German Chancellor Friedrich Merz

"We Germans know that a world in which only power is taken into account is a dark place. Our country took this path in the twentieth century all the way to its bitter and evil end."

"We Germans are adhering to our legal obligations. We consider this strictly within the context of our nuclear sharing in NATO -- and we will not allow zones of differing security to emerge in Europe." 

"These talks are in their very early stages. We know that we have to make some strategic and military-political decisions here, but again, the time is not yet ripe for that."

"We are holding strategic talks on this issue with the countries involved." 

"In the era of great power rivalry, even the United States will not be powerful enough to go it alone. Dear friends, being a part of NATO is not only Europe’s competitive advantage. It is also the United States’ competitive advantage."

"So let’s repair and revive transatlantic trust together."

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz

 

"This is the right time for audacity. This is the right time for a strong Europe."

"Europe has to learn to become a geopolitical power. It was not part of our DNA."

"We have to reshuffle and reorganize our architecture of security in Europe. Because the past architecture of security was totally designed and framed during Cold War times. So it’s no longer adapted."

French President Emmanuel Macron 

 

"I think it’s at a defining moment … the world is changing very fast right in front of us."

"[The U.S. is] deeply tied to Europe, and our futures have always been linked and will continue to be." "So we’ve just got to talk about what that future looks like."

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio 

 

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks with President of the European Council Antonio Costa at a meeting during the Munich Security Council. The U.K. and France are NATO's European nuclear-armed states. (Stefan Rousseau/Pool/Reuters)

 

"Nobody [was considering fully replacing the American nuclear umbrella, which has shielded Europe's NATO countries for decades]." 

"I think every discussion in Europe making sure that collectively the nuclear deterrence is even stronger, is fine."

"But nobody is arguing in Europe to do this as a sort of replacement of the nuclear umbrella of the United States."

"Everybody realizes that is the ultimate guarantor -- and all these other discussions are in addition."

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte  

Making a call to reorder the transatlantic relationship in light of the turmoil that has resulted from U.S. President Trump's declarations about NATO, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has been in serious discussions with France relating to potential European nuclear defence, warning at the Munich Security Conference against a new era of great power politics. Germany and Europe, he stressed, are required to increase their security and independence in tandem with one another while seeking out partners in other regions. The ultimate message: the world has changed.

 

"This order, as incomplete as it's been even at the est of times, no longer exists as it did", an audience of leaders and security experts were informed in the Bavarian capital on Friday. And although he reiterated his 'confidential talks' with French President Emmanuel Macron are ongoing on nuclear deterrence, he also warned his audience not to "reflexively write off" the United States. There remains great potential that can be realized still by engaging with Washington, he cautioned.

 

A year ago U.S. Vice-President JD Vance delivered a shocking message to Europe on the Munich stage over migration and freedom of speech and ever since European leaders have been on a search for directions that might help in restoring the post-Second World War alliance. Alternatively, there is the recognition of reality, that Europe may require their own path to proceed with security in an increasingly dangerous world.

 

In citing Europe's "enormous" military economic and technological potential, Chancellor Merz stated that his country had no choice but to move forward by building alliances and in so doing, foregoing the restrictions and protectionism bullying deployed by the Trump administration. While in the process of discussing nuclear deterrence in a reality where Germany itself has no nuclear weapons and following the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany phased out atomic power, but recognizes the region's vulnerability.

 

European leaders, including Chancellor Merz, French President Macron, Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy were present at the conference, along with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Over 50 members of US. Congress were delegated to be present at Munich. The conference report explored transatlantic ties at their bleakest time in eight decades, making reference to the "wrecking ball politics" stirring the globe with President Trump appearing determined to dismantle pillars of a post-war system the U.S. itself led. 

 

European policymakers are engaging in growing discussions about nuclear deterrence, concerned over Russia's aggression amidst uncertainty about America's ongoing security pledges.  Getty Images  

"[There was] no low-cost or risk-free way out of Europe's nuclear predicament [bearing in mind Russia's territorial threats in Europe]."

"The era in which Europe could afford strategic complacency has ended."

"[European policymakers must work together] to confront the role of nuclear weapons in the defence of the continent directly and without delay -- and to invest the resources needed to do so competently."

Munich Security Conference report 

Threatening Nuclear

"This is another escalatory and unnecessary step that threatens us all."

"We urge Russia to tone down its dangerous rhetoric regarding nuclear weapons."

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Ambassador tot he United States

 

"The end of the Cold War meant that the prominence of nuclear weapons, the significance of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war dropped off dramatically."

"Rising tensions [have] once again begun to raise concerns about the nuclear threat, that any direct confrontation between Russia and the United States could escalate or could lead to a situation for miscalculation or by accident to a threat of nuclear war of some kind."

"A flight time [between Russia and the United States] of 30 to 35 minutes has not changed." 

"So, fundamentally, the logic of mutually assured destruction continued for the Cold War, and it's still with us to this very day."

"So are we supposed to take [the report's claim] at face value? Or are you, as has been so often the case in the past, exaggerating Russian capacities or Russian practices in order to heighten a sense of threat that may not actually be there?"

Allen Sens, nuclear weapons expert, University of British Columbia 

"[Russia has] demonstrated its willingness to use force to alter the map of Europe and impose its will on its neighbours, backed by implicit and explicit nuclear first-use threats."

"A shared belief in nuclear deterrence is not the only plausible explanation for this avoidance of nuclear war. Rather, individual decision-making, often in disobedience of protocol and political guidance, has on several occasions saved the day."

"[Russia may believe using a nuclear weapon on the battlefield, for example, could convince opponents to end] conflict on terms favourable to Russia."

"these mistaken perceptions increase the prospect for dangerous miscalculation and escalation."

2018 American nuclear-assessment report

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi speaks at a press conference about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine in Vienna, Austria, Friday, March 4, 2022. (AP Photo/Lisa Leutner)

 

Western powers have been placed on due notice. Interfere in Russia's peacekeeping mission in Ukraine and you risk the kind of escalatory punishment nightmares are made of. You will face consequences "such as you have never seen in your entire history". And to ensure that the message was adequately clarified, the ominous move to place Russian nuclear forces on "special combat readiness". Expert and casual newspaper readers alike drew an immediate conclusion; Vladimir Putin chose to bring in the heavy guns of nuclear threats.

Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence, a 2020 document, states the President of Russia makes any decision of the use of nuclear weapons. At all times a briefcase is maintained in close proximity to Vladimir Putin wherever he happens to be. It links him to the command and control network of Russia's strategic nuclear forces. Within the briefcase is not a hot  button; instead the means to transmit orders to central military command.

 

 

China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel also maintain nuclear weapons. Among them all the largest stockpile of such weapons are Russia's with 4,500 nuclear warheads, while the United States has a total of 3,800, representing between them 90 percent of all nuclear weapons held globally. Considering the destruction potential in one nuclear warhead, numbers are almost irrelevant; it would take a small proportion of each nation's stockpile to destroy the world.

The treaties devised and agreed upon in the aftermath of the Cold War, designed around nuclear weapons and inventories and non-proliferation resulted in a decrease of such weaponry. By the mid-80s there were over 60,000 nuclear weapons, currently that number stands at about 10,000. In the past ten to fifteen years geopolitical tensions have risen to the point that arms agreements are no longer in effect. At a time when nuclear warheads can be placed on cruise missiles.

Delivery timeline is roughly analogous for an intercontinental ballistic missile currently as it was decades earlier. Should a nuclear attack be launched from a submarine off a coastline, that changes the time equation. As it would with geographical proximity. No longer will either the U.S. or Russia wait to verify an impending attack to be confirmed by a first explosion. And the most powerful of nuclear weapons are those of the city-destroying variety, as opposed to those for battlefield use.

Experts now discuss various possible scenarios in the disturbed wake of Vladimir Putin's warning threat: a strike detonated over the North Sea as a warning shot -- away from populated areas -- to serve as an penultimate warning. "All the evidence so far is that [Putin's threats were] just a 'I'm just gonna throw this out there as a reminder to everybody that you're dealing with a nuclear power. and we're pissed off'", said Jane Boulden, professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

"Are you going to start launching nuclear weapons in Russia? No. Because the moment you do that, they're going to reply, they're going to escalate, right, and fire right back", added Dr. Sens. "Putin's actions do not mean that a nuclear war is imminent and his actions do not mean that the Russian military is going to use nuclear weapons anytime soon in Ukraine or anywhere else. but what it does mean is that it raises the level of hostility and distrust and tension and magnifies the possibility of mistake, error, miscalculation -- and that's the last thing anybody wants."

A frontal view of four B-61 nuclear free-fall bombs on a bomb cart. Photo by US Department of Defense

Disageeably Agreeing to Disagree

"We don't know whether President [Vladimir] Putin has made the decision to invade. We do know that he is putting in place the capacity to do so on short order should he so decide."

"Should Russia follow the path of confrontation, when it comes to Ukraine, we've made clear that we will respond resolutely including with a range of high impact economic measures that we have refrained from pursuing in the past."

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken

"Our recent warnings have indeed been heard and are having a certain effect: tensions have risen there [NATO-U.S.]."

"It is important for them to remain in this state for as long as possible, so that it does not occur to them to stage some kind of conflict on our western frontiers that we do not need."

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin   Photographer: Mikhail Metzel/AFP/Getty Images

"I would like again to officially state that Ukraine does not plan any military offensive in Donbass."

"This is Russian propaganda nonsense in order to cover up Russia's own preparations for a potential attack."

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba

"[Stability and predictability mean] less American meddling in our domestic affairs, with less attempts by the U.S. to limit our completely legal and legitimate interaction with our friends, allies and partners all over the globe."

Sergey A. Ryabkov, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister

Mr. Putin's end game: for Asta Skaisgiryte, foreign policy adviser to Lithuania's president, there is a simple answer: "To restore the Soviet Union". That's a given. Well enough understood by Mr. Putin's statement of profound regret that Greater Russia is simply that, no longer the Soviet Union, its hegemonic tentacles tightly gripping its neighbours' sovereignty as Moscow's own. Time and the tides provides no answer for Mr. Putin for he plans his legacy as the restorer of what once was; if subtle persuasion won't do it, violent aggression will.

 

For Mr. Putin, Russia's near-abroad is Russian hegemonic territory. The encroaching presence of NATO in support of Baltic states cringing at the very prospect of once again being caught in a Soviet-style ambit represents their living nightmare. That they have the support of the United States extending to NATO and its member-states is their assurance that they won't go into that dark night of Russia's grasp whimpering helplessly. They have Western champions.

 

To the Kremlin, to Mr. Putin, the presence of Western troops under the NATO aegis in Russia's area of disputed control is a major threat. They have no business in eastern Europe, it is Russia's bailiwick. And if Russia feels like reminding its neighbours of how good their lives were once as part and parcel of the USSR, that's Russia's business. The buildup of Russian troops beside Ukraine is a statement of regional power, not defiance, but a promise of what could unfold and may yet.

 

A serviceman of the Ukrainian Armed Forces takes part in military drills at a training ground near the border with Russian-annexed Crimea in Kherson region, Ukraine, in this handout picture released by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine press service November 17, 2021. via REUTERS

The volatile situation is not Russia's fault but that of NATO and the United States daring Russia to take another step further to claim its historical patrimony. From the Baltic to the Black Sea competition for influence amidst a threat of an emerging potential for military conflict is seething. Russian long-range nuclear bombers flew patrols repeatedly near the border of the European Union with Poland. Leaving Western intelligence warning the Kremlin could be planing groundwork for another invasion of Ukraine.

 

Last month Mr. Putin made clear his use of the Russian military to bring the West to a respectful attitude toward Russian interests in the region, and succeeding. It is now known in the Western halls of power that Russia is serious it will defend its 'red lines'; NATO has no business being present near its borders. The Belarusian gambit of creating friction by massing Syrian refugees on the border with Poland as punishment for the EU's interference in the after-effects of the Belarus election is generally viewed as another irritation engineered by Mr. Putin. Ditto the energy crunch in supplying natural gas to Western Europe.

 

Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka (center) attends a meeting on territorial defense issues in the town of Shklov in June with Defense Minister Viktar Khrenin (left).

Despite repelling challenges to his presidency from opposition groups, imprisoning those whose campaigns prove too inconvenient as an alternative to assassination or forcing others into exile, Mr. Putin rests easy in an approval rating above 60 percent, making him indisputably a more popular leader than most Western-based leaders. Russia may be suffering a dreadful COVID toll, but the United Russia party saw victory in its September parliamentary elections, and Mr. Putin has established himself as President-for-life. Changing the country's constitution proved so popular that other dictators have followed suit.

It is, however, the possibility that the West will continue its incursion, expanding a military presence in post-Soviet Eastern Europe where Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have become NATO members satisfied with their bonus of hosting Western troops; too close for Mr. Putin's comfort. In September the Kremlin stated that the "broadening of NATO infrastructure on Ukrainian territory" would cross one of Russia's red lines. Recent military activity by the U.S. and its NATO allies in the Black Sea region near Ukraine has served to further infuriate Russia.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg poses with foreign ministers for a family photo during a NATO Foreign Ministers summit in Riga, Latvia November 30, 2021. REUTERS/Ints Kalnins

"President Putin has come to the conclusion that normal diplomatic channels, means, forms and methods are not working."

"The situation is, potentially, a rather bad one."

Dmitri Trenin, head, Carnegie Moscow Center think tank