Why is Europe at a loss when it comes to nuclear deterrence? Because it is a skill which its ministries forgot how to hone, ex-UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace told a Warsaw Security Forum’s panel.

Cutting aid to pay for arms is a mistake, said Ben Wallace, who was Britain’s Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. “I think one of the saddest things I see across Europe, including the United Kingdom, is when our treasuries have been up against the pressure, they found more money for defence by cutting international aid,” he told the panel debating nuclear deterrence at Warsaw Security Forum on Monday.

Soft power belongs in deterrence, he argued. “You don’t improve your deterrence by cutting soft power,” said Mr Wallace. Ministers need a whole horizon of options to manage escalation, he said, so they do not get stuck between nuclear or nothing. Ministries, he added, have stopped teaching themselves how to deter.

Mr Wallace said NATO’s nuclear capability endures, to some extent, whether the US is hawkish or dovish. It still deters and preoccupies Russia, he added. He urged Britain, France, and the US to keep the nuclear taboo alive, with no use since 1945. “NATO is a nuclear alliance. It works,” he said.

Do we believe?

Not everybody agreed. Claudia Major, senior vice-president for transatlantic security at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, questioned whether Europe and America share a threat assessment. She said American strategy documents call Russia a regional, manageable threat for European allies. Reducing America’s conventional footprint while keeping its nuclear weapons, she added, would undermine deterrence.

Ms Major proceeded to torpedo the notion that all is well in transatlantic relations. “I will ask you, do you think the Americans will come in case of a crisis? Everybody who says happily, convincingly, yes, please raise your arms. I wouldn’t say it’s 100 per cent. Deterrence happens in the mind of the adversary and in our own minds. Do the Russians believe? Do we believe in it?” she asked a rhetorical question.

You don’t improve your deterrence by cutting soft power.
— Ben Wallace, former UK defence minister

“Again, I don’t say give up on the US. I just say don’t blind ourselves of what has been happening over the last one and a half years. And if I look at the American position on Greenland, on Russia and Ukraine, and the Iran war, I think we all wonder where we stand on alliances,” she said.

A gap in speed

Xavier Chatel, Advisor for Strategic Affairs and Disarmament to the President of France, explained the new French concept of forward deterrence. French President Emmanuel Macron announced it on 2 March. European partners may become part of French vital interests, Mr Chatel said, but only the President judges them. There is no sharing of the decision.

Signalling can go as far as stationing French nuclear-armed aircraft on partners’ territory in certain circumstances, he said. It gives Russia a new layer to read. France urges participants to build early warning, air defence, and deep strike. “Ten countries have joined and we’ve held already most of the nuclear steering groups with the participating country,” he said.

Mr Chatel recalled a test. Last Monday he stood with the President on the starboard of a frigate and watched the sea erupt as the latest version of France’s intercontinental ballistic missile left a submarine. “It was hugely impressive for the citizen that I am, but I think it was also a test of credibility,” said Mr Chatel.

Four years to the top

Eric Béranger, CEO of MBDA, said conventional weapons cannot deter a nuclear threat alone. They still belong to deterrence, he argued, because they let threatened countries answer below the nuclear threshold. MBDA’s missiles—covering 150km to beyond 1,000km—complement each other, he said. Deterrence also needs intelligence and the defence of air bases.

Mr Béranger said Europe’s industry is in a totally different world from 24 February 2022, with more orders, financing, and output. “It’s just a matter of will and determination,” he said. Europe, he added, has all it needs. The jury is still out, though — governments may buy European, or they may buy abroad.

Aleksander Danilyuk, president of Destinus (private European aerospace company specialising in aerospace, defence and energy founded in 2021 in Payerne, Switzerland), said Europe has the technology but not the speed. “I think where we have real problem is with industrial scale speed,” he said. His firm went from a small start-up to the maker of more cruise missiles than any other company in Europe so far, he said, in four years.

Signals and perceptions

Mr Danilyuk said Russia has attacked Ukraine with an Oreshnik four times, and the signal was for Europe. Europe, he said, has no sovereign solutions to deal with such threats. Destinus, MBDA, Safran, and Airbus have launched an initiative to develop an interceptor for intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Europe now relies on American solutions, he said.

Ms Major said Europeans must treat industry as part of deterrence. “Industry is not only an industrial question, it’s a question of our own perception,” she said. She named three reasons the nuclear question is back: Russian signalling, doubts about America, and proliferation.

if I look at the American position on Greenland, on Russia and Ukraine, and the Iran war, I think we all wonder where we stand on alliances.
— Claudia Major, German Marshall Fund

Her answer is to add layers: keep America engaged, work with France and Britain, and invest in conventional strike and missile defence. Mr Danilyuk went further on decoupling. “I think it’s already decoupled,” he said. Ukraine has fought Russia without nuclear weapons for almost five years, he said, and some Europeans ask whether France would step in.

Honest sums

Mr Wallace praised Poland, the Nordics, and Germany for spending against the political flow. Too many NATO countries, he said, announce defence increases by press release. He said his own government is delaying its 3 per cent or 3.5 per cent target, while many allies pad their totals. “It’s a trick that’s gone on right through Europe,” he said.

Deterrence, Mr Wallace argued, is a skill that ministries have stopped teaching themselves. Ministers need a whole horizon of options so they do not get stuck between nuclear or nothing. He criticised treasuries that found defence money by cutting international aid. “You don’t improve your deterrence by cutting soft power,” he said.

He said Europeans can impose strategic pain on Russia elsewhere, as far away as the Pacific, or where it buys its minerals. Ukraine gave up its nuclear stockpile under the Budapest declaration, he noted. “You’ve got to think like a game of chess and deploy all the tools, not just hard power or nuclear,” he said.

Paying for deterrence

Mr Wallace also warned that nuclear deterrence costs a great deal. Treasuries ask for a price, he said, as if choosing from a menu. “Nuclear deterrence is very, very expensive,” said Mr Wallace. Mr Chatel struck a more positive note. He called the glass half full because America stays engaged on nuclear weapons, and France shares Europe’s geography.

Mr Danilyuk urged Europe to invest in affordable mass: cheap, effective, mass-produced systems, which he said work in Ukraine. The money is there, he said, and governments should allocate it properly. He also warned that Russia has developed an analogue to Starlink over Ukraine. It would let Russia navigate to any point in Europe, he said.