Sixty -four years ago, along with the world defeated fear of a nuclear confrontation between superpowers, the then President of France Charles de Gaulle apparently He would ask about the question of John F. Kennedy during a visit to Paris: Was the US president to sacrifice New York to save Paris?
Kennedy apparently never answered directly, answering that it is important that the Russians believe it.
Fast forward until 2025, and the same question remains at the Center for Collective Nuclear Defense. The current President of France, Emmanuel Macron, basically invited other European countries – and all living in his capitals – to ask a similar question.
On Wednesday evening, Macron spoke in the war in Ukraine, in fear that Donald Trump could abandon Ukraine's ally, but perhaps also a 70-year-old NATO military alliance. Trump not only cut off Ukraine from the supply of weapons, which allowed him to refrain against Russia's invasion for three years, but the US president openly repeated Russian propaganda about NATO beginning of the war and did not undertake Russia's public demands to stop attacks.
Macron said that he would open talks with European allies led by Vladimir Putin, which poses a growing threat to the security of the continent.
An unbelievable ally?
“I would like to believe that the United States will remain at our website, but we must be ready, if this is not the case,” Macron told his country.
Unlike Great Britain, whose nuclear heads are supplied at the end of American missiles and whose command and control systems are related, Macron reminded his compatriots that the French nuclear system is completely separate.
“He is completely sovereign and completely French,” said Macron. “However, in response to the historical call of the future German chancellor, I decided to open a strategic debate on the protection of our European continental allies through our scapering.”
From 2024, Russia has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world, from over 5500, in accordance with Federation of American scientistsand then the USA, with just over 5000.
France is far away in 290, and Great Britain has even less, of 225, but these are four and fifth as to the size arsenal in the world.
But experts who studied nuclear deterrence policy claim that the number of heads does not necessarily count – whether your opponent thinks you will use them if the climbing ladder climbs to the top.
“Now the question would be:” Would the French president or British prime minister actually risk, for example, Paris or London for Tallinn (Estonia)?
“In the Cold War we came up with various ways to increase this credibility. Thus, such things as placing the so -called “travel wire” of ground troops – for example, NATO soldiers or American, British, French soldiers in West Berlin … and that the theory appears, which makes expanded deterrent. “
Sovereign Arsenal
Between France and Great Britain, two nuclear powers in Europe, Blagden claims that France is in a better position to ensure the continent like Macron called “nuclear umbrella” because it has more ways to implement such a weapon, and therefore more project deterrence.
For example, it can match some of the fighters with nuclear missiles, which can then be stationed in other countries to send a pointed message and probably discourage all potential Russian action.
On the other hand, Great Britain has the so -called “The only nuclear platform“Because he can launch his bullets from the sea, through the fleet of Vanguard submarines.
Military strategists, acting invisible underwater, claim that submarines are less useful for signaling or sending targeted scares to the opponent.
The United States cut off Ukraine from the key and potentially rescuing interview in the war with the full invasion of Russia, and the Trump administration suggests that it can be restored if the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy would fulfill the US efforts at the end of the conflict.
Currently, the US was stationed in six bases in five NATO countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. Theoretically, Blagden says that nothing stops the same countries from switching to French nuclear.
“This can be done – but it really boils down to France's readiness to bear the potential escalation risk and escalation costs that would bring it.”
Incorrect idea?
Others who studied nuclear deterrence dynamics are less convinced France, is able to take over the European nuclear defense – or that even if so, it will discourage the aggression of leaders such as Putin.
“I think this is a deeply wrong idea,” said Pavel Podvig, an independent analyst in Geneva, who runs the Russian nuclear forces website, which follows problems related to nuclear weapons.
Podvig claims that nuclear deterrence is a dubious concept precisely because it thinks that it is unlikely that one country dedicated its own cities to try to save them in another country.
“Over all the years (Cold War), Europeans have always had doubts about the strength of (American) commitment,” said CBC News.
Podvig claims that what has maintained peace between the Soviets and Americans for many tense decades was not a threat of nuclear war – instead there was “a system of norms, understanding and contracts between states.”
Historians are inside agreement The fact that it was de Gaulle's distrust in the US led to the development of a “sovereign” nuclear arsenal by France – and after Macron's speech on Wednesday, French politicians from the entire political spectrum quickly insisted that everything that developed would still be the president of France with his finger.
The likely German chancellor Friedrich Merz said he was supporting the discussion, as did the leaders in the Baltic States, Denmark, Poland and Sweden.
Threat to Russia
However, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrow said, however, that Macron's nuclear rhetoric is a threat.
“Paris ambitions to become a nuclear” patron “of all of Europe broke out,” said the statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the country. “This will not lead to strengthening the security of France alone or its allies.”
In a speech in the London Chatham House on Thursday, a Ukrainian general, who managed the successful defense of Kiev at the early stages of the Russian invasion, said that he believes that NATO Days are numbered, reflecting the feeling of urgency felt throughout the continent.
“The absence of aggression (Russia) in Washington is also a new challenge and not only for Ukraine, but for all of Europe,” said Valeria Zehuskhnyi, currently the ambassador of Ukraine in Great Britain
“Not only Russia … is trying to destroy the world order, but the United States of America actually destroys it completely.”
If this happens, Blagden from the University of Exeter says that Europe will return to the strategic situation with which most of the American-Soviet rivalry of the Cold War encountered.
In this dynamics, the Soviets had a considerable advantage in conventional forces and labor, while the West relied on its nuclear arsenal of so -called tactical weapons to equal things.
“NATO is as good as the belief that members, especially the most powerful member (United States), actually act to defend other members.”