800 F-35s for Europe: it’s called deterrence, not a thirst for war. Cavo Dragone speaks out

Why isn’t Russia attacking NATO today? Not because it isn’t a threat, but because deterrence works: the allies’ 700 F-35s do not signify a thirst for war; they signify the price that must be paid to prevent it. This was the lesson delivered in recent days at Med-Or Day, the annual event organised by the Med-Or Italian Foundation, by Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee. A lesson that is particularly useful for those who continue to portray European defence as a gigantic collective delusion.

NATO, said Cavo Dragone, continues to deliver results; investment is increasing, military capabilities are being strengthened, and the objective remains to build a Ukraine that is strong enough not to be invaded by Russia again. Kyiv has demonstrated that Moscow is not invincible and that a smaller country, if supported and capable of innovating rapidly, can prevent an aggressor from achieving its strategic objectives.

The point is not simply that buying a few more weapons is enough. The war in Ukraine shows that superiority depends on the speed with which software is updated, drones are modified, tactics are changed, ammunition is produced, and land, sea, air, space and cyberspace are integrated. Technology without supplies, logistics, infrastructure and industry is a showcase destined to be emptied at the first sign of crisis. And security is not just about tanks and missiles: it encompasses ports, energy networks, data centres, undersea cables, cyber defence and the civilian capacity to withstand sabotage and disinformation.

The figure that brings this argument to life is 700. Under the programmes outlined by NATO, the United States’ allies will purchase a total of at least seven hundred F-35s. These will need to be supported by an air and missile defence system four times as strong, thousands of armoured vehicles, millions of rounds of ammunition, more ships, drones, long-range missiles, and space and cyber capabilities. Seven hundred fighter jets do not constitute a foreign policy and are not enough on their own to defend Europe. But they do show that democracies have begun to turn promises into capabilities and fear into deterrence.

It is here that the statement becomes an indirect, yet resounding, response to Giuseppe Conte. The leader of the M5S claimed that even NATO’s Supreme Commander in Europe had stated that Russia does not pose a threat. General Alexus Grynkewich had said the opposite: Moscow is not currently seeking a direct confrontation because it recognises the Alliance’s superiority and knows that any aggression would fail. His spokesperson made this absolutely clear: Russia poses a clear threat to Euro-Atlantic security. The difference is simple. Saying that a burglar does not break in because he sees the alarm does not mean claiming that the burglar does not exist. It means acknowledging that the alarm works. Conte takes the effect of deterrence and uses it to deny the very threat that makes deterrence necessary. Cavo Dragone turns the syllogism on its head: if Europe were to stop preparing, Moscow might conclude that the cost of aggression has become bearable.

This is another reason why the admiral defended the 5 per cent target for security and defence: not an accounting fetish, but a means of catching up with a world that has already rearmed itself. Pitting these investments against healthcare, education or welfare is a populist trap. Defence is the insurance that allows everything else to exist: no one takes out a policy because they’re hoping for an accident, but because they want to be prepared should one occur. As Cavo Dragone pointed out, sails are repaired whilst the weather is still fine.

The message to Conte is therefore this: peace is not achieved by declaring the Russian threat to be imaginary. It is achieved by rendering any attempt at aggression irrational. The seven hundred aircraft serve precisely this purpose: not to prepare for an inevitable war, but to make it clear to Putin that a war against the Alliance would be impossible to win. NATO is not arming itself because deterrence has failed. It is arming itself so that deterrence continues to work.