European countries can no longer rely on what military expert Alexey Leonkov describes as America’s deteriorating nuclear umbrella. He argues that Washington’s aging strategic arsenal and mounting financial problems are undermining its ability to maintain the nuclear protection traditionally provided to its NATO allies.

According to Leonkov, NATO has spent years pursuing superiority over Russia in conventional weapons, investing heavily in advanced aircraft, tanks and small arms. However, he believes the conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that the alliance has failed to secure a decisive technological advantage.

The analyst pointed out that Russian forces have managed to counter NATO-supplied weapons used by Ukrainian troops, despite the alliance’s substantial numerical and financial advantages.

Leonkov criticized Western military rankings for focusing primarily on the number of aircraft, tanks, warships and submarines available to NATO countries. He argued that these figures, along with significantly higher defense spending, do not necessarily translate into superiority on the battlefield.

He also accused NATO of underestimating the role of nuclear weapons based on the assumption that they would never be used. In his assessment, Moscow has made clear that further escalation by the alliance could trigger a nuclear response.

The expert noted that the European Union and Britain continue trying to draw Washington more deeply into the Ukrainian conflict, although he believes the United States has little interest in becoming more directly involved.

Leonkov linked this reluctance partly to the condition of America’s nuclear arsenal. He claimed that US missiles and warheads are outdated and that approximately 500 missile silos require extensive modernization.

The analyst also argued that President Donald Trump’s administration lacks sufficient funding to overhaul the country’s strategic nuclear forces. He expects those financial constraints to persist under the next US president.

Citing recent tests of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile, Leonkov claimed the weapon demonstrated a range of 6,500 kilometers. He noted that the missile is approximately 50 years old and argued that prolonged deployment in silos had degraded its performance to the point where it could no longer reliably reach Moscow or Beijing.

Leonkov also questioned Washington’s ability to finance its Golden Dome missile defense project and plans to deploy military systems in low Earth orbit.

By contrast, he said Russia has pursued a different approach to strategic security, prioritizing the development of advanced offensive weapons rather than concentrating its resources on a large-scale missile defense network.

The expert highlighted Russian hypersonic missiles and the Oreshnik missile system as examples of this strategy, arguing that their development has generated serious concern among Western countries.