NATO Tensions and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence in Europe

Recent tensions triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s coercive stance over Greenland have exposed deep fractures within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

About Deterrence

• Definition: Deterrence is the prevention of action through the fear of consequences. There are two main models:
  • Certainty Model: Used by powers like the US and Russia, where they explicitly state their massive nuclear numbers and test weapons to demonstrate resolve.
  • Uncertainty Model: Used by nations like Israel, which maintain strategic ambiguity regarding their nuclear status, to keep enemies fearful of the unknown.

Explore UPSC Online Courses

Explore UPSC Online Courses

Core Issues

• Erosion of NATO’s Credibility and Stability: The effectiveness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as a nuclear and collective security alliance rests on trust in U.S. leadership. 
  • However, coercive diplomacy and “bully-like” behaviour toward allies have weakened this trust, hollowing NATO’s traditional role.
• Hollowing of Nuclear Deterrence: Nuclear deterrence is fundamentally political; once trust in the guarantor erodes, the promise of nuclear protection loses credibility.
• Return of Cold War Logic: The expiry of the New START Treaty risks renewed arms racing and deterrence defined by stockpile size and assured retaliation. 
  • Example: China is adding 100 warheads annually, and the UK is also increasing its stockpile.
  • The New START Treaty is a bilateral arms-control treaty between the United States and Russia that caps deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 on each side and limits delivery systems, such as ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles), SLBMs (Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles), and heavy bombers, to maintain transparency and strategic stability.
• Outdated Strategic Thinking: Despite contemporary threats being driven by climate change, terrorism and inequality, nuclear weapons continue to be treated as the ultimate security solution.
• Deterrence Beyond Certainty: Historical experience shows that deterrence often works through uncertainty and strategic ambiguity, leaving adversaries unsure about thresholds, responses, and escalation pathways, rather than relying solely on an explicit or automatic promise of nuclear retaliation.
• Persistence of the Nuclear Taboo: The absence of nuclear use since 1945 reflects strong political and normative constraints on nuclear deployment.

Lessons from Ukraine

• Reshaped Deterrence: Russian nuclear threats did not deter Ukraine, indicating limits of nuclear deterrence when threats lack credibility or political acceptability.
  • Ukraine’s strong conventional resistance, backed by sanctions and international support, showed that non-nuclear states can counter nuclear intimidation without escalating to nuclear conflict.

Way Forward

• Europe’s Strategic Choice: Europe must choose between substituting the U.S. nuclear umbrella or building a strong conventional defence with a limited nuclear role.
• Institutionalise the Coalition of the Willing: The emerging European grouping supporting Ukraine should evolve into a structured framework for collective conventional defence.
• Build Strategic Autonomy: Strengthening indigenous conventional capabilities allows Europe to secure itself while preserving the nuclear taboo and avoiding Cold War–style escalation.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

Europe’s choice between nuclear primacy and conventionally anchored defence will determine the nuclear theory of the future.

DOWNLOAD PDF