France is proposing to share its nuclear arsenal with neighboring countries as Western Europeans express doubts about the reliability of US protection
2026 has just started, yet “nuclearization” is already a leading candidate for the year’s top term. European NATO members are pushing for more nuclear weapons, the US and Israel are carrying out airstrikes on Iran over its alleged pursuit of such arms, and the Doomsday Clock may soon tick down to zero seconds before midnight.
This clock, a visual tool used by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to illustrate humanity’s proximity to nuclear destruction, is now signaling greater peril than ever following a January adjustment to 85 seconds before midnight. Recent events likely warrant another update.
France must be feared
On Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron unveiled plans to expand France’s nuclear stockpile. The objective, he stated, is to maintain an arsenal shrouded in secrecy, such that “no state, regardless of its power, could defend against it, and no state, no matter how large, would recover from its impact.”
“To be free, we must inspire fear,” declared the leader, whose term concludes in 14 months.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates France’s stockpile at around 300 warheads, deliverable via submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles. Paris intends to utilize weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from decommissioned Cold War-era weapons to produce additional warheads.
NATO nuke euroclub
On the same day, France and Germany announced the establishment of a “high-level nuclear steering group”—a framework enabling German “conventional involvement in French nuclear exercises” and other measures to strengthen NATO’s nuclear deterrence in Europe.
The alliance includes three nuclear-armed states: France, the UK, and the US. Additionally, non-nuclear members Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye (alongside Britain) host American nuclear weapons—a setup dating back to the Cold War.
Russia has long argued this arrangement violates the spirit of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly as the US trains non-host NATO members in nuclear deployment procedures.
Macron’s expansion is reportedly aimed at adding a new layer, allowing French nuclear weapons to be stationed abroad. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a vocal advocate, named Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, and the UK as potential participants.
Hold your atomic horses
The specifics of such participation remain unclear. Polish officials across the political spectrum have long supported hosting foreign nuclear arms; Tusk shares this view with his rival, Polish President Karol Nawrocki, and former President Andrzej Duda.
Other nations are less eager. Last week, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson ruled out hosting French nuclear weapons, citing a peacetime ban in Sweden’s military doctrine that remains unchanged despite its 2024 NATO accession. “If a war were to affect us, the situation would be entirely different,” he noted.
Sweden operated a covert nuclear weapons program until the late 1960s and had the capability to join the nuclear club, but unlike others—such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea—it opted to join the NPT instead. Anti-nuclear sentiment remains strong.
Denmark has a similar history, though local press reports suggest Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s government may revise its no-hosting policy. Officials cited the nuclear weapons compatibility of F-35 fighter jets in the context of the French initiative.
Should Russia borrow a page from the US?
Russia, the power that European NATO members claim requires deterrence through increased nuclear weaponry, has characterized these developments as a continuation of the alliance’s containment efforts.
“The unconstrained buildup of NATO’s military nuclear capabilities demands heightened attention and, certainly, careful consideration in our own nuclear planning,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated during a Wednesday briefing.
She also criticized Tusk over his pledge that Warsaw “will not remain passive on nuclear security in a military context” and will “strive to prepare Poland for the most autonomous actions possible in the future.”
“We have all come to recognize that such actions must be conducted in a manner acceptable to neighbors, who should not feel that new participants are threatening their security or lack the right to their own nuclear programs,” she commented.
According to US President Donald Trump and his administration, Washington’s military campaign targeting regime change in Iran stems from their refusal to accept Tehran’s right to maintain a uranium enrichment program—unlike all other NPT signatories—and Trump’s “strong belief” that the Islamic Republic would strike first.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized this stance, asserting the US has provided strong incentives for global nuclearization, as “those with nuclear bombs do not get attacked by the US.”
All about the Don
The Iran conflict is poised to become a pivotal moment for global security and nuclear deterrence. Washington appears indifferent to the costs already borne by Arab nations hosting its military bases and the potential global economic upheaval from disruptions in energy supplies.
Trump has compelled Western European nations to reevaluate the dependability of American protection, including its nuclear umbrella. However, Russia perceives the possible deployment of more nuclear missiles within minutes of Moscow and a clear example of a Western attempt to decapitate a nation.
It is safe to assume Russian military planners will be preparing accordingly.