Contemporary disagreements between the U.S. and its NATO allies have intensified over political, economic, and security issues. Disputes over trade, tariffs, defense spending, and expeditionary support reveal an unhealthy frustration with burden-sharing demands and a strategic recalibration rather than a wholesale fear of U.S. abandonment. Some European leaders’ reactions to U.S. demands for burden-sharing and strategic reciprocity have ranged from performative indignation to explicit efforts to redefine NATO on more European terms and push America out of the alliance. 

The complaint of an underfunded NATO is not new; it is a recurring theme in American strategic discourse. In 2002, President Bush called for NATO reform with new capabilities and interoperability. In 2016, President Obama used the term ‘free riders’ to argue that Europe must take more responsibility. Recently, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz admitted, “We have been free riders in the past, and the Americans guaranteed our freedom and our security.” 

This friction highlights the main operational tension NATO 3.0 seeks to address. At the June 2026 NATO Defense Ministerial in Brussels, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth described NATO 3.0 as “modeled on NATO 1.0 that won the Cold War, with allies leading Europe’s defense.” He said NATO should be “a hard-edged war-fighting organization.” He also described NATO 2.0 as the post-Cold War effort “no longer focused on defending Europe” but on “climate change and defense austerity.” While some may sneer at these descriptions, they are hard to argue against. NATO 3.0 is likely to be a bold reboot, with European countries leading their defenses while the U.S. shifts focus to the Indo-Pacific and homeland defense, remaining a strategic and nuclear safety net. 

The U.S. is reducing or redeploying its forces to pre-2022 levels and urging a more self-reliant Europe. This does not mean weakening NATO; instead, it aims for a stronger, Europe-focused defense to support NATO’s long-term sustainability. A capable Europe could enhance deterrence and security by lessening its reliance on large-scale U.S. intervention, but European military growth should complement, not replace, American power. 

To resemble NATO 1.0, Hegseth’s NATO 3.0 must understand and embrace the future role of nuclear weapons. The key difference is the size and scope of nuclear arsenals, with fewer weapons overall. While Russia’s non-strategic nuclear arsenal remains more than ten times larger than NATO’s, the aggregate nuclear stockpiles have declined by more than 80 percent since 1992. Smaller arsenals render each remaining weapon more significant and more vulnerable, making allied nuclear forces increasingly valuable instruments of deterrence. NATO 3.0’s success depends on three focus areas. 

First, NATO must abandon the presumption that a smaller nuclear arsenal can effectively deter Russia. Equally flawed is the belief that maintaining fewer weapons automatically signals reduced threat to Moscow. Deterrence credibility does not rest on symbolic restraint; it relies on perceived capability and willingness to impose unacceptable costs. In today’s competitive nuclear environment, NATO needs more—not less—nuclear capability in Europe, to ensure credible deterrence. Smaller arsenals make each weapon’s survivability more critical, increasing the risk of vulnerability, technical failure, or denied retaliation. A strong nuclear posture enhances resilience, confidence, and the capacity to absorb loss whilst ensuring NATO can deter nuclear coercion and attack. 

Expanding NATO’s nuclear capacity involves more than adding American weapons. Macron’s idea of “forward deterrence” seeks to integrate France’s nuclear forces into European security without formal guarantees. While the U.S. shares its arsenal with allies, France would retain sole control over its nuclear weapons, targeting, and use. Macron states France’s core interests may include defending against attacks on European partners that could threaten French sovereignty. Poland, interested in the French offer, also seeks its own nuclear capability. President Nawrocki recently emphasized strengthening Poland’s security “even with nuclear potential.” More nuclear-armed states in the alliance could be necessary to deter Russia and reassure uneasy allies. 

Second, NATO 3.0 must focus its nuclear deterrent on active escalation management and theater warfighting. During the NATO 1.0 era, Cold War doctrines like “Massive Retaliation” relied on the threat of overwhelming nuclear strikes in response to acts of aggression rather than protracted war. Later doctrines such as “Assured Destruction,” which largely focused on direct US-USSR deterrence, and “Flexible Response,” which tested allies’ willingness to fight a third conventional war on the Continent, demanded a significant and costly increase in Europe’s conventional forces. 

NATO 3.0 requires a keen focus on European-centric escalation management. Since adversaries see low-yield theater nuclear weapons as usable coercive tools in an “escalate to de-escalate” strategy, NATO must have an abundant, diverse, and flexible nuclear arsenal. Maintaining credible low- and high-yield options and non-nuclear systems allows NATO 3.0 to match any rung on the escalation ladder, thereby reinforcing crisis stability. 

Third, NATO 3.0 must emphasize both forward based and strategic U.S. nuclear forces for extended deterrence, which is crucial for alliance security. NATO 1.0’s success depended on America’s nuclear umbrella, with ample modern forces and deployments reassuring allies, deterring enemies, and preserving the alliance. NATO remains a nuclear alliance. However, complacency and reliance on aging U.S. arsenals during NATO 2.0 led to budget cuts, reduced force postures, and misaligned goals.  

Going forward, NATO 3.0 will require greater nuclear capability to deter effectively. The American nuclear umbrella deters nuclear coercion against U.S. allies by providing a credible strategic deterrent that France and the UK cannot single-handedly offer against an assertive Russia with the largest, most diverse nuclear stockpile in the world. British and French arsenals are combined eight times smaller than Russia’s, leaving NATO countries like Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states more vulnerable to Russian intimidation or invasion. If NATO and the U.S. are driven apart, the remaining alliance states will need to rapidly grow their nuclear forces. However, a strong American nuclear arsenal, supported by credible, mutual commitments, remains crucial to binding the alliance, reassuring partners, deterring enemies, and preserving strategic stability. 

Rather than signaling the end of the transatlantic alliance, NATO 3.0 would mark a new phase, one that adapts to an aggressive, revanchist Russia and a shifting global power balance. NATO 3.0 may be one in which the United States remains Europe’s principal strategic partner and nuclear guarantor, while Europe assumes far greater responsibility for its own conventional defense. This reflects strategic growth, not alliance end. Despite $40 trillion in debt, the U.S. remains the only great power capable of countering China and North Korea, threats not contained in Article 6 of NATO’s charter. Expecting allies to bear a greater share of defense responsibilities is sound policy and demonstrates empowered trust within NATO. 

Colonel Curtis McGiffin (U.S. Air Force, Ret.) is Vice President for Education at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies, President of MCG Horizons LLC, and a visiting professor at Missouri State University’s School of Defense and Strategic Studies. He has three decades of experience in uniform and DoD civil service, is the co-editor of the book “Learning to Love the Bomb,” and is the co-host of the weekly The NIDS View podcast. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and MCG Horizons LLC, and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization. 

NATO 3.0 and the Nuclear Arsenal It Requires was originally published on Global Security Review.

The Indo-Pacific is entering a period of acute strategic imbalance. China’s rapid military modernization across nuclear, conventional, cyber, and space domains has outpaced the ability of regional powers to respond through traditional force buildup alone. While governments often default to expanding conventional capabilities with more ships, missiles, aircraft, and bases, this approach is slow, expensive, and increasingly insufficient against a peer competitor with both scale and nuclear backing. By contrast, forming an Indo-Pacific nuclear alliance offers a faster, more credible way to close the deterrence gap. 

Crucially, this challenge is not just about China. The region faces a multi-nuclear threat environment that includes an increasingly capable North Korea and a resurgent Russia, willing to use nuclear and conventional signaling to shield conventional aggression. The cumulative effect of these actors compresses decision-making time and raises the stakes of deterrence failure. At its core, the argument is about time, credibility, and strategic effect. 

The Time Problem: Conventional Forces Are Slow to Build 

Modern conventional military capability is not something that can be generated quickly. Building advanced submarines, fifth-generation aircraft, integrated air and missile defense systems, or long-range strike capabilities takes years—often decades. For example. Australia’s plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines under Pillar I will not deliver operational capability until the late 2030s or early 2040s. As a stopgap. rotational deployments and being considered in the interim. However, these do not fully close the capability gap. 

Similarly, scaling up missile production, hardening bases, and integrating joint command systems across the region require sustained industrial mobilization. Western defense industries, particularly in the United States, are already under strain from commitments in Europe and the Middle East. Expanding production lines for precision munitions or advanced systems is constrained by supply chains, workforce shortages, and political processes. 

In short, conventional rearmament is a long game. The strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific, however, is deteriorating on a much shorter time scale. 

A Multi-Nuclear Threat Environment 

Focusing solely on China understates the scale of the challenge. The Indo-Pacific is increasingly shaped by three distinct nuclear pressures: 

• China is expanding and diversifying its nuclear arsenal at a pace not seen in decades, while integrating it more closely with conventional operations. 
• North Korea continues to refine its nuclear weapons and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States and regional allies. Kim Jong Un has also signaled a lower threshold for potential nuclear use in a crisis. 
• Russia, while geographically more distant, remains an Indo-Pacific actor through its Far East presence and strategic alignment with China. Its behavior during the war in Ukraine under the shadow of nuclear threats demonstrates how nuclear coercion can enable prolonged conventional conflict. 

This layered nuclear environment complicates deterrence. It is no longer about balancing a single adversary, but managing overlapping deterrence relationships, where escalation in one theater can have cascading effects in another. 

The Deterrence Gap: Nuclear-Backed Coercion 

China’s growing nuclear arsenal fundamentally alters the deterrence equation. While conventional forces can impose costs, they cannot fully offset the coercive power of nuclear weapons. Beijing can leverage its nuclear capabilities to deter external intervention in a regional conflict, particularly over Taiwan, while using conventional forces to achieve fait accompli. North Korea adds a different kind of instability. It has a smaller but less predictable nuclear force, with a demonstrated willingness to engage in brinkmanship. Meanwhile, Russia’s nuclear posture reinforces a broader norm, that nuclear weapons can be used to shield aggression and shape adversary behavior via threats of use. 

This creates a deterrence asymmetry: regional states may possess capable conventional forces, but without nuclear backing, their ability to deter escalation is limited. The United States provides extended nuclear deterrence, but questions about credibility, response timelines, and escalation risks persist, especially as adversaries develop capabilities to target bases in the United States and nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. 

The Speed Advantage of a Nuclear Alliance 

A nuclear alliance can be established far more rapidly than building conventional parity. Unlike ships or aircraft, nuclear deterrence is not primarily about quantity. Instead, it is about credibility, survivability, and signaling. 

Consider NATO. Its nuclear sharing arrangements allows non-nuclear members to participate in nuclear planning, host nuclear weapons, and integrate delivery systems without developing their own arsenals. This framework was established quickly during the Cold War and endured for decades as a cornerstone of deterrence. 

An Indo-Pacific equivalent could replicate key elements of such an arrangement: 

• Forward deployment or rotational presence of U.S. nuclear-capable assets 
• Nuclear-sharing arrangements with trusted allies such as Japan, South Korea, and potentially Australia 
• Integrated nuclear-planning mechanisms to ensure regional input into deterrence strategy 
• Hardened and distributed basing to enhance survivability 

These steps do not require decades of industrial buildup. They rely on political decisions, alliance coordination, and doctrinal integration. These are areas where progress can be made over years, not decades. 

Credibility Through Integration 

Deterrence is about perception. Adversaries must believe that the costs of aggression will outweigh the benefits. A nuclear alliance enhances credibility in several ways. 

First, it raises the stakes of conflict. If multiple states are integrated into a nuclear deterrence framework, any aggression risks broader escalation. This complicates an adversary’s planning and reduces the likelihood of limited, opportunistic actions. 

Second, it distributes risk and responsibility. Extended deterrence is more credible when allies are actively involved in nuclear planning and posture. This reduces doubts about whether the United States would act alone in a crisis. 

Third, it signals resolve and unity. Formalizing nuclear cooperation sends a clear message, that the region is prepared to escalate, if necessary, rather than relying solely on conventional responses that may be insufficient. 

Cost and Efficiency 

Conventional rearmament is not only slow, but it is extraordinarily expensive. Building fleets of advanced platforms, sustaining them, and integrating them into joint operations imposes massive fiscal burdens. 

A nuclear alliance, by contrast, leverages existing capabilities. The United States already possesses a robust nuclear arsenal and delivery systems. The marginal cost of extending deterrence through alliance structures is significantly lower than building new conventional forces from scratch. 

For middle powers like Australia, Japan, and South Korea, this is particularly important. Attempting to match China’s conventional military growth is economically unsustainable, let alone simultaneously accounting for North Korean and Russian contingencies. A nuclear alliance provides a cost-effective way to achieve strategic balance across these multiple threats. 

Addressing Political and Normative Challenges 

Of course, forming a nuclear alliance in the Indo-Pacific is not without challenges. Non-proliferation norms, domestic political sensitivities, and regional perceptions all complicate the issue. Countries like Japan have strong anti-nuclear culture which is shaped by history. Australia has long positioned itself as a supporter of non-proliferation. Any move toward nuclear sharing or hosting would require careful political management and public communication. 

However, these constraints are not insurmountable. NATO demonstrates that nuclear sharing can coexist with non-proliferation commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework. The key is transparency, adherence to legal obligations, and a clear defensive rationale. Moreover, the strategic environment is changing. As the combined pressures from China, North Korea, and Russia intensify, the political calculus around deterrence may shift accordingly. 

Complement, Not Replacement 

A nuclear alliance is not a substitute for conventional forces. Rather, it is a force multiplier. Conventional capabilities remain essential for day-to-day operations, crisis management, and limited conflicts. 

However, without credible nuclear backing, conventional forces risk being outmatched in scenarios where nuclear-armed adversaries control escalation. The most effective approach is a layered deterrence strategy: 

• Nuclear deterrence to prevent large-scale war and coercion 
• Conventional forces to deny and punish aggression 
• Resilience measures to ensure continuity under attack 

A nuclear alliance strengthens the top layer of this structure, enabling the others to function more effectively across multiple threat vectors. 

Conclusion: Speed Matters in a Multi-Threat Era 

The Indo-Pacific does not have the luxury of time or the simplicity of a single adversary. Conventional rearmament, while necessary, cannot close the deterrence gap quickly enough to match the pace of strategic change driven by China, North Korea, and Russia. 

An Indo-Pacific nuclear alliance offers a faster path to credible deterrence. By leveraging existing capabilities, enhancing integration, and signaling resolve, it can stabilize the regional balance in the near term, while stalling for longer-term conventional investments to mature.  

The choice is not between nuclear and conventional approaches, but between acting quickly or falling behind. In a rapidly shifting, multi-nuclear strategic environment, speed is not just an advantage. It is a necessity. 

Natalie Treloar is the Australian Company Director of Alpha-India Consultancy, a Senior Fellow at the Indo-Pacific Studies Center (IPSC), a Senior Analyst at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS), and a member of the Open Nuclear Network. Views expressed are the author’s own.

An Indo-Pacific Nuclear Alliance Closes the Deterrence Gap Faster than Conventional was originally published on Global Security Review.

In his “Ile Longue” speech on March 2, 2026, French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a message that will echo across European capitals for years to come. For the first time, a European leader publicly articulated that France’s nuclear deterrent carries a distinctly “European dimension.” While the ultimate authority to launch remains the prerogative of the French President, Macron made it clear that an attack on a key European partner could trigger a French nuclear response. This is not a symbolic gesture: it reflects a growing recognition that Europe can no longer rely solely on the United States to guarantee its security. In a world where great-power priorities are increasingly transactional, Europe is beginning to define its own strategic boundaries.

The 2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy (NDS) reinforced this reality. By designating Russia as a “European responsibility,” the strategy signals a deliberate shift: Washington will focus its conventional forces on the homeland and the Indo-Pacific Theater, leaving Europe to confront the Russian threat largely on its own terms. The nuclear umbrella remains intact, but the implicit promise of automatic conventional reinforcement is fading. Even seemingly peripheral actions, such as elevating Greenland to a primary U.S. homeland interest alongside the Panama Canal, highlight an unmistakable message: European security is now secondary to America’s own global priorities. Transactions, not guarantees, define the relationship, and Europe is taking note.

This strategic recalibration has deepened a credibility gap that European policymakers cannot ignore. Repeatedly questioning of NATO’s relevance, combined with explicit demands for Europe to “Buy American,” has underscored a harsh truth: the U.S. is no longer a guaranteed partner for long-term security. European arms imports from the U.S. surged to $68 billion in 2024, a fivefold increase over the 2017–2021 average, while American threats of trade countermeasures in response to “Buy European” procurement rules have reinforced the perception that collective defense is contingent on economic acquiescence. For many in Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw, the lesson is stark: security can no longer be assumed; it must be actively prepared.

Europe’s response has been both practical and psychological. The continent is actively building a more integrated and networked continental defense architecture, driven by a growing demand for strategic autonomy—particularly in areas such as drone defense, air and missile defense, and long-range strike capabilities. This effort reflects a gradual shift toward forward deterrence, in which credible conventional capabilities are positioned to signal readiness and resilience in the face of potential aggression. Forward deterrence, therefore, is not simply about stationing troops or deploying hardware; it represents a broader strategic mindset in which Europe seeks to reduce its structural dependence on external guarantees. While European defense infrastructure is not yet fully independent of Washington, ongoing investments and integration efforts indicate a clear trajectory toward greater operational autonomy, with more robust capabilities expected to mature between 2025 and 2030.

Meanwhile, France and the United Kingdom through the Northwood Declaration are exploring ways to “Europeanize” their nuclear forces, offering broader protection to allied partners while retaining national control over launch decisions. Macron’s speech embodies this principle: strategic assets—including Rafale jets and the planned next-generation nuclear submarine, “The Invincible”—can now be dispersed across allied territory to provide strategic depth and complicate adversary calculations. For the first time, non-nuclear partners such as Germany and Poland are participating in joint exercises that directly interface with French nuclear capabilities. The psychological message is clear: Europe is beginning to assert a sovereign layer of deterrence that complements, rather than replaces, NATO’s structures.

Poland’s recent statement that it may eventually seek its own nuclear weapons, as President Tusk indicated, also highlights the accelerating sense of urgency in Eastern Europe. So here the question arises that While Macron’s “Europeanized” nuclear deterrent provides a layer of strategic depth, then why Poland seeks to own nuclear weapons? The answer is that Macron’s forward deterrence is not scaled to cover the entire continent comprehensively, particularly in regions most exposed to Russia. For Warsaw, the calculus is simple: if U.S. guarantees are increasingly transactional, and if NATO’s nuclear planning remains centered in France and the U.K., then relying solely on allied deterrence is insufficient.

This development illustrates two broader dynamics. First, it highlights the limits of “second-layer” nuclear deterrence. Even with France operationally dispersing assets and including non-nuclear allies in exercises, some countries may feel compelled to consider independent capabilities to ensure credible protection. Second, it signals that Europe’s forward deterrence is moving from theory into practice, not only in doctrine and exercises but in actual national policy deliberations. Warsaw’s potential pursuit of nuclear weapons is less a provocation than a symptom of the same trend already evident in France and Germany’s expanded conventional and nuclear postures: Europe is taking responsibility for its own security.

Hence, Macrons’ speech represents a redefinition of European strategic autonomy. Between 2021 and 2024, EU defense spending rose by 30 percent, reaching €326 billion, signaling a growing recognition that reliance on Washington alone is no longer sustainable. European governments are investing not just in hardware, but in doctrine, interoperability, and the credibility of their deterrent posture. Strategic autonomy, once rhetorically flourishing, has become an existential imperative. Forward deterrence and strategic autonomy are complementary layers of security designed to mitigate the risk of over-reliance on an American partner whose priorities may shift.

Europe is thus navigating a delicate balance. It is neither abandoning NATO nor discarding the U.S. nuclear guarantee. Instead, it is learning to prepare for a future in which guarantees are no longer unconditional. The era of unquestioned extended deterrence is ending, and the continent must act with foresight. Forward deterrence is more than a strategic posture; it is a signal to Moscow, to Washington, and to Europe’s own citizens that the continent is willing and able to take responsibility for its own defense.

Europe is no longer a passive theater under American protection. It is a region preparing to defend itself, thoughtfully and decisively, in a strategic environment defined by uncertainty, transactional alliances, and shifting global priorities. Macron’s “Ile Longue” speech may have been delivered in France, but its message resonates across the continent: the future of European security will be determined not by the automatic extension of U.S. deterrence, but by Europe’s own willingness to claim responsibility for its survival.

Qurat-Ul-Ain Shabbir, a PhD scholar at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, is currently serving as a Research Officer at the Centre for International Strategic Studies AJK. Her research interests lie in the global nuclear order and geopolitical dynamics. The views of the author are her own.

Beyond the American Umbrella: Europe’s Turn to Forward Deterrence was originally published on Global Security Review.

The international system is now firmly bipolar, with China’s global power rapidly increasing at a time when Russia regularly threatens to use nuclear weapons against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), influencing the administration of President Donald Trump. The combined Chinese and Russian threats are leading President Trump to warn of a possible World War III.

American power is increasingly contested, bringing new operational challenges to extended deterrence. A fundamental question is now in play—should the US abandon the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) it created in 1960s and instead push its allies to field nuclear weapons?

Allies are already reconsidering their nuclear stance. In the Asia-Pacific, American ally Australia provides useful historical insights.

From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, Australia sought to acquire nuclear weapons in response to an unstable international order where it felt threatened by China. In 1967, Secretary of US Defense Robert McNamara said it would be “entirely natural” and “an obvious thing to happen” for Australia to acquire nuclear weapons in response to China developing them. He also expressed interest in establishing a collective nuclear organization for the Far East, “starting with Australia and the Philippines.”

Indeed, Secretary of State Dean Rusk earlier suggested a “US-supplied Far Eastern nuclear stockpile” open to Japan and India. In 1958, others proposed the US could base intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in Australia, in the event the US decided to keep tight control of nuclear weapons in its own hands and actively worked to push its allies to agree to the NPT treaty.

There were similar debates around friendly nuclear proliferation in Europe around the same time. Aiming to regain leadership in Europe, the US proposed a multilateral nuclear force within NATO. While there were doubts over its military utility, the diplomatic discussions that started around sharing nuclear hardware and control did allow time to develop a European non-proliferation solution. In 1966, the NATO nuclear planning group was established, allowing some European allies to be involved in how and under which circumstances American weapons might be used.

The structural changes in the international system that prompted these earlier ideas are happening again. It is time to start thinking seriously about the next steps to take. The nuclear history noted suggests three broad approaches.

First, allies might build their own nuclear forces. The logic is that in a high-intensity conflict between the US and a nuclear power, the adversary may target American allies with nuclear weapons. Such an escalation demonstrates an adversary’s willingness to coerce allies into ceasing support for the United States.

This is the worst-case scenario that extended deterrence was created to prevent. If allies seriously doubt American credibility, fielding independent nuclear forces is a solution.  Indeed, economically challenged Pakistan and North Korea took this path already. For America’s allies, acquiring nuclear forces may be a lower cost option than growing their conventional forces.

Second, allies might work together to devise a modern multilateral nuclear force as considered in 1960s Europe. In the Pacific, Australia considered working with Britain on nuclear weapons in the late 1940s and 1950s; some still favor this effort. In that regard, Japan and Australia have recently acquired Tomahawk cruise missiles, which the US armed with nuclear warheads to deter Russia in the 1980s. Such weapons might be a starting point for an allied nuclear force in the eastern Pacific. As noted, the US considered deploying ICBMs in the Australian outback.

Third, another option, arguably better for American global leadership, is to address the allies’ deepening concerns over extended deterrence. This would involve the current administration actively reassuring allies that it still places importance on existing security treaties, increasing nuclear sharing and including more nations in nuclear planning, especially in the Pacific. Such steps would be at marginal cost to the US.

The most important might be nuclear sharing as this appears a tangible example of commitment. Of course, nuclear sharing is actually a misnomer since the US shares in the employment of certain nuclear weapons. It retains full control of the weapons prior to an authorization to strike a target.

The US could increase nuclear sharing with Pacific allies, such as Australia, Japan, and South Korea, and broaden out to other NATO nations like Poland and the Scandinavian nations, which appear to be Russia’s next target after Ukraine. These nations could then reciprocate in hosting US nuclear weapons as Belgium, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands do now.

This discussion hinges on American ambitions for global leadership. As the Trump administration pushes allies to bare a greater share of their own security while attempting to close a $2 trillion annual deficit, the US must necessarily cut costs everywhere. Thus, American allies must take a realistic look at what President Trump is seeking to accomplish with the federal budget and understand that they must step into the breach while the US sets its house in order.

Sometimes, a great power must admit that it may be in its interests to change direction and push its allies down a new, different path. In that case, the Trump administration might declare the NPT finished and instead encourage its allies to go nuclear.

Dr. Christine Leah is a Fellow at the US National Institute for Deterrence Studies and has worked on nuclear issues at Yale, MIT, and RAND and in London, Singapore, and Canberra. She is the author of The Consequences of American Nuclear Disarmament and Australia and the Bomb. Dr. Peter Layton is Visiting Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute and an Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. He is author of Grand Strategy and coauthor of Warfare in the Robotic Age.

Time to Proliferate Nuclear Weapons (or Not?) was originally published on Global Security Review.

Given these doubts, European political leaders have expressed a determination to increase their defense budgets and upgrade their armed forces and defense industrial bases. For example, European Community leaders met in early March to discuss the urgency of rearmament and the possible shift in American commitment to the defense of Ukraine and/or Europe altogether. The president of the European Commission noted that Europe faces a “clear and present danger” from the possibility of an asymmetrical peace agreement favorable to Russia followed by a more ambiguous American commitment to the defense of Europe.

European concerns are understandable, but the possibility that free Europe can establish a self-sufficient deterrent against further Russian political coercion or military aggression, apart from US security guarantees, is remote. An effort to bisect American national security from that of Europe would be politically unwise, weaken deterrence, and open the door to piecemeal disintegration of the transatlantic partnership that served leaders during the Cold War and thereafter. Four aspects of this issue merit specific consideration.

First, NATO is the strategic and military embodiment of shared security commitment and risk among member-states. NATO’s totality of conventional and nuclear military strength, supported by its political unity, is the linchpin for credible deterrence against Russian revanchism. Collectively, NATO members have the resources, including conventional forces for modern combined arms battle and the defense industrial base for protracted conflict, to deter any repetition of Russia’s invasion against Ukraine or any Russian attack on the alliance. American commitment to European defense ensures that its strategic nuclear forces support deterrence across the entire spectrum of conflict, including possible Russian nuclear political coercion or first use.

Second, President Trump, on his best and worst days, tends to see international relations as entirely transactional. This may work when dealing with trade or tariff matters but not matters of war and peace. American entanglement with the security of Europe is not only transactional; it is also existential. European and American defense and deterrence requirements are joined at the hip, notwithstanding occasional spats and acrimony over the details of military planning and defense economic priorities. American politicians complain that the United States should try to avoid getting stuck in another “forever war” in Ukraine but Ukraine is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

A victory for Putin in Ukraine opens the door to European vulnerability that Russia will later exploit at a higher cost in blood and treasure for the United States and its European partners.

Therefore, it follows that the US decision in early March to suddenly suspend American military assistance and intelligence sharing with Ukraine was ill advised and poorly timed. Although holding back equipment deliveries might take some months to impact events at the front, failure to share timely intelligence could impact immediately on Ukraine’s ability to strike key Russian targets, including logistics hubs, command centers, and troop concentrations. Thus, the suspension sent the wrong message to Ukraine and to Russia about allied steadfastness as preliminary ceasefire and peace negotiations were taking place in Saudi Arabia.

Third, messaging of American commitment to peace and security in Europe also involves the decisions about modernization of the American nuclear deterrent and supporting infrastructure. This has a number of components. First, the US is replacing all three legs of its strategic nuclear triad. The Trump administration also wants to deploy the sea-launched cruise missile, to replace some existing nuclear warheads with upgrades, and to provide additional limited nuclear options for contingencies short of general nuclear war.

Fourth, American defense planning for each potential theater of war will continue to emphasize a spectrum of options including both conventional and nuclear weapons. The US must maintain credible deterrence against the combined forces of China and Russi, not only with respect to the possible outbreak of conventional war in Asia or Europe, but also with regard to the threat of nuclear first use or first strike against American allies or the American homeland.

In this respect, another challenge to deterrence lies in the increasing capability of conventional weapons for use against targets previously assigned to nuclear weapons, and, conversely, the attractiveness for some parties of low-yield nuclear weapons for use against targets previously assigned only to conventional weapons.

The challenges in meeting the preceding standards for deterrence in Europe and beyond are enormous. First, they include the evolving international security environment in which an emerging multipolar realignment places a coalition of China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia at cross-purposes with US and allied visions for world order in Europe and Asia. Second, the challenges involve the significance of emerging technologies for long-range precision strike, missile and air defenses, cyber deterrence and war, space conflict, and continuing developments in autonomous warfare. Third, the costs for maintaining deterrence in Asia and Europe are enormous and Europe cannot expect the United States to foot the bill.

Some American allies in Asia and Europe expressed a willingness to increase their defense budgets and their degrees of readiness for local or regional conflict. More demanding times are ahead. In short, there is no “Eurodeterrent” without the United States and vice versa.

Stephen Cimbala, PhD, is a distinguished professor at Penn State-Brandywine and a Senior Fellow at the National Institute for Deterrence Studies.

Euro-deterrence and the Quest for Peace in Ukraine was originally published on Global Security Review.