DN, Dagens Nyheter, is one of Swedens largest morning newspapers. Here’s an english translation of the full editorial:
There is no reason to pretend that NATO membership turned out the way we had hoped. Donald Trump is now not only threatening to leave Europe – he is threatening Europe.
*Text: DN Editorial Board*
“I don’t need international law,” Donald Trump declares in an interview with *The New York Times*. His only limitation in dealing with other countries? “My morality. Myself. That’s the only thing that can stop me.”
The president further notes that he may have to choose between Greenland and NATO – adding that the alliance is nothing without the United States.
The first year of Donald Trump’s second term has been dramatic – and has involved a marked shift from his first four years. Back then, we were mainly afraid that he would withdraw the U.S. from NATO and leave Europe alone with Vladimir Putin. Now it is obvious that he is prepared to use our dependence to force concessions from us.
Like Greenland.
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else,” British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is said to have remarked. And of course we should hope for a future rendezvous with the United States. But then the relationship must be more equal – and we must first realize that the core of the one we currently have is crumbling.
According to the news agency Reuters, the Pentagon told European diplomats in December that we have one year to take over responsibility for the defense of our continent. When European leaders discussed precisely that issue this spring, the timeline was between five and ten years. Of course, it cannot be fully achieved in one year, but the fact remains that Europe must very quickly replace the United States – capability by capability.
This also applies to the nuclear umbrella. After J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last winter, Emmanuel Macron opened the door to French nuclear weapons also protecting others, followed by a joint declaration with Keir Starmer to include the British ones as well. Talks with the Germans began in August.
If Europe had stood united, had full awareness of the crisis, and consistently demonstrated resolve, one might perhaps have been able to calmly conclude that we were on the right path. But Viktor Orbán constantly undermines unity. Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sánchez says the Russians will not march across the Pyrenees anyway. Where the French, British, and Italians are supposed to find the money for rearmament remains a mystery.
Moreover, Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen may soon govern in London and Paris. Le Pen says no to European cooperation around French nuclear weapons.
Was it pointless for Sweden to join NATO? No, we are still safer together with others, and membership enables a much deeper defense cooperation in the Nordic region. But it would be foolish to pretend that it turned out as intended, or that our primary task now is to build infrastructure to receive help from outside. Nor is this merely about fairly distributing within Europe the burden to be taken over from the United States.
Of course we should count on Spaniards and Italians having our backs – but also on the fact that this means we will be standing in the front line. Not everyone will spend 3.5 percent of GDP on the military, and those of us who can afford it and grasp the seriousness must be prepared to spend more than that. And there should be a plan for what happens if more than just the United States wavers.
Therefore, a discussion about nuclear weapons is also required that goes beyond how the French and British ones could protect the entire continent. Is a capability needed in Northern Europe? The combination of nuclear technical expertise and an advanced defense industry would in that case give Sweden a key role.
An obvious risk of Trump’s policy is widespread nuclear proliferation. No one wants a situation where many countries feel compelled to acquire their own weapons. But shared Nordic nuclear weapons – perhaps together with Germany – could counteract precisely that.
These are not questions anyone wishes to discuss, but when the United States fundamentally betrays its role as guarantor of Europe’s security order and lashes out at allies – then they must be put on the table.
tronzake on
I sure as hell would want Sweden to have nuclear deterrent.
GlesgaBawbag on
It’s the only language America and Russia understand. It’s the reason they don’t fight each other and neither would think about invading North Korea.
PatientIngenuity3824 on
At this moment every single European country should have nuclear weapons. Every single one
zauraz on
Personally i’d prefer a joint Scandinavian Nuclear Programme than a national one.
I used to be non-proliferation. Especially to lessen the risk of the end of the world. But I think I agree this time. Until Trump is off the presidency and EU steps up we need something beyond words.. but also every new country with nukes raises the risks of nuclear conflict
OdieInParis on
This should/could be a Nordic undertaking. Norway can help with financing and a place to test.
mark-haus on
I’m glad these discussions are being held at DN because we need to start considering this
Master__of_Orion on
The bomb may be named Ragnarok.
Possible_Chicken_489 on
I agree that more European countries should acquire nuclear weapons. And I would trust the Nordic countries with them.
I don’t think they should be “co-owned” with too many countries though, as that will lead to paralysis at the critical moment, undermining their credibility. So maybe let Germany get its own capability, and just get them together with Finland, for example.
panzercampingwagen on
Literally only a single country in whole of Europe has nukes that work without the US right now.
Seoirse101349 on
Every country that could have capacity to make them is probably considering them now. Is Sweden like Japan where they would be able to manufacture them relatively quickly?
No_Conversation_9325 on
Every country should have nukes to protect its sovereignty. Look at Venezuela and Greenland. Now look at North Korea and Russia.
Longshot02496 on
I’m pro-nukes, but I’m anti-use-of-nukes. I think nuclear de-armament will never work, because some nation would keep a few nukes. Everyone says they got rid of nukes, but then one, or some, of them then reveals they kept some nukes, and now they have an unmatched bargaining chip for asserting their will on the world. It’s better to skip de-armament and just give everyone nukes, because then you know the playing field is even. You don’t have to ever use them, they just need to sit there and look pretty, but as long as you have them you remain a player.
9guyKguy9 on
We need an all member states joint Nuclear Program that has warheads in Every EU country and can be used individually by each country (just in case a member state is invaded but other members back off )
east0fwest on
The president of peace is gonna force all the world’s neutral nations into building nuclear weapons programs.
morbihann on
All of Eu should have a much larger nuclear arsenal. We cant rely solely on France.
VigorousElk on
This is so silly. Nukes – a RELEVANT number of reliably DELIVERABLE nukes (with the right delivery platforms like missiles) – are prohibitively expensive for countries as small as Sweden.
Just go set up a European collective nuclear deterrent (I’m writing European rather than EU because who wants to argue with Hungary or Slovakia the second you actually need to use it) – have all countries that want in on it pay into a common pot and order from the UK and France so we don’t have a bunch of new countries all wasting money on developing their own thing from scratch.
mrdarknezz1 on
Too bad we had to wait this long to realize the inevitable
dat_9600gt_user on
Can we even call the United States an ally anymore?
Hairy_Reindeer on
Soo.. Anyone have industrial centrifuges for sale?
Big_Combination9890 on
Unpopular opinion, but I’m gonna say it:
**THE ENTIRE EU SHOULD BUILD NUCLEAR ARMS.**
The time of love, peace and free hugs **is over.** Thugs are taking what they want by force, and if the only deterrent against them is the threat of nuclear fire, then so be it.
> *”Si vis pacem parabellum”*
>
> – Platon
We can discuss disarmament when our species has matured.
StahSchek on
As a Pole I will feel much safer when Sweden will have they own nukes. Preferably all Nordic countries.
suicidal-hope on
Honestly, Sweden should have nukes. They are peaceful, rational and nice nation.
If someone make Sweden use their nuke “THOR”, then probably you did something really really bad. We should give one to Slovenia, Iceland, Switzerland, and Andorra. Most importantly, we need one for Vatican, in case of a holy war, their nuke would be called “holy light”.
Sebsibus on
The IAEA Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is fundamentally flawed.
None of the recognized nuclear powers have made meaningful progress toward disarmament, while the most evil regimes like, Apartheid South Africa, North Korea — and potentially Iran — have managed to acquire nuclear weapons regardless.
Today, the non-proliferation framework is exploited by major nuclear states like the US, China, and Russia to serve their own geopolitical interests.
**Why should a non-nuclear Europe adhere to an agreement that leaves it vulnerable to threats like Russian nuclear aggression** and dependent on the unpredictable protection of nuclear powers such as the US?
Btw., it’s entirely legal to withdraw from the NPT.
For rational and peaceful countries like sweden, nuclear weapons serve only one purpose: to deter attacks from imperialist aggressors like Putin’s Russia. But deterrence only works if your enemies are absolutely certain that you would use your arsenal if red lines (such as the survival of your state) are crossed.
Neither nuclear “sharing” agreements nor a “Europeanized” nuclear arsenal can provide that certainty. A French or British leader is unlikely to risk having their own cities nuked to defend Stockholm from Russian tanks — especially if an isolationist government is in power in Paris or London. Meanwhile, the EU struggles to reach consensus on even the most basic issues — like whether Putin is even an enemy (looking at you, Orban and Fico) — let alone when to risk mass destruction to defend its borders.
The only real guarantee is a **nationally controlled**, sovereign nuclear arsenal.
That doesn’t mean European countries can’t cooperate on production, security, training, or disarmament. But the decision to use nuclear weapons must remain in national hands.
Unfortunately, I wish this weren’t the case, but as democracies we can’t change the fact that there are reckless imperialists in this world.
Cold-Variety2444 on
The magats have dismantled the NPT. It’s done.
DecisiveUnluckyness on
As a Norwegian I fully support a joint nordic nuclear weapons program. Ukraine gave up it’s nuclear weapons and we see what happened there.
lacunavitae on
Europe needs more nukes independent of any US technology or restrictions.
hopefully some day Ireland can participate in the Nordic nuclear program.
SWDrivingAcademy on
Finland and Sweden should absolutely have nukes. Perkele!
28 Comments
DN, Dagens Nyheter, is one of Swedens largest morning newspapers. Here’s an english translation of the full editorial:
There is no reason to pretend that NATO membership turned out the way we had hoped. Donald Trump is now not only threatening to leave Europe – he is threatening Europe.
*Text: DN Editorial Board*
“I don’t need international law,” Donald Trump declares in an interview with *The New York Times*. His only limitation in dealing with other countries? “My morality. Myself. That’s the only thing that can stop me.”
The president further notes that he may have to choose between Greenland and NATO – adding that the alliance is nothing without the United States.
The first year of Donald Trump’s second term has been dramatic – and has involved a marked shift from his first four years. Back then, we were mainly afraid that he would withdraw the U.S. from NATO and leave Europe alone with Vladimir Putin. Now it is obvious that he is prepared to use our dependence to force concessions from us.
Like Greenland.
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else,” British Prime Minister Winston Churchill is said to have remarked. And of course we should hope for a future rendezvous with the United States. But then the relationship must be more equal – and we must first realize that the core of the one we currently have is crumbling.
According to the news agency Reuters, the Pentagon told European diplomats in December that we have one year to take over responsibility for the defense of our continent. When European leaders discussed precisely that issue this spring, the timeline was between five and ten years. Of course, it cannot be fully achieved in one year, but the fact remains that Europe must very quickly replace the United States – capability by capability.
This also applies to the nuclear umbrella. After J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference last winter, Emmanuel Macron opened the door to French nuclear weapons also protecting others, followed by a joint declaration with Keir Starmer to include the British ones as well. Talks with the Germans began in August.
If Europe had stood united, had full awareness of the crisis, and consistently demonstrated resolve, one might perhaps have been able to calmly conclude that we were on the right path. But Viktor Orbán constantly undermines unity. Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sánchez says the Russians will not march across the Pyrenees anyway. Where the French, British, and Italians are supposed to find the money for rearmament remains a mystery.
Moreover, Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen may soon govern in London and Paris. Le Pen says no to European cooperation around French nuclear weapons.
Was it pointless for Sweden to join NATO? No, we are still safer together with others, and membership enables a much deeper defense cooperation in the Nordic region. But it would be foolish to pretend that it turned out as intended, or that our primary task now is to build infrastructure to receive help from outside. Nor is this merely about fairly distributing within Europe the burden to be taken over from the United States.
Of course we should count on Spaniards and Italians having our backs – but also on the fact that this means we will be standing in the front line. Not everyone will spend 3.5 percent of GDP on the military, and those of us who can afford it and grasp the seriousness must be prepared to spend more than that. And there should be a plan for what happens if more than just the United States wavers.
Therefore, a discussion about nuclear weapons is also required that goes beyond how the French and British ones could protect the entire continent. Is a capability needed in Northern Europe? The combination of nuclear technical expertise and an advanced defense industry would in that case give Sweden a key role.
An obvious risk of Trump’s policy is widespread nuclear proliferation. No one wants a situation where many countries feel compelled to acquire their own weapons. But shared Nordic nuclear weapons – perhaps together with Germany – could counteract precisely that.
These are not questions anyone wishes to discuss, but when the United States fundamentally betrays its role as guarantor of Europe’s security order and lashes out at allies – then they must be put on the table.
I sure as hell would want Sweden to have nuclear deterrent.
It’s the only language America and Russia understand. It’s the reason they don’t fight each other and neither would think about invading North Korea.
At this moment every single European country should have nuclear weapons. Every single one
Personally i’d prefer a joint Scandinavian Nuclear Programme than a national one.
I used to be non-proliferation. Especially to lessen the risk of the end of the world. But I think I agree this time. Until Trump is off the presidency and EU steps up we need something beyond words.. but also every new country with nukes raises the risks of nuclear conflict
This should/could be a Nordic undertaking. Norway can help with financing and a place to test.
I’m glad these discussions are being held at DN because we need to start considering this
The bomb may be named Ragnarok.
I agree that more European countries should acquire nuclear weapons. And I would trust the Nordic countries with them.
I don’t think they should be “co-owned” with too many countries though, as that will lead to paralysis at the critical moment, undermining their credibility. So maybe let Germany get its own capability, and just get them together with Finland, for example.
Literally only a single country in whole of Europe has nukes that work without the US right now.
Every country that could have capacity to make them is probably considering them now. Is Sweden like Japan where they would be able to manufacture them relatively quickly?
Every country should have nukes to protect its sovereignty. Look at Venezuela and Greenland. Now look at North Korea and Russia.
I’m pro-nukes, but I’m anti-use-of-nukes. I think nuclear de-armament will never work, because some nation would keep a few nukes. Everyone says they got rid of nukes, but then one, or some, of them then reveals they kept some nukes, and now they have an unmatched bargaining chip for asserting their will on the world. It’s better to skip de-armament and just give everyone nukes, because then you know the playing field is even. You don’t have to ever use them, they just need to sit there and look pretty, but as long as you have them you remain a player.
We need an all member states joint Nuclear Program that has warheads in Every EU country and can be used individually by each country (just in case a member state is invaded but other members back off )
The president of peace is gonna force all the world’s neutral nations into building nuclear weapons programs.
All of Eu should have a much larger nuclear arsenal. We cant rely solely on France.
This is so silly. Nukes – a RELEVANT number of reliably DELIVERABLE nukes (with the right delivery platforms like missiles) – are prohibitively expensive for countries as small as Sweden.
Just go set up a European collective nuclear deterrent (I’m writing European rather than EU because who wants to argue with Hungary or Slovakia the second you actually need to use it) – have all countries that want in on it pay into a common pot and order from the UK and France so we don’t have a bunch of new countries all wasting money on developing their own thing from scratch.
Too bad we had to wait this long to realize the inevitable
Can we even call the United States an ally anymore?
Soo.. Anyone have industrial centrifuges for sale?
Unpopular opinion, but I’m gonna say it:
**THE ENTIRE EU SHOULD BUILD NUCLEAR ARMS.**
The time of love, peace and free hugs **is over.** Thugs are taking what they want by force, and if the only deterrent against them is the threat of nuclear fire, then so be it.
> *”Si vis pacem parabellum”*
>
> – Platon
We can discuss disarmament when our species has matured.
As a Pole I will feel much safer when Sweden will have they own nukes. Preferably all Nordic countries.
Honestly, Sweden should have nukes. They are peaceful, rational and nice nation.
If someone make Sweden use their nuke “THOR”, then probably you did something really really bad. We should give one to Slovenia, Iceland, Switzerland, and Andorra. Most importantly, we need one for Vatican, in case of a holy war, their nuke would be called “holy light”.
The IAEA Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is fundamentally flawed.
None of the recognized nuclear powers have made meaningful progress toward disarmament, while the most evil regimes like, Apartheid South Africa, North Korea — and potentially Iran — have managed to acquire nuclear weapons regardless.
Today, the non-proliferation framework is exploited by major nuclear states like the US, China, and Russia to serve their own geopolitical interests.
**Why should a non-nuclear Europe adhere to an agreement that leaves it vulnerable to threats like Russian nuclear aggression** and dependent on the unpredictable protection of nuclear powers such as the US?
Btw., it’s entirely legal to withdraw from the NPT.
For rational and peaceful countries like sweden, nuclear weapons serve only one purpose: to deter attacks from imperialist aggressors like Putin’s Russia. But deterrence only works if your enemies are absolutely certain that you would use your arsenal if red lines (such as the survival of your state) are crossed.
Neither nuclear “sharing” agreements nor a “Europeanized” nuclear arsenal can provide that certainty. A French or British leader is unlikely to risk having their own cities nuked to defend Stockholm from Russian tanks — especially if an isolationist government is in power in Paris or London. Meanwhile, the EU struggles to reach consensus on even the most basic issues — like whether Putin is even an enemy (looking at you, Orban and Fico) — let alone when to risk mass destruction to defend its borders.
The only real guarantee is a **nationally controlled**, sovereign nuclear arsenal.
That doesn’t mean European countries can’t cooperate on production, security, training, or disarmament. But the decision to use nuclear weapons must remain in national hands.
Unfortunately, I wish this weren’t the case, but as democracies we can’t change the fact that there are reckless imperialists in this world.
The magats have dismantled the NPT. It’s done.
As a Norwegian I fully support a joint nordic nuclear weapons program. Ukraine gave up it’s nuclear weapons and we see what happened there.
Europe needs more nukes independent of any US technology or restrictions.
hopefully some day Ireland can participate in the Nordic nuclear program.
Finland and Sweden should absolutely have nukes. Perkele!