Dutch FM: Debate on French Nuclear Umbrella for Europe is “Legitimate” but US Guarantee Remains Vital
Foreign Minister David van Weel has officially validated the growing discourse regarding a potential French nuclear shield for Europe, terming the debate “legitimate” amidst shifting transatlantic dynamics. While emphasizing that the United States’ nuclear guarantee remains the cornerstone of European security, Van Weel signaled a significant shift in Dutch strategic thinking by acknowledging the need to explore European alternatives.
He also adds that the Netherlands has not yet formally approached France to discuss joining its nuclear deterrent forces, but he expects such high-level consultations to take place “one way or another” in the near future. Van Weel warned, however, that building a self-sufficient European security architecture is a long-term endeavor, stating it “will take time before we can really take over the burden from the Americans in Europe,” and that immediate decoupling is not a realistic option.
Background: A Shift in the Transatlantic Wind
The Foreign Minister’s comments arrive against a backdrop of heightened anxiety in European capitals regarding the reliability of Washington’s security commitments. With the return of Donald Trump to the presidency and an administration—including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—that prioritizes “America First” policies, the durability of NATO’s Article 5 is under scrutiny.
The Macron Doctrine: French President Emmanuel Macron has long advocated for “strategic autonomy,” recently reiterating that France’s nuclear doctrine has a “European dimension.” France, the EU’s sole nuclear power post-Brexit, possesses approximately 290 warheads, a mix of submarine-launched ballistic missiles and air-launched cruise missiles.
The Dutch Role: The Netherlands currently plays a critical role in NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement, hosting US B-61 nuclear gravity bombs at the Volkel Air Base and maintaining F-35 aircraft capable of delivering them. Opening the door to a French alternative represents a potential pivot from decades of exclusive reliance on US assets.
Objections and Strategic Concerns
Despite Van Weel’s openness to the debate, significant strategic and operational objections remain:
Capacity vs. Credibility: Critics argue that France’s arsenal of under 300 warheads is insufficient to provide a credible “umbrella” for the entire continent compared to the United States’ stockpile of over 5,000 warheads.
Sovereignty Issues: Unlike NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, where allies have a voice, France’s nuclear doctrine is strictly national. Control over the “button” rests solely with the French President, raising doubts about whether Paris would risk a nuclear strike on its own soil to protect an ally like Estonia or the Netherlands.
Risk of Decoupling: Atlanticist hardliners fear that entertaining a French alternative could accelerate a US withdrawal, effectively creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that leaves Europe more vulnerable to Russian aggression during the transition period. Van Weel himself mitigated his comments by stressing that the “transatlantic bond” must remain solid, acknowledging the massive gap Europe must close to ensure its own defense.
youtube.com
voxnews.al
sigmalive.com
somoynews.tv
albaniandailynews.com
nltimes.nl
orfonline.org
theguardian.com
carnegieendowment.org
