France claims that a 'safer’ Europe is the goal of its new nuclear policy. Yet Robin Gilman argues that undermining the nonproliferation treaty is eroding the EU’s credibility and safety, leaving it at a crossroads. France can either remain a reliable partner – or fuel the collapse of the rules-based order
On 2 March 2026, France's President Emmanuel Macron updated the country's nuclear policy. He calls it 'forward deterrence', which means more warheads, less transparency, and an open invitation for EU partners to join the French-led nuclear programme. Macron’s proposal ensures France's full sovereignty over its nuclear arsenal while seeking to adapt it within a European security context.
Macron's policy is a reaction to a world where 'the field of rules has turned into a field of ruins'. Rather than restoring the international rules-based order, it is hastening its disintegration. France and its partner countries are no longer mere witnesses to the erosion of rules. Now, they have become active deconstructors.
France may claim to support the rules-based order, but Macron’s forward deterrence policy challenges the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). By inviting European partners, France risks violating the prohibition on nuclear sharing set out in Articles I and II, and colliding with Article VI, which demands nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, the NPT is a 'multilateral legally binding commitment'. Even though France has reaffirmed its commitment to nuclear disarmament, the shift signals its calculated willingness to disregard legal obligations for the sake of its national 'safety'.
Macron’s forward deterrence policy challenges the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and risks violating the article which demands nuclear disarmament
This policy would also contravene the 2010 RevCon Action Plan, which remains the latest political commitment ensuring NPT fulfilment. Specifically, point 5 of the Plan, which remains the diplomatic consensus supported by the EU, calls for further disarmament and transparency. Ultimately, this logic is a failure of legal and moral credibility. The EU cannot act as a global rule-setter while tolerating selective compliance with international rules by its own member states.
Mahmoud Javadi points out that 'nuclear deterrence is a house of cards: one misstep, one miscalculation, and the illusion of stability collapses into catastrophe'. Today’s multipolar world order heightens such a butterfly-effect risk. A policy change that seems strategically logical for France could have ramifications elsewhere. Ultimately, the policy risks becoming the trigger that topples the house of cards.
Disregarding the NPT and the 2010 action plan risks creating a legal vacuum where political commitments become merely voluntary. While Olamide Samuel argues that 'Europe is too late to play the nuclear game', the crisis is, in fact, deeper. More than a strategic lag, it is a fundamental erosion of the EU’s identity as a trustworthy partner. Selectively ignoring international rules hollows out Europe’s credibility. By treating a security treaty as negotiable, the EU leaves global partners wondering what its word is worth for other long-term commitments.
The deterioration of Europe's identity as an international rule-setter is a greater immediate threat to the EU than any nuclear bomb, because credibility is Europe’s currency. The value of this currency is built upon the EU’s ability to influence the world through regulation: a normative power better known as the Brussels Effect.
The EU’s normative power will erode if the rest of the world no longer sees it as a reliable, credible partner
The importance of the European market forces global partners to follow European regulations to maintain access. Examples like GDPR prove that Europe’s strength lies in its international regulatory power. However, this power depends on the perception that the EU is a reliable, credible partner. Without this perception, the EU’s normative power will erode and the world will no longer feel obliged to follow Europe’s lead. A credible Europe cannot argue for compliance with treaties in Brussels while challenging the NPT in Paris. By abandoning consistency in diplomacy, France puts EU credibility on the line.
The 11th NPT RevCon – Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – in New York, 27 April–22 May 2026, was the latest attempt to reach a meaningful consensus for NPT compliance. The EU is attempting to act as a bridge-builder but is finding the role difficult to maintain.
Indeed, the EU has become a fragmented institution. Member states are torn between striving for disarmament, avoiding stepping on America's toes and strengthening European security. However, by mimicking the Trump administration’s disregard for international law, Macron’s forward deterrence policy risks becoming a new source of global instability. And while the EU was not a negotiator but an observer at the 2026 RevCon, France’s unilateral actions have a direct impact on Europe’s identity.
The EU cannot act as a bridge-builder if it continues to tolerate member states' non-compliance with the NPT
While the EU advocates for disarmament, France’s policy is fuelling a hypocritical perception. The EU cannot act as a bridge-builder if it continues to tolerate member states' non-compliance with the NPT. Adversaries and NPT sceptics could weaponise this fragmentation. France’s selective approach to international rules gives opponents an excuse to bypass international rules. In the past, the 2021 AUKUS deal gave states like Iran justification for their nuclear ambitions. Its own inconsistency towards member states compromises Europe’s ability to name and shame. Ultimately, the EU’s normative authority in debates on international security and disarmament risks fading, leading to a less safe Europe.
Amid a changing global order, self-proclaimed moral arbiters are breaking the rules once more. RevCon will determine whether a divided Europe can reassure, or lose its credible identity, as member states challenge the NPT. The return to Cold War era logic has deeper implications than France may anticipate. Ultimately, if France and its partners continue to break the rules the EU preaches, EU credibility will become a relic of the past.
