Berlin/London/Brussels (29/2 – 33.33).
- Russia doesn’t want a conflict with NATO as it would “lose quickly” the UK’s armed forces chief said.
- Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said Russia would be hugely outnumbered on the ground, air, and at sea.
- But he said Russia is still dangerous and could launch attacks.
Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t really want a conflict with NATO because in that scenario Russia would quickly lose, the head of the UK’s armed forces said on Tuesday.
Speaking at an event in London, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said that “the inescapable fact is that any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.”
He said that “the biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly.”
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked new security concerns across Europe, prompting countries to spend more on defense and create more security agreements with each other.
Some leaders have warned that Russia could attack another European country in the next few years if it’s not stopped in Ukraine.
Radakin, speaking at a defense conference in London’s Chatham House, said the UK is “not on the cusp of war with Russia. We are not about to be invaded.”
But, he added, “that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t face attacks.”
“We already do every day in the cyber domain,” he said. “We could have random attacks in space, on underwater cables, and attempted violations of our air and maritime sovereignty. The most likely protagonist is Russia. We have been clear about that.”
Even so, Radakin said that Russia would be quickly defeated by NATO forces if it attacked a member state.
Under the military alliance’s agreements, an attack on one is considered an attack on all. That means if a member state like the UK is attacked, other members, including the US, Germany, and France, could all respond together.
And NATO’s forces would have a big advantage over Russia, Radakin said.
He said that the thousands of allied troops stationed in Poland and the Baltic states could draw on the “three-and-a-half million uniformed personnel across the alliance for reinforcement.”
“NATO’s combat air forces, which outnumbers Russia’s 3:1, would quickly establish air superiority,” he said, while NATO’s maritime forces would “bottled up” Russia’s navy.
“NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia,” he said.
Radakin described NATO as “an alliance that is becoming stronger all the time.”
Referring to Sweden and Finland joining, he said NATO is growing from 30 to 32 nations, “with a collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia. And a total defense budget three-and-a-half times more than Russia and China combined.”
“Plus, NATO has the additional strategic depth of a population of over one billion,” he said. “And sitting above all of this is NATO as a nuclear alliance.”
Radakin said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had shown it to be “significantly less capable than we anticipated.”
“Its Air Force has failed to gain control of the air. Its Navy has seen 25% of its vessels in the Black Sea sunk or damaged by a country without a Navy,” Radakin said, referring to Ukraine’s successes in the Black Sea.
He added: “Russia’s Army has lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces, and over 5,000 armoured fighting vehicles.”
He also said that Putin had not achieved any of his aims in the invasion.
Even so, Radakin said that it’s possible for Russia to be both more dangerous and less capable than the West thought. “And it is the more dangerous Russia that we and NATO are responding to,” he said.
