Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin gave a keynote speech at Chatham House Security and Defence Conference on 27 February 2024.
The following is an excerpt.
“We have a war in Europe that shows no signs of abating in the short term. And we have a war in the Middle East with attendant risks to implode across the region and impact on the globe.
But I worry that the public debate that has played out over recent weeks risks becoming confused and some remarks are alarmist. The starting point for any discussion must be an intellectually honest assessment of the threats our country faces and our options to respond.
This needs to be done in a way that is measured and responsible. This speech is my attempt to inject a sense of perspective back into this debate – both on the nature of the threats we face, and the fundamentals of Britain’s strength and security in the world.
I want to do that by offering four viewpoints as Head of the Armed Forces. First, to reassure those who may have been alarmed by some of the recent commentary – Britain is secure. And to remind people of the extraordinary security we have through both our being in NATO and our being a nuclear power.”
Radakin also added:
“First, let me scotch some of the more sensationalist headlines of late. We are not on the cusp of war with Russia. We are not about to be invaded.
No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term. Britain is safe.
We are safe because we are part of NATO, the world’s largest and strongest alliance and also because we are a responsible nuclear power.”
Oh thats OK then….
“No one in the MOD is talking about Conscription in the traditional sense of the term”
Perhaps our Lords and Masters might care to explain to us in just what terms they are thinking?…
That was an odd statement for sure.
Spot on observation.
Exactly Grizzler, no need to worry. This sounds more like the Treasury speaking and echoes the pre-war reassurances of the 1930s. All we need now is for France to suggest NATO ground troops in Ukraine….
Despite the 30s pre war assurances Britain was still rearming as fast as possible. A stark contrast to now where the only thing happening quickly is cuts.
Yes, it’s like the Titanic speeding towards its doom while the captain decides to burn a few of the already insufficient life boats for warmth.
Same poll that highlighted how many under 40s would refuse call-up, a newsworthy but novel conception of choice under emergency procedures, also stated most thought world war would be upon us within 5 to 10 years. Logically, these must be the self-same voters who are memed as being uninterested in matters of defence. A reasonable interptetation of the above:- they sure have a vested interest in their best chance of survival. Talk of further cuts from our Elected – and of course the Treasury – will therefore become contentious issues amongst the electorate very soon i.e. this epoch year, 2024.… Read more »
Flaw in the plan, serious grown up conversation and politicians.
Politician will twist the facts to align with their parties ideology
Hence, time for…, Ex. Most don’t lead, they wait to be told what to do. Been ‘enjoying’ the latest Defence Committee meetings, very much to the fore this past month; at least those that invite industry experts to give evidence i.e. can do, not can’t. Exceptions, the 21st Feb where senior MoD official?* spent time expertly not answering questions and challenges from Mark Francoise – beyond words like ‘confidence’, ‘praise for personnel’, ‘security issue’ – or just blaming his staff. * don’t recall his name, too forgettable. Just a few minutes of him and I’d switched off mentally, soon followed… Read more »
…or for France to leave the military structure of NATO as they did for many years. How reliable are they?
The brief extract does seem a bit complacent. But the whole speech isn’t. It gives a reasonable view of the threats to the UK, analyses the danger posed by Russia and compares the strength of NATO in terms of population, economy and military capability. Radakin also points to some additional needs, largely in response to the Ukraine war, beyond those already contracted:
Long range missiles for the army
Integrated air defence for the UK
Lots more drones.
It may be a glass half full statement but it is balanced and sensible.
Interesting is the debate going on in NATO Anas Germany at the moment regarding US commitment to NATO given republicans moves to A stop Ukraine funding and B Trumps comments on withdrawing from NATO and not enacting article 5.
It’s said contingencies ar ending openly discussed where the UK and France would significantly increase their nuclear arsenals with other European NATO members potentially providing financial support.
Too late now when the decision to reduce the number of middle tubes on the dreadnoughts has already been made!
That’s pretty irrelevant to be fair: The Vanguards between them have 64 launcher tubes for a total of 512 Warheads, the UK currently has in stock about 200, so even if all warheads where available, they’d fill less than half the tubes of the Vanguards. The Dreadnoughts will reduce the maximum number of launched warheads to just under 400, which would mean that the UK would need to double it’s Warhead stock before it would have to worry about the reduction of ICBM tubes on the SSBNs.
(And frankly 200 warheads arriving is enough of a nightmare scenario).
Article 5 only requires member nations to respond to the invasion of another member. A strongly worded note of protest to the erring country might suffice in Trump’s mind.
They are betting all on the nuclear wepons,idiots.
If your conventional forces have been run down so far that nukes have to be used sooner, then you’ve failed & betrayed the trust people have given you electing you.
Similar to the body language of many enduring Mad Monk’s latest rambling to the Federal Assemby. We know he’s a moron, but plenty in the Duma and Council seem to think likewise.
Agreed 👍
The ones we can’t prove work? Those missiles? And when did we last test a warhead? I understand the physics can be simulated and sub critical tests are a thing, but I feel the time is right to prove the technology to the world again. And a Trident MUST be launched the full distance into the test range.
As we did in the Cold War! If the Warsaw Pact had rolled NATO forces up in West Germany, nuclear release was the next step.The difference between then and now is the rapidity with which that would occur.
We may not be about to be invaded but if we keep reducing the Armed Forces at this rate there will be nothing stopping anyone in the next 20 years from actually invading us. NATO will be looking after their own backyards, and will not be so ready to support leaving them open. While the CDS and defence Chiefs assure the public and MP’s, those that actually know are shaking their heads in shame and wondering if we will come to our senses and actually invest. While there is a considerable amount of focus on Cyber etc, we will still… Read more »
Indeed. You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.
Badly thought-out speech.
An attack on one NATO country ropes us all into a war, so in that context, the UK is not safe from war.
The distance from potential conflict does not mean that we would be immune to airborne threats, missile strikes, or submarine attacks.
Our politicians think that they can keep cutting the defence budget because being part of the alliance alone will keep us safe.
Ah, the “We Got Nukes Card” has been played.
Nukes only deter your enemy from using Nukes, I am not convinced they will prevent conventional conflict.
Nor am I. In fact, with Putin at the helm in Russia I think a conventional war is a clear and present danger for the simple reason that Putin has been pushing the limits of what he can get away with. His ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine is clearly a full scale invasion and the West is apparently weakening in it’s support to the Ukrainians. If he doubts for one moment that NATO wouldn’t respond to an incursion then we are in real trouble. The thing is given Trump’s isolationist stand, Hungary’s Victor Orban’s pro-Russian positioning within NATO and the… Read more »
He pushed the limits and did not get away with it. He has been lucky so far not to have a coup.
He be lucky to survive the current situation and his country is a laughing stock.
It’s the winter war all over again.
NATO would respond to a Russian invasion of any or all of the Baltic states, as they are all NATO members.
Despite all the rhetoric (and it is ENDLESS rhetoric), the UK Govt does not believe that there is a serious threat. The defence budget is the threat barometer and the barometer is set at “no worries”.
The RN budget has a 16.9B deficit and the pending budget seems unlikley to fill that gap. Recruitment is not keeping up with requirements.
All of this means … cuts are unavoidable.
Is there anything else in our armed forces left to cut?
And on the same day Putin makes his speech to the nation making it clear that war with the west is a serous potential outcome and Russia is really to use nuclear weapons if needed. No state is safe from modern warfare and all the domain’s of war…if anyone thinks Russia or china are not pushing the bounds..china says it’s going to go to war over Taiwan FFS. If we went to war our enemies would use every domain possible to create harm in our home islands..from cyber attacks, attacks on trade, terror attacks etc…. Winning a war is not… Read more »
Don’t panic Captain Mainwaring!
Encouraging tone to a balanced speech; I get the impression that our direction has been set and that we need to wait for the seeds of major programs to germinate.
It seems we are ‘ focusing on a strategy that emphasises nuclear, maritime and air, and a British Army that is rooted in NATO’ regardless of which govt is in power.
‘a British Army that is rooted in NATO’ is clearly code for ‘I know we have a very small army, one that is about to get smaller, but our NATO allies armies will be bigger and stronger and will obfuscate our weakness’.
Poses interesting questions. So the RM, being maritime are not limited to NATO?
How far does the NATO sphere of interest extend, MALI, Libya, Iran?
The army being ‘rooted in NATO’ does not mean every deployable British Army unit is limited to operations in the NATO area or under NATO command. The same is true of the RM, RAF and RN. There are numerous examples of our forces operating beyond the NATO sphere of interest, and under purely national command or Coalition (non-NATO, usually US) command. The NATO area in relation to Article 5 is defined as being “the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of… Read more »
Thx. Every day is a school day 🙂
So I would be interested to know what the perceived benefits would be of a Labour governments proposed ‘defence pacts’ with close neighbours France and Germany.
Labour has consistently signposted this since 2022. The defence pacts would be with France, Germany and probably the EU as a whole. The one with Germany would be roughly similar (less the nuclear bit) to the Lancaster House agreement of 2/11/2010 to, which focussed on increasing cooperation in training, procurement and industrial strategy. Given that Cameron had only recently shafted our armed forces with savage cuts in the 2010 SDSR it made sense to have something positive to say and to leverage France. The key elements of the Nov 2010 declaration with France were: “Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty: To develop… Read more »
Thx for this Graham; very interesting. These agreements are good for all concerned, and for Europe.
“No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term. Britain is safe.”
I was actually getting rather cornered about state of our Armed forces, but now that’s been pointed out to me I feel much better….
So am I paraphrasing the good admiral by saying, anyone steps on our toes and we use the bucket of sunshine?
Are we now threatening folks with said bucket of sunshine rather than , I don’t know, actually rebuilding a sustainable and sensible defence posture…
Did the politicians get him to write that?
Maybe he is just speaking truth, the Russia threat has been over played for years.
China maybe but it’s a very long way away and there are multiple powerful countries surrounding it.
I don’t see a need to rebuild the BAOR.
A bigger navy would he nice but it’s not needed to defend the North Atlantic anymore.
The biggest threat to UK and North Atlantic security is the Republican Party.
No matter how much we spend on defence we can’t fix that.
Hmmm. For me the biggest threats to UK and North Atlantic security are: Cyber attacks. Espionage. Terrorist attacks. Russian missiles. Cable, infrastructure sabotage. Media manipulation – Grey Zone disinformation. Other Grey Zone activities in the Middle East. Our own Treasury. And Russia will be involved in at least 6 of those. We indeed don’t need to rebuild the BAOR, but the army is too small and should at least be 1 Armoured Division, and another lighter Division with the varied extras on top from Field Army Troops, CS CSS elements, 16AA, 3 Cdo, SFAB, SOB, and the SF. And it… Read more »
Cyber attacks.Espionage.Terrorist attacks.Russian missiles.Cable, infrastructure sabotage.Media manipulation – Grey Zone disinformation.Other Grey Zone activities in the Middle East.Our own Treasury. I wouldn’t describe these as future threats to the UK: with the exception of Russian missiles they are all present realities. We still need to prepare for the next step (whatever that is) as well. Moldova, Taiwan, Lebanon, Cyprus? Who knows? What if Putin drops a tactical nuke on Ukraine during the US elections? I wouldn’t even guess what Biden will do. Until very recently I’d have guessed Macron would do nothing, but he’s taking a much harder rhetorical line… Read more »
Indeed Jon, they are.
I’d agree that a BAOR 2.0 is unnecessary. But I think the threats are greater than is being proposed- and our armed forces are currently less capable to deal with it. It’s not specifically about the current threat picture though- it’s where it’s looking to be in 5-10 years. And that’s really important, because that’s how long it’s going to take to get any appreciable increase in capability into the armed forces. So we have to look at it seriously now, because of the lag, essentially. Russia is moving further to a war economy, and linking with Iran and NK… Read more »
So the republican party are the problem because they are tired of paying to defend you? That makes sense, let America pay for it whilst europeans prance about on their 2 month vacation, year long paternity leave and endless sick days whilst spending peanuts to defend their own countries and way of life.
Maybe if America hadn’t systematically pressured for the dismanteling of the European Empires, stabbed it’s partners in the back at Suez, consistently pushed against the creation of a centralised EU defence system, and tried to consistently undermine European Defence industry and Strategic Autonomy then they’d have a point.
As it stands only one country has ever called on NATO to help, and it was the US. So whose paying to defend whom really?
Thanks for showing yourself up. If you’d had a point you could have argued it without resorting to insults.
You can’t which means you’ve got nothing.
I’ve already made my point – nothing to argue. IDK about you but i think nowadays most people think empires are naughty and if the EU wanted it’s own defense autonomy then guess what…they could have done it. No need to be salty, what i’m saying is the truth, nearly everyone in the world knows that the US protects europe and now it’s time for u to do it yourself. no point pretending otherwise
I pointed out why Europe tends to rely on US military spending, it’s got a lot to do with US foreign policy and a US desire to use it’s economic clout to be the only one in NATO with major strategic autonomy, while keeping a European defence sector that is secondary to the American one. I also pointed out that the only time NATO was invoked to defend a NATO member it was the US, and European countries where willing enough to shed blood for the US. So given those two factors, it seems the only salty ones are American… Read more »
Come on then show us where Dern is wrong. How are the cousins paying to defend us? If they didn’t want bases in Europe I’m sure they would have left by now! IF push comes to shove the European nations of NATO would come out on top with or without the Americans.
Hi Jacko you are right and I am wrong. I totally forgot about how Russia invaded Ukraine and fortunately the Europeans had been taking defense seriously for the past 40 years allowing them to support and defend Ukraine without help from anyone else at all. Thank goodness they never took the “peace dividend” and relied on other powers to protect them. Based on their sterling defense managment the Chancellor can relax a little bit at the next budget and has already announced the MOD doesn’t need anymore cash…. phew… thank goodness …
So once again, no actual reply, just a non sequitur and a hilarious reference to Ukraine (psst I don’t think if your American your support for Ukraine is a glowing example to hold up, Europe’s been doing much better than you in that regard).
😂😂
He won’t show me where I’m wrong because he can’t. Unfortunately a lot of Americans don’t grasp that America doesn’t actually want a Europe that spends American budgets on defence, because that would be a potential rival.
Name calling? LOL…where exactly did that happen? Are you offended? I do hope not. All you’ve done so far is go off on rants about unrelated topics. I just finished reading a nice article in the Telegraph covering how Europe has been sponging off the US for decades… great read maybe you’ll find a similar one in the guardian lol. BTW, not sure what Trump voters have to do with this because I can assure you that the feeling is broad-spectrum across politics that it’s time for you guys to do your bit…. i mean…. go off on another rant… Read more »
You accused me of needing mental health support, that’s name calling rather than actually entering into a discussion.
And now you’re going ahead and strawmaning my position, I suggest you bother to take the time to read what I wrote instead of passing it off as a “rant” you might learn something.
The bottom line is, if you had an answer you’d directly address points I made, you haven’t, so you don’t. Which is why you keep trying to get a rise out of me.
Oh
I was under the impression the Americans are doing a perfectly good job of destroying Democracy without Europe spending money to help.
Jim wrote: Maybe he is just speaking truth, the Russia threat has been over played for years. When Russia started rearming in 1999, the experts stated we had nothing to worry about as it was just Moscow replacing its older stuff with new. When Russia recommenced its flights into NATO areas the experts stated the West had nothing to worry about When Russia bombed Chetneya into the stone age, the experts claimed that the west had nothing to worry about When Russia instigated and attacked Georgia, the experts claimed that the West had nothing to worry about When Russia started… Read more »
I mean he is speaking the truth. We are not at risk of a conventional invasion of British territory. We can be concerned about commitments on the Eastern Front and Northern Front, but Britain itself is relatively safe.
Agreed. That list of mine are not existential threats, though the disruption could be severe.
However, I have changed my stance on a UK GBAD system. I now believe one to be necessary given all Russia seems to have beyond that list is missiles. In the unlikely scenario of war with Russia, even as part of NATO, we are pretty naked.
The question is how to fund it and what gives elsewhere.
no – they just wrote it for him
Chief of the Defence Staff is sounding more like a politician looking out for his own career by towing the government line than an actual serving member of the armed forces. If he were to retire today, tomorrow he’d be crying out and saying how the forces have been hollowed out. Shame he doesn’t have the guts to tell it how it is. It’s horrendously naive to think that we’re completely safe. As a member of NATO, if Poland or one of the Baltic States were attacked it’s the same as an attack on us and we’d come to their… Read more »
When has a CDS been any different? I still remember Sir Jock Stirrup and the absolute cobblers he came out with excusing the 2010 cuts.
All very, shamefully true. Strikes on our power stations would cripple the power network too. The whole of Europe could be paralised PDQ, yet we still plan/budget/cut as though world peace broke out in ’91, blind to the ralities right up in our faces today. That is criminal negligence.
Even Chamberlain in the late 1930’s had the country on a rearmament program. Today it’s more like Nero not simply fiddling while RTome burns, but going around selling off fire hydrants & engines!
I can almost hear the pro HMG folk reaching for their rose tinted specs!
Absolutely spot on mate 🍺
This won’t be popular on these pages. But he’s right. He isn’t trying to gloss things over and say we don’t face threats and everything is fine. But Russia isn’t going to invade the rest of Europe. Its taking everything they’ve got to hold a tiny portion of Ukraine. The Russia Air Force and Navy has proven to be as rubbish as most expected. And we are much more capable than we give ourselves credit for. Too much fantasy wars along with fantasy ORBATS have been discussed recently. The numbers are never going to be what they once were, but… Read more »
Just looks that it’s case of further cuts they are making opposed to rearming. It’s frustrating to watch Russia and their allies increase funding and arms production whilst the west doesn’t seem to be able to grasp the situation it’s in. Hope I’m wrong.
No one in the MOD is talking about Conscription in the traditional sense of the term” whats that in no Officer/MOD speak?
“People outside the MOD are talking about conscription and the leadership wishes they’d shut up.”
The military do not want unwilling conscripts
He should be a politician with that amount of spin and sidestep, or on Celebrity Come Dancing… As of today, we are secure- because no-one is coming after us directly on 29/02/2024. But the problem isn’t today, or tomorrow, or even next year. The threat is 5-10 years down the road, because that’s when there’s real potential for Russia and others to have decided that might is right in the face of weak western responses to Ukraine, circumvented global sanctions and built up their militaries again. Unfortunately, that’s at least as long as it would take for us to get… Read more »
….However, the UK does not have scale or an industry capable of quickly coming up with what may be needed in the future unless something is done now. Add to all of that our American cousins are, have been in the past and are indeed at the moment, a bit flaky. At best wrapped up in their own isolationism, or at worst, corrupt politicians under the influence of Russia and China. Mr Putin is no doubt beavering away to subvert as many Governments as he can get away with to generally soften his way as he expands the Russian empire.
Another speech written by the treasury.
Well, yeah – it’s not. Can always rely on politicians to lie. We are surrounded by enemies within and without, with derelict armed forces
You cannot act with a “measured & responsable” response to threats/realities if HMG has failed to measure the needs for UK defence & necessary contribution to NATO correctly, nor been responsable enough to avoid cutting numbers & capabilities beyond, sometimes well beyond, what is needed at a minimum.
Putin & Xi have watched us squander away our forces to levels that they feel make them bold enough to strut menacingly on the world stage, sniping at us relentlessly, seeking the downfall of western democracy.
Sorry but this speech didn’t cut it with me , like we’ve got no GBAD ,two few ship’s although some on the way from builder’s yard all in good time 🤔 Hopfuly .Plus struggling to put an air group together on the carriers or be it very well done on the men and women who got the POW out on short notice to take over from QE.RAF short on training aircraft for pilots no EW capability no more .The Army is the smallest it’s been for hundreds of years hardly any Tanks IVFs ,Artillery platforms and above all Ammunition at… Read more »
Someone needs to frame this article and bring it out when he gives his valedictory speech, berating previous government investment in to defence.
But he’s right in invasion, but I’ve not heard anybody even mention that in any seriousness.
There is a reality gap here between reassurances and reality. In a rational world if your threat level has gone up your defence capabilities should rise to meet the change. It is a profound and obvious failure of leadership and policy that 2 years after the Russian invasion of Ukraine the size and capabilities of all 3 of our services are less than what they were when the war started. Any government or government organisation that sits back passively and allows that outcome to occur is incompetent. Any political party that judges the success of its defence policy based upon… Read more »
Absolutely right C68. We have run our armed forces into the ground and rather than being a strong pillar of NATO, we have now been reduced to a bit-part player relying on other allies to do the heavy lifting. One little microcosm. I was looking at NATO airforces, in light of Radakin’s claim that we field c 10% of NATO airpower. If we define airpowe as combat air aka fighters, which is the standard comparator, and leave out the USAF, Canada and USAF fighters in Europe, NATO Europe has 2,088 fighter jets, the UK 168, so we contribute 8.4% of… Read more »
I have seen no definition of airpower that solely considers combat air aka fighters.
It is fairly standard ro compare the principal combat forces, whether they be warships, army manoeuvre brigades or combat air numbers. We could do a broader comparison, adding in the RAF’s 250 or so support aircraft (19 ISTAR, 41 transport/tanker, 85 helicopters,106 training aircraft), but it doesn’t really add much to the comparative picture – all the leading NATO Europe players have at least the same if not more support and training aircraft. I can, when I have time, trundle through the comparative figures for everything-that-can-fly, but suspect we will again find the UK at the relegation end of the… Read more »
The RAF/MoD definition of air power and all those by reputed international commentators have a broader definition which embraces MPA, AWACS, EW, AAR, AT aerial assets (but not trainer aircraft as they are not combat-deployable) etc, etc but by all means have your own definition.
I am sure our combat-deployable aircraft count is unimpressive compared to a decade or so ago.
China is increasing defence budget to 7%, Russia to 6%, Britain even has not 2% .
The future. Only 140 fighters, One the Carriers to be sold, army reduced and only 140 tanks, Navy with only 17 escorts.
For me there is no other word.
TRAITORS.
No-one is selling a carrier. Army will get 148 tanks.
But I agree with you. We are very badly placed for a long General War.