Britain’s top military officer has called for NATO to confront Russia across every front, warning that deterrence depends on showing strength in all areas of competition, from nuclear forces to economic pressure.
Speaking in Washington, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin told the Centre for Strategic and International Studies that “the policy of NATO is to deter. And we deter by demonstrating to Russia that we are stronger, that we are ready to fight, and that we will beat them.”
He made clear that this was not limited to conventional military power, adding “that means contesting Russia in every domain – nuclear, land, sea, air, cyber and space – as well as in the diplomatic and economic arenas.”
Radakin linked this approach directly to Ukraine’s struggle, saying it was “imperative to double down on our efforts to support Ukraine’s ability to defend its courageous people against Russian aggression to preserve their hard-won freedom and independence through a just and lasting peace.” The war, now well into its third year, has exposed the limits of Russian power, but the Admiral warned that Moscow’s weakness makes it more dangerous, not less.
He described Russia’s current strategy as one of sub-threshold operations designed to harass the West without triggering direct conflict. “The very reason Russia is pursuing sub-threshold attacks against us is because Russia is unwilling and unable to do so through more overt means. Putin does not want a war with NATO. He cannot even win a war against Ukraine,” Radakin said. However, he cautioned that “Russia has more cause to be fearful of an Alliance of 32 than the other way around.”
The Admiral rejected the idea of a purely defensive posture in Europe, saying he was “wary of too great an emphasis on homeland defence, or a fortress Europe”. Instead, he argued for forward defence, projecting power outward rather than retreating behind NATO borders. This, he said, meant matching Russia not just in the skies and seas, but also in cyber warfare, space capabilities, diplomacy and economic influence.
Radakin’s remarks come at a time when NATO forces are expanding training missions and operational deployments in Eastern Europe, the High North and the Black Sea region. The alliance has also intensified its economic and diplomatic measures to constrain Moscow’s ability to sustain its war effort.
According to Radakin, the goal is not simply to respond to Russian actions but to create a strategic environment in which Russia recognises it cannot prevail. This, he argued, is the essence of deterrence and the reason NATO must be willing to operate in every domain.
Whilst we shrink from every domain! Hypocrisy
The smallest dogs often yap the loudest….
Well, the UK is at no risk itself of a land invasion, and 120-odd nuclear missiles give it a reasonable MAD capability against Russia even if everyone else stays out, so the direct risks to itself are cyberwar, sabotage, and missile attack.
I have heard it said that the UK actually has excellent offensive cyberwar capabilities, but I’m not sure how much that is hyperbole.
what it doesn’t say is Russian incursion into NATO nations waters
What the hell😤🤣…total nonsense
We have sat on the subs bench watching since 2022 and could have intervened since!
What have we done… NOTHING
And that’s what we will continue to do because we are weak
Coalition of the willing … to waffle on !
So let’s put British troops into Ukraine and see if we get an “essence of deterrence” ..Eh!
Radakin and others are a complete waste of time… and love saber-rattling!
Troops in Ukraine? , with what?, with the 100 challengers available ? , with 150 aircraft as a whole? Be realistic and stop dreaming. Jesús.
we ARE WEAK AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. TWO AIRCRAFT CARRIERS DON’T MAKE A NAVY AND 20+ F 35 DON’T MAKE AN AIR FORCE.
“He made clear that this was not limited to conventional military power”
He kind of had to, really — given the state in which he’s leaving our conventional military.
Well Admiral Radakin I suggest have a word with PM Starmer ,tell him for one stop Cutting back Ships Aircraft AFV , and grow the size of our forces .And of course tell him he needs 5% GDP on Defence budget now not in 5yrs time . Secondly tell him Coalition of the willing get real this won’t scare Putin .So stop Acting like MR Big .
Grandstanding.
HMG have to as part of the UNSC P5 thing.
And the UK remains a major power. But one who has cut its forces way, way too far and whose politicians have no intention in reversing the trend unless they are forced by events.
By which time it may be too late.
When is the sd review coming out again? Did I miss it?
When is the sd review coming out again? Did I miss it?
The usual word salad. Kit statements are in the autumn.
The next great hope for many. I’m expecting a damp squib.
Daniele – i watched a video earlier,Dominic Cummings for GB News – called ‘The Deep State Plan To Destroy Nigel Farage’ ,putting Mr Farage to one side it offered an insight into the Miltary Opinion/Reasoning on Ukraine,worth a look.
Are you serious? Dominic Cummings was the strategist behind of one of the most avoidable and damaging moves a country has ever made against itself. He’s not to be listened to on any subject, except eye tests. He knows all about them.
Nate – you are talking complete and utter Bollocks. 😕
That’s true Paul, Cummings was in fact lying about the eye test
Thanks Paul.
Oh yes, I’m sure they’re out to bring him down by any means possible.
Was the same with my football team in the 80s and 90s, Wimbledon. When a smaller entity puts the big boys noses out of joint and ruffles the established order. The media hated us.
Side note I stumbled on a Wavel Room Article on how to make a two division British Army… and I hope it’s a guest contributor because oh boy is it a mess.
Some choice extracts:
“Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks: The Army is upgrading to 148 Challenger 3 tanks, sufficient for two armoured regiments per ABCT (36 tanks per brigade, 108 total for the division). These tanks, with enhanced fire control and protection, would form the backbone of the Heavy Division’s battle groups, particularly for the Baltic and High North deployments.
Ajax IFVs: Approximately 589 Ajax vehicles are on order, providing armoured infantry and reconnaissance capabilities. Each ABCT would have one Ajax-equipped battalion per battle group, ensuring mobility and firepower.”
“AH-64E Apache Helicopters and Wildcat: Upgraded Apaches would be assigned at the brigade level, with each MBCT having a squadron of six to eight helicopters for close air support and anti-armour roles complimented by Wildcat in the liaison and troop insertion role.”
“Deployment Strategy
The Heavy Division would sustain its two forward-deployed battle groups through a rotational cycle. The High North battle group, accompanied by families, would include a robust logistics package (e.g., 101st Operational Sustainment Brigade) to support a three-year posting,”
Morning Dern.
I’m keen to read the rest now.
List of what is wrong there that I can see, and please add to what I have missed:
2 Armoured Regiments per ABCT. ( only in one of the ABCTs and that is due to Cabrit I think, with only 2 ABCT but 3 Regs between them, when ideally we need 3 Brigades again with 1 in each.)
So 18 to a Regiment if its 2 Armoured Reg per ABCT, 36 a Brigade, with those figures.
And why would 3 Div be sending elements to the High North? I’d concentrate in the main theatre, not split it, and have 1 Division given that area.
Ajax is not in Battalions in it’s intended CVRT replacement role, and even if it was, and it’s one of those per Battlegroup ( think a Bde has 3 or 4 BG? ) then just wow. Double the units that will have it in recc role.
And that’s just on the Armoured Cavalry, RAC side.
So one supposes that they are also conflating that with Armoured Infantry, where Ajax ( Ares ) will indeed be in Battalions, 2 Battalions per Brigade.
But they say 1 per BG… again I ask how many of those to a Brigade?
I thought a Bde had 3 to 4 BG if one takes a BG as being based on part of an Inf Btn with other arms added on, Tank Sqn, Recc Sqn, RA Battery, for example.
But anyway, the numbers don’t make sense to me?
Apache is not at Brigade level.
MBCT don’t exist yet, unless they refer to 7 LMBCT assuming it takes Boxer.
Each MBCT. How many ? As there are only 4 front line Apache Sqns, 2 per Regiment, and they have 8 heli each, not 6, how do they split to x number of MBCT?
And one of those Regiments has other commitments as well, such as SF and Maritime, and the other supports 3 Division which MBCTs are not a part.
Complimented by Wildcat….which is even more taught numbers wise. I see they don’t describe an orbat distribution for that, but Troop insertion?! That is a recc assst and might at best carry small liaison teams. Where is it inserting these people? It isnt in a JSFAW type outfit which does that role.
Heavy Division, with 2 forward BGs. So.
Families with the High North BG!! Where is the garrison posting for that? As having families implies it to be a permanent garrison, along the lines of BAOR, not a field deployment, with a 3 year posting reminding me of the old “Arms Plot” as units rotate in and out of theatre.
Is there much to do up there in Finnish Lapland?
Why not then re establish a BAOR type command in the Baltics and take families along there too. Tallin is nice.
I hope they aren’t assigning 101 to the single High North BG either, as otherwise the rest of the Division is knackered!
As it is needed to move the Division as an entity as part of ARRC as a reserve.
I know we’ve covered this, but how can a NATO Strategic Reserve Corps be a reserve if it is committed piecemeal and split apart in two fronts?
And the author has 3 UK only here, as the “Heavy Division” when we have 1 UK too, which could be given that Theatre.
And did they mention the LSOF, 11bde, ASOB, elements of which I assume might also be better employed there.
Wavell room guest contributors can’t structure a Battlegroup… meanwhile me:
https ://i .imgur. com/gKnmjG2. jpeg
I’ll look and comment on this when home and on the PC tomorrow.
Ah. Was expecting a British BG one, this is a wider ARRC format.
Ok, I’ve now read it myself and it makes more sense where the author is coming from.
He indeed states 3 BG to a Brigade, as I thought it was, so 18 BG!
Which makes his figures of a Bn per BG even more outlandish.
And apart from the mention of 101, finding the CS CSS allocations for 18 BG spilt amongst 6 Brigades we don’t even have now is some going! With no increase in bodies to staff them.
I do agree with his overall, 2 Division, 6 Brigade, one tracked one wheeled structure as the ideal end state though.
And 120mm mortars again, wish they’d get on with it and order.
It has some very bare bones good ideas, aka “Two deployable divisions.” But the rest is just such a mess, I can’t believe Wavell Room published it frankly! It feels like the guy who wrote it barely knows what he’s talking about. And then he has the gall to say the army might resist it because the regimental system doesn’t like change.
Agree entirely, that Wavell article doesn’t make a lot of sense. He lost me completely when he started on company-size combat teams, seemed completely nuts. A mixed company as our contribution to Estonian defence would not cut the mustard at all at NATO.
Yes to 7 brigades and a clear split between a tracked armoured infantry division and a wheeled mechanised one, with 16 AA Bde as a separate independent asset. To achieve that, the army would need to increase by upwards of 12,000 personnel and probably 15,000+ to fill the current CSS gaps.
Would like to see that 7-brigade, 85,000+ army as the 10 year, 3.5% plan. But very much doubt the MOD civvies, who control and command all, could produce or stick to anything as clear and coherent as that.
I’ve long held that in order to provide a Corps framework to E-NATO the UK should have about a 100,000 regular army, not just to close the current CSS gaps, but also to enable the credible mobile GBAD and Corps level assets that we’d want. But the government isn’t big on giving the Army personnel upgrades, that means a lot of investment in kit and accommodation that would have to happen (if only we still had a load of big garrisons in Germany lol).
Agree. The Army should not have fallen below 100k.
I can’t agree with previous commentators completely, but am bound to say that as an ex Navy full career aircraft engineer who has served in NATO. Due to our “special relationship” with the USA it was up to us Brits to remind the US that this or that operation was to serve NATO members, not US foreign interests and military sales. Trump has finally shown he is not capable of leading NATO or western democracy. What UK can offer is leadership and is already doing so by HMS Prince of Wales current deployment to the Indo-Pacific leading a task force of international ships as we don’t have enough of our own. Also leading a “group of the willing” to support Ukraine. We already fill the Deputy SACEUR NATO post and must promote a revised NATO to reduce dependence on the US and their military products in favour of EU integrated solutions. But I agree the Labour government must produce a 10 year military funding for UK armed forces, not just for the current government period and the next “when economic circumstances allow”. And speed up closer relationships with a changing EU. Rachel Reeves has an almost impossible task, but investment in defence and security related jobs will help. We need more people like Tony Radakin and Ben Wallace to make the military voice heard. Can you imagine a UK where the armed forces are led by Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees Mogg or Nigel Farage? I want my grandchildren to grow up in a world where we live in harmony with each other and the world our activities are harming.
Meanwhile Europe buys records amounts of Russian gas in 2024.
The UK heads the cheer leading team, loudly encouraging other NATO countries to do the dangerous and expensive business of actually providing the necessary tanks, MCMV’s, artillery, AEW, frigates, infantry, air defence systems, submarines, amphibious ships, fighters, etc etc. Thankfully many are, e.g. Germany is now suddenly spending far more than the UK on defence.
Really?? Yes Germany might finally be moving on defence ( after years of freeloading , and what about Spain as another example?) but I think you minimise what the UK has done. The UK pulled its weight in Astan whilst many others did bugger all or took the safe zones. It worked in the Gulf with minesweepers and escorts. In Ukraine the UK has been helping for years whilst France supplied tank sighting equipment to… Russia ( despite there being a ban on such supplies).
Germany has never Freeloaded off of NATO, and neither is Spain. The thing to remember is that if Germany had not been in NATO from 1991 to 2025 it would have had zero threats, and in fact would arguably be safer than it is now (read the same for Spain really). Every border Germany has is with a friendly power, and the only way they are going to war is to support an ally calling out article V (like it did in 2001 when the US came asking for help). Also taking 60 deaths is not bugger all, just saying.
What most people forget is the significant cost of the strategic capabilities that the UK brings to the table..
60% of European SSNs
50% of European SSBNs and strategic nuclear deterrent
66% of Europes large carriers
None of that is cheap or insignificant.
Strategic naval capabilities are not going to be much use defending Ukraine, Poland or Estonia. The threat is an air-land one, the Russian navy is a pipsqueak compared to ENATO.
Far too much of the defence budget is being lashed on these big ticket, prestige buys for the maritime sphere, resulting in a dangerously minimalist air force and a very small, wholly inadequate land force. With the vast cost of the SSBN nuclear programme swamping the budget, we simply cannot afford £12bn on carriers and carrier air, or submarines and escorts at £1.2bn a pop and suchlike.
The reduction in air and land power is a direct result of this fixation with being a big naval player, which alas, we are not.
Depends who you consider to be the primary threat.
Russia in the end could not manage to overcome what was at the time a poor country with around a tenth of its power and wealth and about a 4th of its population and after 11 years is struggling to grind out a victory. The European NATO nations depend on your choice of measures are 5-10 times more powerful that Russia and many orders of magnitude more powerful than Ukraine. What Russia has is lots of nuclear weapons and a willingness to try and exploit political weakness in NATO, Putin is not a complete idiot he’s never going to go toe to toe with ENATO, he will either work to break it or go around it. If he takes a Baltic state it will be using political warfare and leverage of their large ethnic Russian populations, after all what can NATO do if a NATO falls into internal strife or votes for a government that supports Putin ?
And or he will try to politically break ENATO just as he is Breaking the US European relationship and transatlantic alliance.
But the most potent enemy out there and in reality the nation that is propping up Russia is China.. and armies are sod all use against China. Because China is planning to become the dominant world power by becoming the dominant maritime power. Because China knows very well if you own the oceans you control pretty much everything and China is our primary enemy unless we make a very sharp change in direction.
Will there be a land war with Russia, possibly, but Russia has 200,000 to 300,000 regular troops ( who have an average age now in heading in their 40s and an airforce that was essentially incapable of gaining air superiority against Ukraine with its 200 soviet aircraft. Russia is going to get very little headway against an ENATO with a million soldiers, 1600 ish generally modern fighters jets etc. it may try for a Baltic state or political warfare in the balkans but if it went for Poland or Germany or Finland it would not be getting its army back.
But I would lay very very good money with the west ending up at war with china sometime between now and 2040 and that is going to be the biggest naval conflict the world has ever seen. Because China is going all out to be able to shatter the USN and sustain a naval conflict over years and completely dominate the maritime environment.
The simple truth is the west is no longer facing to soviet hordes across the inner German border.. it’s facing the PLAN and a Maritime nation that is launching a greater tonnage of warships every 2-3 years than the entire Royal Navy, has over 50% of the worlds ship building capacity and 260% of the USAs shipbuilding capacity.
China does not consider SSNs a waste of resources infact its build an SSN mega factory and is expanding that factory even now.. to the point it’s estimated that it now has the estimated capacity to build up to 6 SSNs a year if it really wanted to and soon may be able to build up to 8 a year, the entire western world can build about 3 SSNs a year at max effort.
So yes the west needs to be build its navies at maximum effort because china plans to bury the west in SSNs and major Surface combatants.. and there have been indications that Russia may end up being a customer for both.
China is the nation that essential built Russias military chip industry from the ground up for them and supplies them with essential most of the equipment and materials for chip manufacturing, including knowledge. They could and would build Russia a brand new navy to match any European navy in 5-10 years.
Do we need to sort the army out so it can deploy a proper division yes. Do we need 200 front line jets and 10 front line fast jets squadrons yes. But the next world wars and who runs the world order is going to be decided on the worlds oceans not on the mud if Eastern Europe or over the skys of Britain.
And yet Trump continues to facilitate warmonger, genocidal, war criminal Putin & promote his narrative & goals, despite all the bluster otherwise. Not much of a surprise to many. Both have unreformed C19th aggressive imperial/colonial outlooks. I hope our leaders call out pure evil, like we did with the Kaiser & Hitler, not accomodate & appease as Trump does so comfortably. Trump proves consistantly that we shouldn’t take his soundbites seriously, but watch & note what he actually does.
Russia will not wind its neck in until we force it to climb down & retreat from UKR by going in, defeating & driving out all Russian occupying forces in UKR.
Encouraging UKR or their European allies to submit to Russian aggresion will never result in peace or liberty, just continual nibbling away until the satallites of the old Soviet Union are under brutal, dictatorial control again. If Trump’s USA wants to decouple from NATO, let them. We fought the Nazis off, just, until the USA was forced to come in when Hitler declared war on the USA following Japans attack on Pearl harbour.
How much USA territory & how many millions American citizens would Trump be prepared to give to Putin to bring “peace”? The idea of surrendering land & people that Russia has thus far failed to kill, steal or kidnap is insanely cruel.
I think aggression is spelled with a double ‘s’. Otherwise perfect 10/10 posts. 😂
Trump needs to give the role of arbitrator to someone else; Turkey or the Vatican and focus on supporting Ukraine and defeating Russia. You can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
The only thing that happened at that ‘summit ‘ in Alaska was a Russian dictator bringing his little bitch for a walk and then returning home.
Yep it was pretty awful to be honest, I fear it’s only going to get worse and essentially Ukraine is likely to consider any US security guarantee as not really worth the paper it’s written on.. certainly not worth giving up its eastern urban bastions for.
More evidence for whoever is watching that only might and the will to suffer and sacrifice matters any nation that is not now laser focused of ensuring it can defend itself really needs a new set of leaders.
Any “deal’ made with either Trump or Putin is de facto worthless. Trump never honours any deal, or any that he makes are seriously flawed as he is rolled over by the other side ( Remember the Taliban deal ?) He’s likely too stupid to know or understand what he’s doing or signing, just as long as there’s flashing cameras, that’s all that matters for him.
True. Ukraine already has a US security guarantee which it received in Budapest in 1994. Ukraine gave up its nukes and Russia, the US and the UK agreed to respect Ukraine’s independance in recognised boundaries: the ones that include Crimea, the Donbas and the other territories Trump now wants them to give up. Give up for a different piece of paper he and his successors will just ignore. But the mining rights document, he won’t ignore that one.
‘Must contest Russia in every domain….’ as the MOD cuts or gaps MCM, LPD’s, AEW, surface combatants, Typhoon, C130, helicopters, IFV’s, artillery, missile defence.
Too much emphasis on home defence? The problem is that there is almost no emphasis on home defence. Britain has no anti-missile defences. The only carrier equipped for combat is thousands of miles away. A tiny handful of frigates and destroyers are available for home defence – maybe not even a handful. One attack submarine is available. Numbers are so lacking that more emphasis should be made on home defence. Strategic ambition exceeds capability.
Nick, with you. A lot of us have been on about this stuff for years. Parts of the defence cupboard are indeed bare. Everyone can see it, even if only partially, including the bloke on the street and of course our potential adversaries. Perhaps its the nuclear deterrence in the background keeping things in check. People at the top should stop barking out stuff like this before substantially restocking the home cupboard!
Nick, I agree. From an army point of view, there has not been a comprehensive Military Home Defence (MHD) Exercise since Ex BRAVE DEFENDER in Sep 1985! I doubt Key Points (KP) lists have been updated since then nor defence plans for each of them revised.
In WW2, two Inf Bdes defended Arundel, one each side of the river. Today there is just one reg army unit in the whole of West and East Sussex combined and it is not roled for MHD – it is an AD regiment that would be out with a deployed army on the continent or whatever.
Who would do MHD of the UK – the Army Reserve that is not roled for 3 Div? Or is enemy invasion of the homeland not even considered a remote possibility?
The latter. The Russian Navy couldn’t even mount an Amphibious operation at Odessa against a country without a navy. It’s not going to be launching an invasion of an Island that it would have to sustain and supply by sea past the combined strength of NATO navies that would mean sailing either around Norway, through the Baltic (aka Lake NATO) or Sailing through both the Dardanelles and Straight of Gibraltar through the med and up past Spain and France.
MHD is so low on the list of priorities that it barely registers, and frankly, rightly so.
With what should we confront Russia with? The Russian military investment since 2022 is huge and increasing whilst we’ve just held an SDSR and NOTHING has changed materially since then. Have we seen orders to take the RN back over 25 minimum escort fleet. No. New fast jet orders to reinforce a laughably small RAF force that is using up it’s airframe hours rapidly. No.
Increase in C2 to C3 numbers to every available chassis- over 200?. No. A new IFV to replace warrior? No.
A firm order for the thousands of long range conventional strike missiles promised? No.
Any news artillery orders signed for? Currently the army has 14 Archer SPGs and that’s it. All our AS90s have gone to Ukraine so the army is down to just 14 Archer. 105mm light guns and MLRS .
GBAD units and protection of critically important national infrastructure a clear plan in place and orders made? No. Zilch. Nothing.
We have no funds for defence seemingly and yet want to confront Russia. You really couldn’t make this up. It’s an unmitigated disaster.
https ://i .imgur. com/yxCe5l6. jpeg
Always worth remembering that when we’re saying “Confront Russia” this ^ is what actually is confronting Russia (and that’s before the US, Greece and Turkey get added in).
Would help if I used the more complete version:
https ://i .imgur. com/gKnmjG2. jpeg