In the past week, European leaders were seen crossing the Atlantic to meet with US President Donald Trump at the White House. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky all held talks with Trump, with security issues and the ongoing war in Ukraine dominating the discussions. While the diplomatic interactions were cordial, they revealed much about Europe’s diminished role on the global stage and its strained relationship with the US.

A key takeaway from these meetings has been the renewed conversation about Europe creating its own nuclear umbrella, with the UK and France potentially leading the charge to protect the continent in place of the US. This, of course, is a European response to what they perceive as America’s withdrawal from Europe’s defense. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the US can no longer provide unconditional protection to its European allies-it must be earned. This stark shift in American policy, while blunt and confrontational, has exposed Europe’s vulnerability and its deep dependence on US security guarantees. The message is unambiguous: there will be no more “free rides” for Europe, and the region must step up to secure its future.

What followed was a series of tense discussions. Macron and Starmer, both representing NATO’s core European allies, entered into negotiations with Trump with the kind of strained diplomacy that accompanied the UK’s Brexit experience. Yet, despite the rhetoric and posturing, the essential question remains: can Europe truly safeguard its own security without the protection of the US? And, in the light of recent events, does Europe even have the political will to make it happen?

The idea of a European nuclear umbrella involving France and the UK is not a new one. It’s seen as a response to the ongoing instability brought about by Russia’s aggression and the unpredictability of US policy under Trump. But the reality of creating such an umbrella is fraught with obstacles, both in terms of political cohesion and military capability. This brings us back to why Europe is often seen as not being taken seriously on the world stage: disunity, inconsistent leadership, and a failure to make decisive, long-term commitments.

When considering Europe’s ability to provide its own security, the focus inevitably turns to nuclear deterrence. France and the UK possess substantial nuclear arsenals, but these are far smaller than those of global powers like Russia and the US France’s nuclear arsenal consists of an estimated 290 warheads, while the UK’s is slightly smaller at around 225 warheads. Despite these numbers, both countries rely on a sea-based deterrent strategy. France has four Triomphant-class submarines, each capable of carrying 16 ballistic missiles, while the UK relies on its four Vanguard-class submarines, each with a 12-warhead capacity. Both countries have maintained the policy of always having at least one submarine on patrol to ensure a continuous deterrent.

However, the real test of Europe’s resolve will be whether it can expand this capability into a collective defense strategy. The Lancaster House Treaties, signed in 2010, established deeper military collaboration between the UK and France, including nuclear cooperation. But these arrangements have not mutualized their nuclear capabilities; each country retains its sovereign control over its arsenal. For a European nuclear umbrella to be a reality, France and the UK would need to integrate their deterrents, potentially compromising their own sovereignty in favor of a collective defense structure.

This raises crucial questions about Europe’s ability to act coherently in the face of a threat. While the UK and France may have a credible nuclear deterrent, they would still need to demonstrate the political will to use it in defense of Europe’s security. The current fragmentation in Europe-whether it’s disagreements over defense budgets, military spending, or political priorities-makes it highly uncertain whether a united front could be presented in the event of a crisis.

The primary issue preventing Europe from being taken seriously on the world stage is its disunity. This was evident in the aftermath of Brexit, where the UK’s departure from the EU exposed deep divides between European countries, particularly between the larger powers like France and Germany and the smaller, often more economically precarious nations. The United Kingdom, now outside the EU, has also struggled to find its place on the global stage without its European allies, forcing it to seek alliances outside of Europe, primarily with the US However, this external reliance has not translated into a sense of collective European defense.

In the current geopolitical environment, Europe has been slow to act. NATO, of course, remains the primary military alliance in Europe, and the US continues to play a pivotal role in its defense. But Europe has failed to create a truly independent defense capability that could serve as a substitute for US involvement. In a region where the threat from Russia is ever-present, Europe’s inability to mobilize its own resources has left it vulnerable.

It is, of course, worth considering whether European countries, despite their divisions, are ready to invest heavily in mutual defense. French President Emmanuel Macron has advocated for “strategic autonomy” for Europe, but this vision has yet to be fully realized. The fact remains that many European countries, particularly in the east and south, remain heavily reliant on NATO’s framework for security. If Europe is serious about assuming greater responsibility for its own defense, it will need to invest in the necessary military capabilities and frameworks to ensure its collective security.

As the war in Ukraine continues, the question of Europe’s security has become more urgent. For the US, the conflict is troubling, but not existential. For Europe, however, the consequences of a Russian victory would be far more catastrophic. Russia’s influence over European borders would grow, and the potential for further invasions would become real. Yet, Europe has not made the necessary investments to ensure it can deter Russia on its own.

For Europe to be taken seriously on the world stage, it must show that it has the political unity and military capability to defend its own interests. The idea of a nuclear umbrella led by France and the UK is a start, but it is only a partial solution. Ultimately, Europe needs a comprehensive defense strategy that encompasses military, economic, and political cohesion. Without this, it will continue to be seen as a bystander in global security affairs, reliant on external powers like the US for its protection.

This is why Europe is not taken seriously on the world stage. The failure to act decisively, to unify around a common vision of security, and to take responsibility for its own defense leaves the continent vulnerable. The US may have set a tough path for Europe, but in the end, it is a path that Europe must walk, for its own survival. If it can overcome its internal divisions and make the necessary investments in defense, it may yet prove that it deserves to be taken seriously as a global power.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel