When the Munich Security Conference 2026 convened under the theme “Under Ruin” the title evoked not only war-devastated cities but also the structural collapse of the system that has upheld global security since the Second World War. The term “wrecking-ball politics,” used in the conference’s opening report, sealed the beginning of an era in which Washington has started dismantling the very order it once built with its own hands. The clearest symbol of this shift was the U.S. Secretary of State’s absence from the critical session on Ukraine. This attitude, rather than a simple protocol error or an intense program conflict, has been the clearest declaration that Washington has now put a strategic distance from Europe, pulled its alliance relations to a transactional ground and set its eyes entirely on the systemic competition with China, namely the Pacific.
As the war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, the deep political polarization of America within itself and the persistence of the America First doctrine have distanced Washington from its role as a patron of the West. The empty chair left by Marco Rubio was interpreted as once-protective America in European capitals would not return and transatlantic ties are irreversibly weakened. In this strategic vacuum, the nuclear dialogue between German Prime Minister Friedrich Merz and French President Emmanuel Macron moved beyond routine cooperation to attempt the construct the security architecture of post-American world. Today Europe is facing the truth that nuclear deterrence cannot be entrusted across the Atlantic and Washington would not risk Berlin for the sake of New York’s protection.
The nuclear protection that has ensured Europe’s protection for decades, has now become an unreliable structure. Today, American B61 gravity bombs are present on many European soils, from Italy to Belgium and the Netherlands, but the launch codes and the authorization to use these weapons are entirely in the hands of Washington, creating a sovereignty deficit for the host countries that is no longer bearable. Doubts about whether Washington will act for Europe at the expense of making its own territory a nuclear target in a crisis deepen the nuclear credibility gap. In this gap, Europe is moving toward becoming a strategic actor that governs nuclear capacity independently. The determined stance that Friedrich Merz displayed in Munich represents the most critical and historical moments of the nuclear maturity.
Chancellor Merz has clearly put on the table the intention to articulate nuclear safety to French capacity by flexing the nuclear taboo, which has been in the DNA of German politics for decades, in the face of Russia’s increasing nuclear blackmail. This move proves that Germany has moved to the Zeitenwende 2.0 era by breaking away from its hesitant steps during the Olaf Scholz era. Berlin now aims to rise to the position of a leader who demands veto power and say in Europe’s nuclear future by going beyond allocating a budget for defense. Although Merz maintains his emphasis on NATO and loyalty to the 2+4 Treaty due to diplomacy, his real strategic agenda is clear: to end the ontological dependence on America and surround the continent with its own nuclear deterrence ring.
However, this new nuclear architecture also contains technical challenges that are not easy to solve and major geopolitical risks. Macron’s offer to expand France’s nuclear power (Force de Frappe) to protect the vital interests of the entire European Union, although in theory it seems like a giant step for European integration, it creates serious uncertainties about determination, which is the essence of nuclear doctrine. Deterrence is based on the enemy not being sure you will shoot, as well as not being sure when and how you will hit. Moving out of a single national decision center and moving to a structure that includes a large number of European capitals and bureaucratic mechanisms can weaken those momentary and harsh reflexes needed in times of crisis. This triggers the debate about whether it is a real protection or just a promise on paper for the countries under the European umbrella.
Moreover, the regional effects of this nuclear transformation have the potential to create new fault lines within the alliance. For countries involved in NATO’s traditional nuclear sharing mechanisms, such as Turkey, Italy and Greece, this new Paris-based axis could turn into a source of uncertainty and asymmetry. If this new nuclear architecture cannot be brought into a transparent mechanism that will protect the entire continent equally, different security zones and nuclear classes may form within Europe. This kind of fragmentation will further deepen the security dilemma by creating new strategic gaps and playgrounds for revisionist forces.
As a result, Munich 2026 will go down in history as a year of confrontation in which the transatlantic alliance is now beginning to become a heritage institution and Europe has to take its nuclear destiny into its own hands. The nuclear bargains between Merz and Macron are a summary of the fact that the world has now evolved into nuclear multipolarity of the 21st century and that Europe’s effort to become a nuclear subject to survive in this chaotic order. This journey is extremely painful both politically and financially. But as Washington’s strategic priorities shift to the Pacific, Europe’s luxury of releading its own security across the ocean now seems to be completely exhausted. This nuclear awakening echoing in Munich is the most concrete and most dangerous step in the real balance of power, that is, strategic autonomy, which will shape the world of the coming decades.
