The second administration of US President Donald Trump led to tectonic transformations in the European security differentiation and integration account. The increasing concerns about American discounts and the collapse of post -Second World War Security arrangements raised European leaders who are scrambling to put alternatives.

Before the German elections last month, Friedrich Mirz, President of the Christian Democratic Union, who was already expected to become the next German advisor, said: “We need to hold discussions with both the British and the French – the European nuclear powers – about nuclear participation, or at least nuclear security from the United Kingdom and the oven, can also apply to the United States.”

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron said that in response to Mirz, he decided to “open the strategic debate about protecting our allies in the European continent through [nuclear] Determination.

The proposal of some forms of European nuclear participation arrangement with France and the United Kingdom to protect against threats from Moscow is not new. A publications were released from it For decades.

But today, re -estimating this proposal is not merely a geopolitical miscalculation; It is a strategic bid. It reflects the wrong reading of both the nuclear balance of strength and existential risks to the fragmentation of the security structure in Europe. Instead of strengthening deterrence, this maneuver risks the instability that he seeks to avoid.

In the midst of the inability to predict the United States and relations between the United States-Russia under the Trump administration, Europe must grant nuclear escape to a bold agenda of diplomatic participation in nuclear disarmament.

Imagination of European nuclear participation

The founders of European nuclear participation are proposed on the calculation and strategic reality. Russia’s nuclear arsenal includes 5,580 warheads, including Avangard sliding compounds in Sarmat Intercontinental (ICBMS). This dwarves of the Anglo-Franch inventory combined from 515 warheads.

This contrast is not just a quantity; It is also ideological. The Moscow strategy “escalation to the abolition of manufacturing” is an calculated approach in escalating the conflict designed to form opponents in concessions. It is a strategy that cannot be interfered with British and French nuclear lanes, improved for minimal deterrence.

Data related to defensive spending reveals a deeper defect: Europeans do not have the money or technological capabilities to implement them during the implementation of ambitious arms plans.

The military budget of 90.6 billion euros (98 billion dollars) is still paralyzed, with only 50 percent of the army standards that meet NATO standards. Meanwhile, France and the United Kingdom lack the complications of traditional power – global monitoring networks, intelligence capabilities, or even full nuclear triads – that support us extending deterrent. Even if every euro cent of the European Union, which was recently announced at 800 billion euros (867 billion dollars), is spent on nuclear weapons programs, the cold start with a kind of production complexes required for reliable deterrent will take decades.

The attempt to repeat the nuclear nuclear decomposition model at the European level ignores six decades of integrated driving structures and fails to address mixed threats that now define modern conflict.

What’s more, replacement of dependency with one with another is not resolved. Supporters claim that nuclear participation provides protection, but the fact is that it can lead to strategic subjugation.

It is not possible that France nor the United Kingdom will give up controlling its nuclear arsenals and transporting them to the European Union. This means that the nuclear participation agreement would reduce Germany and other European countries that participate in the arrangement to French -British warheads without a real agency. Potemkin deterrence – all the celebration, and there is no substance – Washington will only irritate Washington.

Trump has already shown that he has no concerns about giving up allies if he did not see any benefit to the American strategic interest. His recent moves to stop the participation of intelligence and military aid to Ukraine and adapt it to mutual defense of military spending with the tense NATO bases – the coalition is witnessing a collapse of the common purpose.

As experts, Trump notes.The charming paper“Foreign policy explicitly rejects strategic altruism. European nuclear packages would refer to panic, which leads to the authenticity of Trump’s point of view in the world while undermining NATO cohesion.

The European Nuclear Club would deepen the fragmentation, and encourages actors such as Russia and China with the transformation of resources from critical gaps in the progress of artificial intelligence, sustainable economic production, and energy flexibility that defines the strength of the twenty -first century.

The economic argument supports foolishness. Pour billions of euros from limited resources in Europe into warheads are excessive with neglecting practical gaps in traditional ability not wise – it is the misfortune of generations.

Disarriage and financial realpolitik

The European Union’s opportunity is not in nuclear situations, but in stimulating control of weapons and mediation. The collapse of the strategic dialogue of the United States of America has left Since the invasion of Ukraine, critical work frameworks to combat weapons in a state of chaos.

The new starting treaty, which limits the spread of strategic nuclear warheads to 1550 each for Russia and the United States, remains your last life to control bilateral weapons. The expiration of its validity in 2026 without a successor will retain the first time since 1972 that the world’s nuclear powers are operating without limits, mutually verified – a scenario that can lead to a new nuclear arms race.

Here lies the opportunity of Europe. Instead of following the European nuclear umbrella, this may revive the nuclear disarmament dialogue.

Austria, a member of the European Union, has already played a major role in nuclear talks between the West and Iran as well as 2012-Russia-Chilateral Control discussions. This puts it as an ideal place to restart the negotiations on issues of reducing nuclear risks, especially while Washington is open to renew the dialogue with Moscow.

Taking the initiative to disarm the nuclear disarmament will be the type of driving that reflects a more mature explanation for the security policy, instead of searching for impossible nuclear deterrence.

Some critics maintain that negotiation with Russia is rewarding aggression. However, history, even bitter opponents, shows to cooperate in controlling weapons when interests are in line with. The 1987 -range nuclear forces treaty, which canceled 2,692 missiles, was completed after years of increasing tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States in the early 1980s.

The treaty has succeeded not because US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev trust each other, but because dismantling the missiles saved both sides a great deal of money that would continue to continue the arms race and keep the devastating decree.

Today, as the Russian economy stumbles into the war in Ukraine and Trump with a reduction in costs, there is an opportunity to follow another deal if disarmament is framed as perfect, but like financial pragmatism. Europe can help mediate a deal that serves the governor of all parties – and to survive humanity.

The unintended consequences of the first-term Trump nuclear race-the escalating weapons race, eroded alliances, and inherited opponents-warn warning. However, his second term can provide an opportunity to convert the Day of Resurrection from that position From 89 seconds to midnight.

Europe is now facing an option: to cling to the antiquities of the Cold War while the planet is burning, or a leader in a security model that gives priorities to survive the planetary on great vanity. The decision it makes will not only determine the future of Europe – but all humanity.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editorial island.