Europe
Europe confronts nuclear future: French umbrella or German bomb?
Amid concerns that the US may withdraw from the continent, a debate has begun in Europe over France’s nuclear umbrella and the possibility of Germany producing its own nuclear bomb.
French President Emmanuel Macron is pursuing a proposal to bring other European countries, including Germany, under a “nuclear umbrella” based on French nuclear bombs, modeled after the US system.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced today during the signing of a France-Poland cooperation agreement that “serious talks” on this matter are already underway. Macron announced that similar discussions will be held with other countries.
Efforts to find an alternative to US nuclear weapons are also ongoing in Berlin, and these efforts have intensified since Chancellor Friedrich Merz raised the possibility of talks with Paris and London on February 21.
Leading German media outlets have also recently raised the issue of arming Germany with its own “German bomb,” which would violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Two Plus Four Treaty. AfD politicians support this idea.
However, the ruling parties in Berlin are currently pushing for a “European solution.” It remains unclear how Berlin’s participation in decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons would be ensured.
German media calls for ‘breaking old chains’
The debate over maintaining the current US nuclear umbrella over Europe or replacing it with a separate European nuclear umbrella first began last November during the US presidential elections, then reignited on January 20 with the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
From time to time, calls are made for Germany to act alone and acquire nuclear weapons. For example, an influential article published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) argued that there were “good reasons” why the Two Plus Four Treaty is “no longer valid,” given that it did not permit the Federal Republic of Germany to possess nuclear weapons, and that Germany should “break old chains.”
Around the same time, public opinion polls were published showing that while nuclear armament for the Federal Republic had not yet gained majority support, it was backed by a growing segment of the population.
German media, recalling that the production of nuclear bombs is also being discussed in other countries like South Korea and Poland, emphasized that Berlin possesses sufficient uranium enrichment technology to produce nuclear weapons.
AfD support for ‘German bomb’
More influential politicians have not yet joined the call for a German bomb. Karl-Heinz Kamp, former president of the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) and currently working for the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), recently stated that the Federal Republic of Germany has “bindingly renounced” the option of “developing its own nuclear weapons,” which is being discussed in the media.
Although Kamp argues that there is currently no politically serious voice in Berlin seeking to change this, explicit calls for the German bomb are now coming from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
For example, in March, Rüdiger Lucassen, the AfD’s defense policy spokesperson in the Bundestag, said, “Germany needs its own nuclear weapons.”
The AfD member, who wants Berlin to “acquire its own nuclear deterrence capability,” stated that this should be done “within the framework of Europe’s strategic autonomy.”
This demand was echoed by Sergeant Hannes Gnauck, an AfD Member of Parliament and a member of his party’s defense working group. Gnauck said, “Germany needs its own nuclear protection shield.”
European option in practice, German bomb in emergencies
Some time ago, Thorsten Benner, director of the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) in Berlin, proposed a different approach.
Benner advised that “in emergencies, the basic scientific and technological capacities should be maintained to pursue a German nuclear bomb project,” but that in political practice, a “European option” should be sought.
Kamp is also insistent on this point. He notes that the Trinity House Treaty, signed between the UK and Germany in October 2024, provides for bilateral “dialogue on nuclear issues.”
French President Emmanuel Macron had also advocated for dialogue on the use of the Force de Frappe (deterrent force) to create a nuclear umbrella over the EU “at an early stage.”
Kamp now suggests that Germany could contribute to the “significant costs of France’s and Britain’s nuclear capabilities.” This would, of course, require establishing a “direct link between the nuclear weapon capabilities of both countries and the security of Germany and Europe,” and regulating this with “legally binding bilateral treaties.”
According to Kamp, this would also give Berlin direct influence over French and British nuclear weapons.
Joint nuclear war maneuvers
In recent days, Macron has given new impetus to the plan to bring EU countries under the protection of French or Franco-British nuclear weapons.
Macron has long supported this plan, arguing that French national interests, protected by French nuclear weapons, have now acquired a “European dimension.”
Paris noted with interest Merz’s statement on February 21 that “Europe may need to become more independent from the US in nuclear terms.” Merz had said he wanted to negotiate this issue with Paris and London.
Visiting Portugal at the end of February, Macron reaffirmed the “European dimension” of France’s core interests, which are central to the expansion of the nuclear umbrella.
Experts quickly advanced the public debate. For example, in early March, it was said that it would take years to produce enough new nuclear warheads to deploy nuclear weapons in other European countries according to the US nuclear sharing model.
However, it is pointed out that joint nuclear war maneuvers, for example, could be carried out in the short term.
French nuclear deterrence could be extended to Poland
The plan already appears to be gaining traction. France and Poland have signed a friendship and cooperation agreement (Traité de Nancy) that provides for closer arms and military cooperation and includes a mutual assistance clause.
This agreement is considered the counterpart to the Traités de Londres signed with the United Kingdom in 2010, the Traité d’Aix-la-Chapelle signed with Germany in 2019, the Traité du Quirinal signed with Italy in 2021, and the Traité de Barcelone signed with Spain in 2023.
The mutual assistance clause allows for discussion of extending France’s nuclear deterrence to Poland. As Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk confirmed on Friday, his government is currently conducting “serious talks” with Paris on this matter.
In an interview on Tuesday, Macron reiterated that he wants to discuss participation in France’s nuclear deterrence with “all partners who wish to do so,” and said he would intensify talks in the coming weeks and months.
Macron added that there are three conditions for his country: France will not pay for the security of others; it will not deploy nuclear weapons it needs for itself; and the decision to use the French nuclear bomb will belong solely to the President of France.
Currently, it seems unlikely that Berlin would agree to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to Germany under the condition that it has no say in any decision regarding its use.
On the other hand, the joint financing voiced by Kamp could provide a certain degree of joint decision-making.
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
