICBMs.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that France only has strategic nuclear weapons. The French M51 missile can carry six warheads, each with an explosive power of 100 kilotons of TNT, which is eight times more powerful than the bomb that the US detonated over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Russia, on the other hand, also has small tactical weapons, which can be used to force an adversary to surrender - an approach Western military experts call "escalation for the sake of de-escalation".
In the official document on US nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities (Nuclear Posture Review) from 2018, the US Department of Defense not only officially expanded its nuclear arsenal, but also provided the possibility of a limited nuclear attack. This is why the US president needs an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons to be able to respond flexibly.
So far, the French nuclear arsenal has not developed the capacity for such a thing.
"If they want to effectively deter a country like Russia, they have to have flexible options," said Oliver Tranert, chairman of the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich. Without that kind of flexibility, Tranert believes that Russia could quickly force Europe to surrender, as Paris could only respond to the deployment of small Russian warheads with large strategic weapons - risking the destruction of all of Western Europe in a counterattack. What president would want that?
Of course, it is possible for France to expand and diversify its nuclear forces with the help of its European partners. "The problem with joint nuclear deterrence would not be the technical increase of existing assets," said political adviser and security expert Heisborough of the Foundation for Strategic Studies in Paris.
"The problem would be in the chain of command - who decides when and with what goal? This requires a joint strategy and political planning".
A wake-up call
And that doesn't exist. Nuclear weapons are at the core of French sovereignty. The country's nuclear arsenal was created during the presidency of De Gaulle, who as a lieutenant colonel watched as the Nazi Wehrmacht overran his country in the spring of 1940. Nuclear weapons were to ensure that France would never again suffer such humiliation. This is why De Gaulle was always opposed to France relying on others for defense. In 1966, he withdrew France from the NATO military command structure. Only 43 years later, under the conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy, that country returned. To date, Paris is not part of NATO's nuclear planning group, which drafts scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons.
This indicates how complicated it would be to put French nuclear weapons at the service of Europe. Is France really ready to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in the event of an attack on Poland or Latvia? Or even use it?
Similar to the rule in NATO, each member of the European Union is theoretically obliged to come to the aid of another member if it is attacked. "If a member state is a victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other member states are obliged to help with all available means," states Article 42 of the EU Charter.
However, while that sounds powerful, it can mean that help is limited to blankets and bandages.
The French nuclear arsenal strengthens security in Europe by its very existence "and also has a European dimension," President Macron said in a speech at the Military School in Paris in February 2020. Clement Bonnet, Secretary of State for European Affairs at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, later added that nuclear deterrence can be discussed with the Germans.
For years, Macron has been calling for a common security and defense policy in order to make Europe less dependent on the Americans and NATO. When Australia scrapped a deal with France to buy submarines last September and struck a deal with the US and Britain instead, Bone gave "a wake-up call to the Europeans". He later describes Putin's invasion as a profound shock. "This war will bring fundamental changes," he said.
But what kind? Germans have had a rather mixed experience with Macron and the French in the past. German diplomats in New York saw how Paris, on the one hand, publicly praised European cooperation - only to reject any attempt to make the French seat in the UN Security Council a joint European one. Security sources in Berlin claim that to date Macron has not truly offered nuclear sharing.
On the other hand, the Germans have never been overly concerned with strategic issues in the past. One of the problems is that the number of nuclear weapons experts is very small, even in specialized ministries. However, that, like many other things, could soon change. “In the past, anyone who pointed to the need for deterrence was on the defensive. Today, when you say that we need nuclear options, for protection against Russian blackmail, both politicians and the population listen to you".
In Berlin, there is hope that the strategic debate will finally get going after the presidential election in France. A close race is expected for Macron, while Marine Le Pen is not far behind. Right-wing populist Le Pen has already announced that she intends to leave the NATO command structure if she wins the elections. This gives Macron no room for flexibility at the moment. It is unlikely that Le Pen will win in the end, but it is possible. If Macron remains in office, "Olaf Scholz will have to sit down with him after the election and see what can be done," said one political consultant in Berlin.
If France is reluctant to extend its nuclear shield over the entire EU, it is possible that several countries will move to improve cooperation. That would not be an ideal solution. "But we have to start somewhere," said the consultant.
mirror.de
Translated by: N. Bogetić
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
