Europe faces nuclear trilemma amid rising security concerns

As Europe grapples with an increasingly uncertain future in the wake of US policy shifts, the continent is confronting a complex and dangerous nuclear dilemma.

The key question for European leaders is how to ensure effective deterrence against Russia without relying on US nuclear protection, a situation that has become more pressing since the Trump administration’s strained relations with European nations, Caliber.Az reports per foreign media.

Europe is now faced with three critical objectives: maintaining credible deterrence against Russia, ensuring strategic stability, and preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, achieving all three simultaneously is impossible, and each option involves significant trade-offs.

The first possible path is to focus on nonproliferation and strategic stability. Under this scenario, France and the United Kingdom, as Europe’s only nuclear powers, would maintain their arsenals for retaliation rather than first use. This option, however, would fail to provide credible deterrence against Russia, especially in the Baltic states and other frontline countries. Russia’s overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons would give it the upper hand in any escalation, and Europe would struggle to defend itself without a credible nuclear response.

The second option would involve enhancing deterrence through the expansion of low-yield, tactical nuclear capabilities, potentially including a willingness to use nuclear weapons first. While this approach would strengthen Europe’s deterrence against Russia, it would sacrifice strategic stability, making crises more prone to nuclear escalation. This shift would mark a dangerous return to Cold War-style brinkmanship, with the risk of catastrophic conflict rising significantly.

The third option, which would involve allowing new European states to acquire nuclear weapons, would combine credible deterrence with strategic stability. However, this would come at the cost of undermining global nonproliferation efforts and could provoke severe instability, as Russia might take military action to prevent such proliferation.

Ultimately, the most likely path for Europe may involve extended deterrence, with France and the UK providing nuclear security for vulnerable countries in Eastern Europe. This would be a difficult and costly endeavor, requiring updates to both military infrastructure and nuclear doctrines. Yet, in the absence of US guarantees, European leaders may find this option, despite its risks, the least dangerous path forward. The future of European security now hinges on making painful and potentially risky choices.

By Vafa Guliyeva