Europe's focus on drone walls distracts from bigger threat Op-ed by Defense News

In an opinion piece for Defense News, the author argues that European leaders' focus on creating a “drone wall” to defend against Russian attack drones is misdirected and represents a misallocation of critical defence resources. While Russian drones, such as the Shahed-type, have made headlines for their ability to strike European targets, the real issue lies not in the drones themselves, but in the erosion of NATO’s deterrence capabilities.

The piece notes that Russia’s ability to threaten Europe with missile strikes and air assaults is not a new development. Russia has long possessed the capability to strike European capitals with ballistic and cruise missiles, a threat that has existed since the Cold War era. The advent of drones like the Shahed, while concerning, does not significantly alter the strategic landscape. As the article points out, drones like these are relatively easy to track and are not a game-changing technology in comparison to Russia’s established arsenal of missiles.

The real challenge, according to Defense News, is the erosion of NATO’s deterrence. Deterrence, the ability to prevent an enemy from taking aggressive actions by convincing them that the cost will outweigh any potential gains, has traditionally been the backbone of NATO’s defence strategy. 

NATO’s deterrence framework has been grounded in two pillars: denial and punishment. Denial involves convincing an adversary that they cannot achieve their objectives, while punishment ensures that any attack would be met with a devastating counterstrike.

 For decades, this deterrence has been underpinned by the US nuclear umbrella, with the threat of nuclear retaliation forming the ultimate deterrent to aggression.

However, the Defense News op-ed argues that cracks are beginning to form in this deterrence structure. As NATO faces questions about the reliability of US nuclear commitments, particularly in light of shifting geopolitical dynamics and the unpredictable nature of US foreign policy, Russia may perceive NATO’s resolve as weaker than it once was. This perception creates an opening for Russia to test NATO’s political will, such as through the use of drones to probe NATO defences and resolve.

The focus on countering drones, the piece argues, risks diverting attention from more pressing needs. Investing heavily in counter-drone technologies, while important, does not address the larger strategic challenge: the need for Europe to demonstrate its own ability to strike back at Russia. 

Instead of pursuing an impractical and overly defensive approach, the author advocates for Europe to invest in long-range conventional strike capabilities that would allow European nations to strike Russian targets if necessary.

This would not only reinforce deterrence by punishment but also bolster NATO’s collective defence capabilities. If Russia believed that any attack against a NATO member would result in significant retaliation—such as strikes against Russian manufacturing or military assets—it would think twice before escalating the conflict. The piece argues that this kind of offense-oriented defence strategy would be far more effective than focusing on creating a defensive “drone wall” facing east.

Furthermore, Defense News suggests that Europe should not ignore the broader threat posed by drones. While Russia’s use of drones is a concern, non-state actors and covert operations involving drones could present a greater immediate risk, particularly in terms of terrorism and sabotage. Therefore, Europe must also develop the capability to counter drones used by such actors, ensuring it remains prepared for a wide range of threats.

By Sabina Mammadli