Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, Chief of the Defence Staff, has delivered a confident assessment of NATO’s strength relative to Russia, telling MPs that the Alliance’s military posture, air and sea control, and strategic depth offer overwhelming deterrence against any aggression from Moscow.
Speaking to the Defence Committee, Radakin was asked by Derek Twigg MP whether there were concerns about NATO’s resilience in a high-casualty conflict or its ability to replenish losses. The Chief of the Defence Staff firmly rejected that characterisation.
“I don’t tend to, genuinely don’t tend to subscribe to that anxiety, because we are so extraordinarily strong compared to our principal threat, Russia,” he said.
“And the question, which is difficult to answer in public, but that you should be asking people like me, is: if we were to get into a war with Russia, how quickly could we get control of the air? Because if you have sufficient control of the air, then your ability to put at risk a nation—and especially a nation’s economy—is very, very strong.”
Radakin argued that sea control would similarly come quickly for NATO, allowing the Alliance to deny Russia freedom of movement and project power with confidence.
“How quickly can we have control of the sea? And again, that ability to have control of the sea—for NATO—is phenomenal.”
He went on to describe a fundamental shift in NATO doctrine over recent years, away from reactive defence and towards proactive deterrence.
“The piece that has changed in the last few years in terms of NATO and a stronger NATO that has got clearer plans, is no longer a NATO that thinks, ‘If Russia was to invade and to gain a piece of territory, how do we then fight to get that territory back?’”
“It’s a NATO that sees the risk of territory being invaded, and [asks] how quickly can it get its land forces in there to block any risk of aggression and territory being grabbed. And again, I feel incredibly confident that that’s what NATO’s got, and that’s how NATO can keep its citizens safe.”
Addressing the assumption that a conflict with Russia would resemble the long, attritional nature of Ukraine’s current struggle, Radakin said:
“I think the risk with the thinking of, if you go to war with Russia, right, you’re then in a long war, and that actually you’re now going to have this protracted war, and you’re going to need the relief for casualties in the way that Ukraine has suffered—that is not how we would fight. And we need to be really confident of our phenomenal overmatch.”
“It’s the overmatch that deters Russia. And I have never been clearer than any time in my career about the success that NATO is having in deterring Russia.”
“Russia does not want to fight with NATO, and Russia does not want a nuclear war, and we should be really confident of that. We’ve got a dangerous, malevolent Russia, and we need to maintain that advantage—and the best way of maintaining that advantage is for all of us to get a bit stronger with the USA.”
Later in the hearing, Twigg posed a follow-up question: what if the United States “withdrew either entirely or in part, their contribution to NATO or their presence here in Europe”? Could Europe still stand on its own?
Radakin replied: “I think Europe is strong enough because of its strategic depth. So 500 million people, incredible economies—but I reject the premise.”
He added that in his experience accompanying the Defence Secretary in meetings with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, there was no indication of any wavering commitment.
“We have been fortunate to have the clarity from America that America is sticking with NATO.”
Referring to the recent nomination of the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), Radakin said: “That should give you reassurance that America is sticking alongside the Alliance.”
He closed by reiterating the critical importance of U.S. strategic support, especially in the nuclear domain.
“The American conversation is a frankness. And the frankness is: America is going to continue to provide all of us in Europe with the nuclear significant change. And that’s why you’re seeing Europe responding.”
Radakin’s remarks will be interpreted as both a reassurance to allies and a signal of intent to adversaries, NATO, he emphasised, is not only unified but structured to win swiftly in the event of war.
He is so smug. Reports say he was against an investigation into the former CNS, for alleged adultery. If true, then he is an utter disgrace .
Sooner the next CDS is in place the better.
Adultery is not a crime, why would it warrant an investigation?
When did adultery become a crime?
Are you a bought? Seems like a very stupid statement for a Brit to make.
Why would the state fund an investigation into adultery, especially when it’s not illegal and is an act of personal choice.. with evidence suggesting it’s a personal choice made by up to 50% of men and 25% of women.
I guess the logic would be if his wife wasn’t aware of this adultery then such a figure could be at risk of coercion by a foreign power because you can guarantee that Russia does or would know about it at some stage. Many a figure has become a security risk in similar circumstances. I would expect it’s probably part of his contract to make known any such compromising activities of thus nature, geez it’s part of many company contracts even amongst single employees of relatively low standing. It’s not about being against the law, it’s about National Security, homosexuality isn’t against the law but even a sniff of it brought down Michael Portillo’s whole political career, yes things are different now but any Impropriety is still an issue that can’t simply be ignored, especially when kept secret.
Interestingly it was not the slight thought that portilo was gay that took him down it was the wider conservative defeat.. we know this because of who beat him, Twigg who was openly gay.. Portilo had been an active opponent of gay rights… it was one of the reasons the satire was written attacking him and he survived the gossip very well. He even got a seat again 2 years later. But had become politically irrelevant.
But I get what you mean.. it is interesting that powerful straight married men being caught with their pants down never really suffer any consequences ( other than their wives hatred ) but gay individuals who are found to have an indiscretion always lost their careers..women also suffered, essentially our society was homophobic and mysogonistic as you like and has always held straight men to a different standard.
But I see what you mean about security.
He resigned. Nelson did not.
Well Hamilton knew about it as did Nelson’s wife and it the former at least seems accepted it, wives tolerated it, it was quite usual back then and did not represent a security risk, the authorities knew about it and though there was disapproval from some it was for other reasons in reality certainly not any likely risk of blackmail. Let’s be honest it’s a totally different s ensrio and potential consequences. Wellington was weirder having a taste for sleeping with the wives or mistresses of his defeated adversaries.
This sort of comment does very little to boost spending, does it?
Did I read that the Chinese have put to sea TWO aircraft carriers and escorts to conveniently be in the same area as POW when it gets there.
One report says could be as many as 1000 vl silos on the accompanying ships. Obv not all stuffed with anti ship, but even so, how many vl or canisters will be with POW to do both aaw and anti surface warfare?
AA
Your against telling the truth in favour of trying to cause a public panic then to get department spending increases? Possibly some secret briefings to some mates at the telegraph which is normally how the army brass do it.
This man has access to information neither of us could dream of. We should listen to what he says.
It’s also immensely refreshing to see an admiral advocating for Air Power. Former Generals that were CDS could learn a thing or two.
It’s a truth from a certain point of view.. I can give you other truths.. this is the truth that comes from the western obsessions, that the ability to concentrate overwhelming kinetic force in one place at one time to win battles is the way to win wars.. there is another truth that says that is bollox and very specifically china and to an extent Russia hold another truth on how to win wars… and let’s be clear..the US as the most obvious proponent for the massive overwhelming win the battle to win the war.. as lost or not won every war it’s engaged in since 1945 where it tried to use that .infact the only conflict of this type it did win was with a very small island just of its coast..and the only war it won was when actually adopted Russian and Chinese tactics.
You don’t win any wars when your media is against you.
Or a good percentage of the population.. the US is a classic example of the issue the west has, I think it’s everywhere but it’s just more pronounced in the US. If you went back 20 years ago.. that vast majority of US citizens would support the actions of their president, no matter if it was a democratic or republican and they voted in the opposite way..essentially about 80-90% of US citizens would alway give their president the benefit of the doubt on decisions.. if you role on to now essentially almost no republican will ever support any decision by a democratic president and it’s the same the other way.. with the 10-20%ish of floating voters
So essentially now a U.S. president can only ever have support of just around 40% of the population..with 10-20% that will turn against him or her at the drop of a hat and 40% that will rally against him at every and all opportunities..
Essentially that’s the political warfare version of the city gates being left open.. it means the U.S. essentially cannot win a long war because its leadership will end up falling to the voting public.. this is essentially the same with most of the other western democracies.. they no longer have any real form of political cohesion… and this has been promoted by Chinese and Russia political warfare operatives and opperations for years… china has 3 million political warfare staff who’s only job is to subvert the west.
Sometimes, the US make me think of France between the 2 WWs: recovering of the trauma caused by the last war (ww1/iraq),overconfient because it won the last major conflict (ww1 for France and ww2 for the us), flaws into its defence industrial complex and too divided to win the next war.
Radakin is right. And he’s clearly talking about fighting Russia not China. And China will not attack CSG 2025.
Well who is right then, Rutte or Radakin?
Both and neither. Depends on the assumptions you make.
Hi Dern,
Deterrence is about risk overtime. Radakin might be right as far as stopping a Russian incursion is concerned but that is really only seeing the world as it currently is. Things are changing rapidly and risk is a profile in time not a single fixed stable point. So he is assuming that nothing will change, but we know things are changing, the evidence is in the news every day so much so that a corner appears to have been turned with regards to the public’s attitude towards defence spending – who’d a thought that would happen even just 12 months ago.!?
So Radakin might be right today, but the evidence is that situation will continue to change and with HMS Prince of Wales and CSG25 heading into the South China Sea apparently with a Chinese fleet waiting for it, things might get a little tense sooner that we think – I doubt it, but things can spiral out of hand quickly sometimes. In other words the risk profile is changing as we speak with a potential flash point coming up with in weeks it seems. Radakin could go down if history as the idiot who said there was little to worry about, just before we lose one of our aircraft carriers. Just to be clear I think it unlikely, very unlikely, provided everyone keeps their heads and stays professional…
Risk and Deterrence are the toughest of balancing acts and we have been downplaying its importance for over 30 years now and it seems some people can’t accept that we are in a very dangerous phase of history right now.
Cheers CR
I agree with you. It doesn’t matter if we might be able to fight off enemies right now if we can’t also deter them from making the world a more dangerous place. And not only deter them from attacking — kinetic or grey, but also deter them from spending money on Defence in the first place. They should look at the West and despair they will ever manage to reach our hard power position. It’s not only how we get peace through deterrence, it’s how we keep it.
Hi mate, doesn’t actually help/fill you with confidence when CSG 25 currently doesn’t have an Astute SSN accompanying them. Astute is back home and Anson was in Gib as of two days ago. Meanwhile the CSG is playing with the Indian navy. UK SSN support might as well be light years away. Not to say that they don’t have a US SSN in company.
No SSN and going to the China seas that is quite frankly stupid. It projects weakness and gives China the perfect opportunity to humiliate the RN with some good attack scope shots of the carrier. The Chinese SSNs may be shite but their new electric boats are not and they have a ton of them, that are essentially designed to loiter in the china seas looking for that opportunity.
I believe Radakin is right militarily, but that Rutte is right politically. Riddle that one!
Rutte is a politicians and a liar who gutted the Netherlands defence budget when it suited his cause,
Radakin is a man of honour who is the best CDS we have had in a long time.
CDS refuses to even mention the possibility of a land campaign against Russia.
Also he thinks that because Trump has nominated the next SACEUR that this means Trump is once again committed to NATO and the defence of Europe. Radakin is only reading one of the runes.
I am concerned that he paints no problems or deficiencies with NATO in any area at all. He comes across as a political Yes man.
I have to absolutely agree with you there Graham, he’s just sat and told the politicians exactly what they wanted to hear. “No problems here old boy”!
Yup. But not surprising, he’s a naval officer so obviously he’s focused on the sea and just kind of thinks of the land component as just “happening.”
While NATO can over match Russia to the extent of containing it and bombing it back to the Middle Ages…
NATO is not a match for a CRINK alliance let alone the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).
NK would be bombed into the middle ages with no ability to deter, its been proven by Israel Iran can be targeted anywhere in the country with no ability to defend against modern equipment.
China is a different ball game but only if you tried to take on its home land, they have very little ability to fight elsewhere except the SCS and its mainland.
Russia would be very difficult to contain due to the sheer land mass but its undoubtedly much weaker now than it was before Ukraine.
The issue is not these nations on their own it’s how they would interact together in WW3.
China has got a far far bigger blue water navy than anyone generally realised its very large and very modern with a lot of enablers..it’s also building string of bases in the Indian occean.. India is pretty worried about chinas ability to strategically isolate it.. China can but a lot of surface action groups into the Indian Ocean..it’s SSNs are a bit shit, but it has SSNs and any SSN is a strategic threat if it’s free in a big ocean. It’s also finishing off building about 10 more that are probably not shit.
So China has 2 navies one is a large blue water navy and the other a massive ( numbers wise) regional navy designed to deny the China seas.. the US knows it will need all of its available carriers ( 6 ish) to go anywhere near the China seas..
Iran so who is going to be flattening Iran when it starts with its proxies interdicting western shipping. Isreal is not going to go to war with Iran for the west.. so it means the west will have to keep control of the western and eastern Indian Ocean at the same time it needs to fight in the China seas…
NK is simply a bridge for China to leverage it land forces directly at a liberal democracy.. SK would be utterly buggered in the case of WW3 as it would be fighting NK and Chinese land and air forces.. when it’s essentially strategically isolated..
With the US fully committed to the western pacific and a lot of European navel forces focused on keeping the Indian Ocean trade routes open.. Russia and its satellites are going to be a distracted Europes problem..
The US cannot knock China out of a war.. Europe cannot knock Russia out of a war.. so the conflict will go on for years and years .. the question is are the populations of the west more willing to suffer and more able to threaten their governments when they get pissed off than the Russian and Chinese populations.. especially the Chinese population.. a highly controlled population brainwashed on Han exeptionalism, Chinese destiny and most importantly the need to suffer for its destiny and the party..
Because it’s not who can destroy the other it’s who will give in first.. will the winter fuel and low tax generations actually put up with profound suffering 🤷🏻♂️
Radakin’s might well be right, but I wish people would stop thinking that Russia is acting in a vacuum. They’re not. They are being heavily supported by the other CRINK nations, China, Iran and North Korea. We know North Korean troops have been engaged in fighting Ukraine troops in the Kursk Region, Iran has supplied drones and China is supplying ‘dual use’ technology at the very least. The four countries are supporting each other where and when ever their interests coincide. Russia and North Korea keeping the West’s eyes on Ukraine helps China with regards to Taiwan, and we know that North Korea has been helping Iran with its weapons programs in exchange for much needed funds. Then there is the hacking, attacks on our infrastructure, disinformation campaigns. All of these are just some examples of the activities that are in the public domain what is going on under the radar, and what are the saying to each other? Nothing good, I’d bet.
Radakin’s comments mays have been intended to be reassuring but they sound somewhat over confident. Our air power, for example, will need munitions in significant quantities if it is to stop any Russian incursion and then be able to return to a strong and creditable deterrent posture once the incursion has been blocked and rebuffed. Especially if China then decides to pull a fast one in the Far East…
OT, but related.
Reported this morning on the BBC website; the US is reviewing the AUKUS deal. Nothing unusual in a new administration review major commitments like that, but it is being carried out against the America First policy in particular.
The mood music around the review appears mixed, given that the USN is struggling to get enough SSN to meet its needs and there appears to be a sense that the US is giving too much away.
Even if the US intends to stick with NATO confidence has been shaken, not least because of Trump’s comments regarding Canada and Greenland.
So I hope that there is a fall back plan for the rest of NATO and that applies to the UK / Australian cooperation around SSN’s. If we have to go it alone then, we will be the poorer for it, but the alternative could be further losses to our ability to develop and maintain creditable defence capabilities in the future and that will damage us and out ability to support our allies, including the US.
Cheers CR
I’ll add that the leader of that review is allegedly an AUKUS sceptic. I’m doubtful now that Australia will receive it’s promised American-built SSN fleet.
Why were Astute-class submarines not offered to Australia?
Because Rolls Royce has already moved on from building PWR2. It’s too difficult to build PWR2 and PWR3 at the same time and we can’t afford to further delay the Dreadnoughts. So if we need to alter the submarine design to fit the larger PWR3, we might as well call it SSN-A. Perhaps we shouldn’t be taking as much US tech as we were going to. It might be the Aussies want to take some of the US systems and we don’t, so we need plug and play in the design.
“All of us to get a bit stronger with the USA”- I assume he means that all NATO members should increase their contribution but not to the levels Rutte has been calling for. That is what will probably happen.
If he means cosy up more to the USA, then I don’t agree. It would only work until Trumps next daft demand.
Long term, Europe should move to reduce its dependence on US support. It is far from certain that a future US administration will change the America first policy.
The issue is he has simplified this to the application of kinetic power in a defined time and space.. and that is how you win battles and even campaigns but not how you win wars..win a war is far far more complex than winning a battle.. the west has become incredibly good at winning battles..it’s track record on winning wars since 1945 is essentially awful, because to win a war takes a lot of elements..
1) political will and cohesion.. your population and political powers need to be intune and work seamlessly.. if your population breaks or your political powers break you loss the war.. this is essentially the west’s profound weakness as will the wests populations be willing to suffer..
2) industrial capacity.. the west has generally outsourced huge chunks of its industrial capabilities to potential enemies or nations that may be influenced by its enemies
3) raw materials and resources access.. china seems to have essentially made sure most of the required resources for modern technology sit in its area of influence.
4) manpower..
5) money.. the west does not have sovereign wealth funds and is operating at debts around 100+ percent of GDP..its enemies have huge sovereign wealth funds and have debts of 15-60% of GDP.
So does anyone actually think Russia is going to come out fight a campaign get its arse handed to it and then give up..that’s not what world war three will look like.. china, Russia, Iran and Korean will step up and up political warfare campaigns to spit the west.. then they will take nobles at the edges using grey political warfare actions to give some western nations “opt outs”.. after that if one goes to war with the west they all move to take advantage.. finally they will not give up after the west easily wins the first fights..they will dig in and prepare for years and year of suffering.. they will watch all the worlds economies collapse, knowing that their populations are more use to suffering and they have far more control of their populations than the west.. they will wait for the populations of the west to become disenfranchised and remove their political parties for those parties who will look for peace….
Russia isn’t winning one war right now; crawling forwards, but not winning. Russia poses a threat to western facing nations through subversion and sabotage. Two can play at that and Blighty does it very well so I have heard, thanks.
The Europeans have lived on the American tax payer for decades (the Italian, then German economic reconstruction miracles for example). It was over due to remind them. The scientific and technological expertise of Europe created the modern world and should have no fears for its survival. Get on with it.
You’re making the mistake of treating these as opponents fought in an individual basis.
Would NK be so easily bombed with squadrons from the PLA Air Force stationed there?
Could Iran be “targeted anywhere in country” with Mig-31s and S-400s in theatre?
China’s vast land forces aren’t limited to the mainland. They can fight anywhere they can get to without needing amphibious support, which is still lacking. If North Korean troops can fight in Ukraine, it’s even easier for Chinese forces to appear on the borders of Poland and the Baltic States.
You say that but, that is china just hiding it’s huge blue water navy behind plain sight..amphibious ops wise it’s got
Blue water
1 50,000ton assault ship
4 40,000ton assault ships
8 25,000ton amphibious transport docks
410,000 tones total
Regional
28 4500 ton landing ships
30 700 ton landing ships
Civilian RoRo and other dual purpose craft with strategic sea lift potential ( 15,000ton + RoRo etc)
1.5 million tons.
Essentially china has about 2 million tones of military lift…that is huge.
That’s not including their shadow fleet.
“Gone Fishing on a Spratly Island Shoal” (song)
It’s China saying that 🤷🏻♂️
It’s one of the reasons they believe they’re yet not capable of seizing Taiwan. After 2027 may be a different scenario though.
Regardless, the Chinese aren’t going to sail around the world to launch an amphibious landing against NATO. They’d come by land through Russia.
Indeed but people forget that nations who are trying to deter war will communicate what they have and its capabilities (NATO) nations that want to bluster and will over communicate, nations that are truly on a path to war ( have decided that they are going to attack ) will alway undersell and distract from their capabilities.. that’s china, it has a massive and modern blue water navy that it essentially hides and does not use anywhere near its full capacity.. china perfectly has the infrastructure to have a massive presence in the western and eastern Indian Ocean as well as projecting batttle groups into the med and North Atlantic if so wished.
Russia should be aware of China
China seems to be such a good friend of China Ha Ha
More imminently!
is Israel going to decisively hit Iran?
That could cause s—
Israel is hitting Iran…