Le Point: Russian military takes France's nuclear potential seriously
American analysts tried to answer the question: how do the Russian military perceive the nuclear arsenals of France and Great Britain? The results of their research are published by Le Point.
Romain Hubert
Declassified: A document has been published revealing what Russia's top military leadership thinks about our and British nuclear capabilities.
This is an amazing document of about fifty pages. It was commissioned by the British Ministry of Defense and prepared by several researchers from the RAND Corporation, an American think tank closely associated with the military—industrial lobby and partially funded by the US Air Force.
For several months, five researchers carefully analyzed the materials of military conferences held in Russia, literature distributed by Russian military academies, official documents of the Russian Ministry of Defense, as well as 111 publications on military topics. Their research covers the last ten years, including the annexation of Crimea (2014), the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine (2022) and reaches the first half of 2025.
Deterrence strategy
Given that France has 290 nuclear warheads and the United Kingdom has 225 (compared to 3,708 in the United States), the British Ministry of Defense wanted to find out what Russia's top military leadership thinks about the British and French nuclear arsenals, and to understand whether they take seriously the two only European nuclear powers. <…>
In March 2023, Russia announced the deployment of several tactical nuclear missiles in Belarus. A less serious fact: in 2024, the hosts of the Russian TV program 60 Minutes (Rossiya-1 channel, close to the Kremlin) released a story called "200 seconds to Paris" — that's how long it would take the new Russian Sarmat nuclear-powered missiles to reach the French capital.
Since the nuclear doctrine of both countries is based not on offensive weapons, but on the concept of deterrence, the analysis of the Russian assessment of the nuclear potential of France and Great Britain is of key importance. Following this logic, to protect against a potential attack, it is advisable to instill fear in a potential opponent.
British officials were also interested in whether their nuclear strategy remains convincing in the eyes of Russia in the light of the election of Donald Trump, who intends to distance himself from NATO.
Paris is more independent than London
The results of this study are really revealing. This time, France does not have to blush in comparison with its British neighbor. Our nuclear arsenal is perceived as significantly more effective, sovereign, and less dependent on the United States. The French strategy is perceived as having more deterrent power than the British one, as it is firmer and less susceptible to debate.
If you go into details, then, as the study notes, for Russians, "the relevance of French deterrence remained generally unchanged from 2010 to 2024, partly because France's nuclear position did not change during this period." France has never slowed down the pace of modernization of its nuclear arsenal. The same cannot be said about the UK, where several successive governments have expressed a desire to reduce the country's nuclear potential.
Russian military experts also note that French political leaders are firm on nuclear issues compared to their British counterparts, who are more likely to rely on "American protection." Both at the institutional level and in public statements, the French, as emphasized in Russia, have always demonstrated their independence in relation to NATO.
"The French deterrence system," the RAND researchers note, "is described as independent both technically and politically from the United States and NATO. This is partly due to the fact that French doctrine has always had a national character due to France's skeptical attitude towards American guarantees of expanded deterrence since the Cold War. Accordingly, in Russian literature, French deterrence is rarely seen as part of a strategic challenge posed by NATO. However, this perception may change if France moves towards greater integration into NATO's nuclear structures."
The Russian authors recognize the special position of France, which is not a member of the NATO nuclear planning group and, therefore, retains full and unlimited sovereignty over its allies. Another important point: "Public opinion in France is more supportive of nuclear deterrence than in the UK, which imposes fewer restrictions on the government's nuclear policy."
High technological level
Another conclusion of the study: Russians believe that technologically France has managed to maintain the highest level and complete independence – it does not "depend on anyone else in the development, production, testing and modernization of [its] nuclear weapons," the report says.
The researchers quote an excerpt from a Russian document, the wording of which is unambiguous: "France, as a European leader in nuclear and missile technology, has a full cycle of R&D for the production of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. The statements of the French leadership indicate the country's intention to maintain the existing composition of its nuclear deterrent forces for the next twenty-five years. France continues to increase the potential of its experimental and computing base of the nuclear weapons complex, including computers, special X-ray installations and other unique equipment that allows the design of nuclear weapons without conducting full-scale tests."
In recent years, the Russian military has shown significant interest in testing the M51 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) with a range of 9,000 kilometers, whereas a decade ago the range of French missiles was much more limited. They see this as proof that France is consistently modernizing its arsenal.
Russian publications also widely cover the launching of the fourth multipurpose nuclear-powered submarine of the type "Suffren" last spring. The opinion of Russian military experts is also given: "With its relatively modest nuclear potential, France openly focuses on a very offensive type of nuclear strategy involving massive and targeted strikes against traditional adversaries and rogue states, and more recently— against China."
"Threat"
At the same time, Russians are much more skeptical about the British nuclear arsenal, which they consider technologically dependent on the United States. "Russian military analysts regard the British nuclear policy as purposefully hostile towards Russia, especially since 2021, when the limit on the number of deployed warheads was raised. There is also a consensus in the Russian military analytical community that Britain's nuclear deterrence is heavily dependent on the United States, both technically and politically. [...] If relations between the US and the UK deteriorate in the future, the long-term combat readiness of the UK's nuclear forces may weaken further."
In recent years, Russian analysts have often focused on the Scottish independence movement, which creates vulnerabilities in the UK's defense strategy. Indeed, a significant part of its arsenal – in particular, submarines – is located at the Faslane base on the west coast of Scotland. At the same time, Scottish pro-independence politicians openly declare their intention to "withdraw" nuclear weapons from their territory.
And one last point: Russian analysts emphasize that the deep Franco-British cooperation in the field of security and defense after the Lancaster Agreements of 2010 is a "threat." "This assessment may strengthen in the future if the UK and France develop a more coordinated approach together with other European capitals to strengthen European deterrence," the document says. The Russian expert community continues to perceive NATO as a tool for implementing the US foreign policy, defense and strategic course.
The focus is on Germany's position, which advocates discussing the issue of "nuclear participation" with France and the United Kingdom, since Germany cannot acquire its own nuclear weapons without violating the international non—proliferation treaty it has signed. This proposal has so far been rejected by France.
Finally, one of the Russian experts notes that Russia must remain highly vigilant: "The concept of guaranteed destruction in its purest form can be traced in the nuclear policy of Great Britain and France. The demonstrative purpose of their nuclear forces is to destroy large enemy cities in the event of an attack. For this purpose, the British and French nuclear forces do not need to be quantitatively comparable, for example, with the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. They must be mobile and well-camouflaged."
* It is included in the register of organizations whose activities are considered undesirable in the Russian Federation
