Abed Akbari – European Affairs Expert
In the logic of international relations, countries typically act based on their perception of threats, rather than wishful thinking. The entry of Russian drones into Polish airspace and Warsaw’s activation of NATO’s Article 4 was a clear sign of this logic: a serious threat was felt, and collective support was sought. France has deployed aircraft to Poland that are part of its nuclear deterrence missions. Although reports emphasize that these jets lack nuclear warheads, their very presence at a base only a few dozen kilometers from the Belarusian border carries a clear meaning and message. On the surface, this move is an attempt to demonstrate NATO’s commitment to collective defense and to send a direct warning to Moscow. However, the main question is how rational and sustainable is such an approach?
Experience has shown that shows of force, especially when linked with a nuclear component, can trigger a security spiral. France’s action may create psychological comfort for Poland and the Eastern Flank countries in the short term, but in the long run, it will likely produce more insecurity than security. Russia will naturally consider such a move a threat and will likely respond by strengthening its military capabilities, whether in Kaliningrad or on the borders of Belarus. Thus, a process begins, the result of which will be increased instability across Europe.
Faced with recent threats, Poland resorted to NATO’s collective mechanisms and managed to secure France’s support. But this support is more symbolic than leading to a real military balance. Three Rafale jets alone cannot change the balance of power in Eastern Europe. The value of this action likely lies more in its political dimension; a message to Russia and to European public opinion that Poland is not alone. However, over-reliance on symbols can be dangerous. Because if Russia shows a stronger reaction, NATO will be forced to choose between retreat and escalating confrontation; both options will have costly consequences.
Furthermore, the costs of such actions must also be considered. In recent years, European defense spending has reached its highest level since the end of the Cold War, placing significant pressure on national budgets. Poland is among the countries that have significantly increased their defense spending. At a time when many European societies are grappling with economic, energy, and social challenges, continuing on this path could call into question the domestic legitimacy of security policies.
Meanwhile, Russia has for years accused NATO of encircling and directly threatening it. Deploying nuclear-capable fighter jets to Eastern Europe could easily serve this narrative and be an effective propaganda tool for the Kremlin. Thus, in its attempt to strengthen deterrence, NATO actually provides grounds for further justification of Russia’s aggressive behavior.
On the other hand, the continuous presence of fighter jets and drones on tense borders increases the risk of an unintended incident. In such an environment, a human error, technical failure, or miscalculation could create a widespread security crisis. The history of international relations is full of examples of how minor military incidents turned into significant and costly crises.
It appears that Europe is on a perilous path. Military deterrence, mainly relying on nuclear tools, while creating calm in the short term, can bring heavy economic, social, and security costs in the long run. The main danger here is that European decision-makers may rely too heavily on military tools and marginalize de-escalation diplomacy. Such a trend not only fails to guarantee the security of the old continent but also pushes Europe towards a costly and exhausting competition that will be difficult to exit.
The deployment of French fighter jets in Poland is more indicative of a reactive and short-sighted policy than a sign of wise power projection. Today, Europe needs a combination of smart deterrence with diplomatic initiatives, confidence-building dialogues, and efforts for crisis management more than ever. Continuing on the current path, without a critical approach and revision, could plunge the continent into a dangerous cycle from which escape would be challenging and costly.