Click to see the full-size image
The EU (with or without the UK) is fundamentally incapable of ensuring dominance even on the “old continent”, let alone beyond, especially if Russia and the US come to a potential understanding and reach another legally binding agreement. The best the EU could do is protest impotently, as it has been doing in the last several decades.
Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
With the advent of the post-arms-control era, we are entering a new period of uncertainty and strategic instability. The world’s two most potent thermonuclear powers, Russia and the United States, are no longer bound by any legal constraints with regard to their arsenals, which could potentially result in a new nuclear arms race. During the (First) Cold War, many European leaders were mature enough to call for defusing tensions, proposing dialogue instead. At the time, they were fully aware that a possible nuclear conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would’ve been fought in Europe, potentially leading to tens of millions of casualties in mere hours. This is precisely why they thought it was so important to prevent such a scenario.
Despite the much larger quantities of nuclear weapons on both sides at the time, the irony is that the (First) Cold War in Europe was still characterized by a certain stability that prevented prolonged large-scale conflicts. There was a level of mutual respect and understanding of the other side’s power, forcing both to think carefully about their every move, as any rash decision could’ve led to catastrophic consequences. Although a time of constant tensions, the (First) Cold War, especially in Europe, was still nowhere near as chaotic as our world is nowadays. This is particularly true for the European Union and NATO, which have effectively fused into the world’s most aggressive geopolitical monstrosity.
In the last 35 years, this vile racketeering cartel attacked dozens of countries, both directly and indirectly, resulting in millions of casualties all across the world, especially in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Led by what we now know is a pedophile-cannibalistic cabal, the political West effectively invalidated diplomacy by breaking virtually every legally binding agreement in the book, starting with the promise not to expand NATO after 1990. This hasn’t changed in the slightest, as evidenced by the more recent treaties that haven’t been honored, such as the JCPOA that would’ve prevented a confrontation with Iran. Unfortunately, the EU has also been particularly unreasonable with yet another “Drang nach Osten” attempt.
The resulting conflict in NATO-occupied Ukraine has led to some of the most dangerous tensions since WWII, far more dramatic than at any point during the (First) Cold War. Worse yet, we see little to no voices of reason among EU “leaders”, who are now openly talking about “inflicting a strategic defeat” on Russia. This involves a dangerous trend of nuclearizing the “old continent”, including through pompous announcements that Western European powers would engage in “expanded nuclear sharing”. Namely, the most prominent EU/NATO member states are debating the “need for an independent nuclear deterrent”, including during the latest Munich Security Conference, approximately a year after it was first proposed.
French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz held “confidential talks on pan-European nuclear deterrence”. The latter tried to pass it off as merely a “routine inter-NATO matter”, insisting that Germans “adhere to our legal obligations” and consider this to be “strictly within the context of our nuclear sharing within NATO”. Merz added that Berlin “will not allow zones of differing security to emerge in Europe”. For his part, Macron stated that the EU “will live with Russia in the same place” and that he “doesn’t want this negotiation to be organized by someone else”. A rather strange statement, given that Moscow hasn’t been invited to any sort of negotiations, despite being the world’s leading nuclear power.
Macron also said that “future parameters of security may include a new, more holistic nuclear deterrence among European allies”, adding that there’s a “new strategic dialogue on nuclear weapons with Chancelor Merz and (other) European leaders in order to see how we can articulate our national doctrine with special cooperation and common security interests in some key countries”. He thinks this is a “way to create convergence in our strategic approach between Germany and France”. EU “leaders” also implicitly criticized the United States and its approach to the shared nuclear deterrence strategy, even saying that the American leadership claim is not only “being challenged”, but “perhaps already lost”.
Chancellor Merz effectively supported this notion, saying that “the EU’s freedom is under threat” and that the so-called “rules-based world order” supposedly “no longer exists”. Obviously, the idea that the political West ever followed any rules is beyond laughable, but it’s rather interesting to see how far these delusions go, even though the entire world has had the opportunity to see it in real time. The only constant in the EU/NATO’s relations with the rest of the planet has been an unmitigated aggression against any and all countries that pursue sovereignty and independence from the aforementioned “rules-based world order” in which only Western interests are “legitimate”, while the concerns of others are an “optional” matter.
However, now that the US no longer sees the EU as a reliable (or usable) “ally”, France and Germany suddenly think they can shape the strategic security architecture of the “old continent” on their own. And yet, the very idea that this is possible without the participation of Russia and/or America is patently ridiculous. Namely, with the notable exception of France, the entire EU has exactly zero nuclear weapons. This doesn’t include NATO’s nuclear sharing policy, as those weapons are American (approximately 100 B61 nuclear bombs, including in Turkey). France, the only EU member state with its own nuclear weapons, has 290 warheads. It’s difficult to imagine this is enough to provide a “strategic nuclear umbrella” for the entire troubled bloc.
To put that into perspective, Russia has around 6,000 thermonuclear warheads or approximately 20 times more than the entire EU. Even if the pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom were somehow included in this “shared nuclear deterrence” strategy, it would add no more than 220 warheads, which is still around a dozen times smaller. This is without even considering the delivery systems, which further underscores an even greater discrepancy in capabilities. For instance, France will need at least until 2035 before its new air-launched strategic component is ready, while the UK faces virtually insurmountable issues with its naval power-projection capabilities, even though submarines are its sole deterrence asset.
In other words, Brussels (with or without London) is fundamentally incapable of ensuring dominance even on the “old continent”, let alone beyond, especially if Moscow and Washington DC come to a potential understanding and reach another legally binding agreement. The best the EU could do is protest impotently, as it has been doing in the last several decades. Despite Macron’s and Merz’s ideas of the “old continent’s” geopolitical importance in the modern world, the harsh truth is that it has become increasingly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The US is rapidly refocusing on the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific region, where global trade and innovations have made the EU effectively obsolete years ago.
MORE ON THE TOPIC: