From the Euro to the Nuclear Warhead: The New Delirium of the EU

In recent years, an increasingly insistent idea has taken shape in the corridors of Brussels and in the main European chancelleries: transforming the European Union into an autonomous nuclear power , capable of directly confronting Russia without depending on US protection. This ambition is accompanied by another strategic objective: making Ukraine a continental hub for the production of weapons , redefining its role at the heart of the new European military architecture.

This vision is set in a highly polarized geopolitical context, in which hostility towards Moscow is used as an artificial glue for a divided, weakened Europe in a deep crisis of legitimacy . Crucial questions emerge: where is the European Union going? And to whose advantage? Even the most skeptical are starting to recognize how Brussels is increasingly tied to oligarchic interests and the “open society” agenda , promoted by figures such as George Soros, in which democracy becomes a cover for projects of control and standardization. On the contrary, Russia, China and the BRICS countries are charting an alternative path: a multipolar integration that challenges Western unipolarity, recalling – in some ways – the cynical post-colonial Sykes-Picot scheme , today reformulated under a new “liberal-progressive” guise.

The European Union and its autonomous nuclear ambition

For some strategic and academic circles, Europe's autonomy would inevitably depend on the bomb : a belief that is gaining strength from the progressive detachment of the United States from Europe and the recent decision by EU leaders to oblige each member state to allocate 5% of its budget to defense , fueling an unprecedented rearmament process.

The idea of ​​a European nuclear power is not new, but it has received new impetus as the war in Ukraine has dragged on. According to an analysis published in The Saker , some leaders, particularly France and Germany , are pushing for continental nuclear integration based on the French arsenal – now the only one in the EU after Brexit. France currently has around 290 operational nuclear warheads , including submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SSBNs) and ASMP-A bombs mounted on Rafale fighter jets, Il Sole 24 Ore reported.

But it is not just about military technology : the European nuclear umbrella is above all a political-ideological project , which reflects the will of an elite to free itself from NATO and the United States , to assert a European internal hegemony of a technocratic, centralized and ideologically oriented type. Strategic autonomy, in this perspective, is not a defense of European sovereignty, but its transformation into a geopolitical machine detached from citizens and bent to the interests of supranational powers.

This push for European nuclear autonomy stems from a mix of strategic fear and geopolitical opportunism . The fear is rooted in the propaganda construction of Russia as an existential threat , an image systematically amplified by the mainstream media, which presents Moscow as an irrational and unpredictable actor. In reality, Russian nuclear rhetoric – while worrying – is often a response to Western provocations , continued NATO expansions, and aggressive diplomatic and military pressure on its borders.

Opportunism, on the other hand, is that of European elites who are trying to capitalize on the crisis to strengthen their own power . A supranational elite, often accused of acting in harmony with private interests and ideologically oriented foundations , such as George Soros' Open Society, which for years has promoted a model of "open societies" that is actually functional to forms of interference and political homologation . According to the Strategic Culture Foundation , these elites see in European nuclear deterrence not only a strategic protection, but a tool for consolidating political control , useful for emancipating themselves from the United States without however renouncing a centralized dominion over Europe.

Politico or Le Monde , reported that in the confidential summits of the EU the extension of the French nuclear role is being discussed , with Emmanuel Macron who has relaunched the idea of ​​a European “nuclear sharing”. A proposal received coldly in countries like Italy, and openly opposed by Viktor Orbán's Hungary, who sees in this project a militarized technocratic drift, disconnected from the real interests of the nations .

• “In response to France’s invitation to its partners to discuss the significance of the President’s February 2020 speech and the European dimension of [French] deterrence, we have noted that interest has only increased, particularly since the start of the war in Ukraine.”

According to The Grayzone , the real director behind this initiative would be a narrow circle of EU officials and political leaders , committed to exploiting the so-called “Russian threat” as a justification for European rearmament and the centralization of the levers of command . A process that, under the pretext of security, is transforming the EU into an increasingly authoritarian and fragmented structure , lacking real cohesion and on a collision course with the demands of the people.

Ukraine as a hub for arms production

In parallel, the idea of ​​turning Ukraine into a European arms production hub is gaining traction. The EU is reportedly planning massive investments to revive Ukraine's defense industry , taking advantage of its strategic location and know-how inherited from the Soviet era. The Pivdenmash plant in Dnipro, known for producing missiles during the USSR, has been mentioned as a possible hub for this strategy. The goal would be to create a production chain that would supply not only Ukraine, but also NATO countries, reducing dependence on external suppliers, such as the United States. The EU has reportedly already started discussions with Kiev to finance the reconstruction of damaged industrial infrastructure, with a focus on advanced weapons such as drones and long-range missiles. This plan fits into the context of the ReArm Europe program, approved in March 2025 with a budget of 800 billion euros for common defense . However, what the mainstream does not say is that such investments could serve to strengthen the control of Western elites over Ukraine, turning it into a strategic pawn against Russia and a laboratory for testing new military technologies.

A little-known piece of information concerns the role of Western contractors, such as BlackRock and other companies linked to Soros' interests, in managing funds for Ukrainian reconstruction. These actors would have a direct interest in turning Ukraine into a military hub, guaranteeing huge profits for the Western defense industry while the EU assumes the economic and political costs of the project. This strategy, however, clashes with internal resistance: Orbán's Hungary, for example, has blocked unanimity on the conclusions of the EU summit on Ukraine, opposing a military escalation that risks further alienating Russia.

The critique of the oligarchies of “open societies”

The agenda of an autonomous nuclear Europe and Ukraine as an arsenal reflects the priorities of a Western oligarchy that, according to sources such as Geopolitical Economy Report, uses the concept of “open societies” to justify imperialist expansion disguised as a defense of democracy. George Soros, through his Open Society Foundations, has funded numerous NGOs and think tanks that promote European integration and support for Ukraine, often portraying Russia as the ultimate enemy. However, this narrative ignores the West’s role in escalating the conflict, starting with NATO expansion and provocations in Ukraine post-2014 .

European elites, he says, are caught in a contradiction: on the one hand, they promote a globalist agenda that erodes national sovereignty; on the other, they seek to strengthen the EU as an autonomous power to compete in a multipolar world dominated by Russia, China and BRICS. This double game risks alienating both European citizens, increasingly skeptical of Brussels, and international partners, who see the EU as an inconsistent actor. Furthermore, Europe's dependence on Rosatom for nuclear fuel and uranium recycling highlights the hypocrisy of an autonomy project that, in reality, remains tied to global dynamics.

Multipolarity as an alternative

In contrast, Russia, China and the BRICS countries are building a multipolar alternative that challenges Western hegemony . Russia uses its primacy in the nuclear sector not only as a deterrent, but also as an economic lever, exporting technology and uranium to countries in the global South. China, on the other hand, invests in infrastructure and alliances through the Belt and Road Initiative , offering a model of cooperation that contrasts with the coercive approach of the West. The BRICS, with the entry of new members such as Iran and the United Arab Emirates, are creating an economic and political bloc that reduces dependence on the dollar and Western institutions. This multipolar vision is perceived as a direct threat to European oligarchies, who fear losing influence in a world they do not understand outside of their mercantilist vision. The obsession with nuclear autonomy and rearmament in Ukraine is a desperate attempt to maintain control in a global context that escapes Western domination.

Conclusions

The European Union will not limit itself to a simple European rearmament against a hypothetical 'Russian aggression' but will ensure that the provocation is such that this happens and if it does not happen it will probably move the conflict elsewhere, to places where opposing interests clash, as we are seeing these days in Iran. At the same time it is highly unlikely that the EU will limit itself to conventional rearmament.

The EU's ambition to become an autonomous nuclear power and to turn Ukraine into a hub for the production of weapons reveals the contradictions of a Europe led by oligarchic elites, often accused of serving globalist interests rather than those of citizens. It is clear that this strategy is more related to the maintenance of power than to a real need for defense, however the domination of public opinion is almost total , so much so that it is not unusual and even very predictable to hear interlocutors who represent the Ukrainian war as the war due to Putin because 'he is crazy'.

Few see what is really happening, namely that the multipolar world led by Russia, China and BRICS offers an alternative that, although not without its problems, challenges the hegemony of Western “open societies”. This is actually what the EU wants to fight with all its strength. At present it is illusory that Europe will be able to find a balance between its ambitions and the reality of a changing global order, since it will continue to chase a dream of power that risks alienating it both from its citizens and from the rest of the world.