Trump 2.0 Must Urgently Declare Its Position Towards Poland’s Nuclear Weapons Plans

Telling it to stand down would avert the potentially uncontrollable proliferation of nukes in the post-START world while turning a blind eye towards France’s possible assistance, let alone directly helping Poland develop nukes, could radically worsen the already dangerous NATO-Russian security dilemma.

Polish President Karol Nawrocki recently told Polsat News that he’s “a great supporter of Poland joining the nuclear project. This path, with respect to all international regulations, is the path we should follow. (...) We need to act in this direction so that we can begin work.” Although he’s not sure whether the government will indeed act in this direction, he added that Poland should still at least build its “nuclear potential”, thus hinting that its planned US-built nuclear power plant could help with this.

It was already assessed last September after Nawrocki’s unsubtle hint to French media about Poland’s relevant intentions at the time that “The US Is Expected To Tacitly Back Poland’s Nuclear Weapons Plans”. For background, France had already by that point suggested that Poland could participate in its nuclear-sharing program, which Nawrocki is eager to do. The possibility therefore exists that France, whether in coordination with the US or with its approval, could also help Poland develop nukes.

The preceding hyperlinked analysis also assessed that “Russia probably won’t risk war with NATO by launching a preventive strike against French nukes in Poland or Polish nuclear facilities” due to the US’ continued commitment to Article 5, especially with respect to Poland, one of its top allies anywhere. After Trump 2.0 let the New START lapse earlier this month without extending it per Putin’s proposal, however, fears began to abound about a global nuclear arms race, which were touched upon here.

That analysis reminded readers that “international law is only upheld if there are credible enforcement mechanisms or the political will to unilaterally enforce international law if the aforesaid no longer exist, which is arguably the case at present due to the UNSC’s dysfunctional deadlock over the past decade.” So long as an aspiring European nuclear power like Poland is still under the US’ nuclear umbrella, readers are also reminded, then Russia is unlikely to risk World War III by attacking their nuclear facilities.

The aforementioned insight shouldn’t be interpreted as implying that Poland, Germany, the Nordics, or anyone else in Europe will soon develop nuclear weapons, however, since it’s inconceivable that any of those countries would embark on such a program without the US’ tacit approval at the very least. Thus far, Poland is the only one to openly declare its intentions, so the ball is now in the US’ court over whether to order one of its top allies anywhere to stand down, turn a blind eye to this, or help them.

While some in Trump 2.0 might calculate that a nuclear Poland could lead Russia’s containment in Europe after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, this assumes that the Polish leadership will always remain rational, and it’s already arguable whether it’s even rational at present. There’s also the credible concern that Poland could deploy its nukes in third countries like the Baltics and/or Ukraine, possibly even giving them the authority to use tactical variants thereof, which would spike the risk of World War III.

Trump 2.0 must therefore urgently declare its position on this issue so that there isn’t any ambiguity about where it stands. Even turning a blind eye towards France helping Poland develop nukes, which the US might do for reasons of “plausible deniability” in a bid to manage tensions with Russia, could radically worsen the already dangerous NATO-Russian security dilemma. Letting this go ahead risks opening Pandora’s box and resulting in the uncontrollable proliferation of nukes across Europe and the world.