Russia is not seeking a direct war with NATO, the head of Britain’s Armed Forces has said.
In an interview with Sky News, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the Chief of the Defence Staff, acknowledged that global tensions had increased, describing the situation as “a bit more dangerous.”
However, he reassured that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not interested in escalating the conflict to involve NATO directly.
“Putin does not want a war with NATO. Putin does not want a nuclear war. And we have enormous overmatch because of the strength of NATO,” Admiral Radakin explained.
The military chief discussed the importance of careful language when discussing the current geopolitical climate. He cautioned against drawing parallels with the prelude to the Second World War, stating, “We’ve got to be very careful that we distinguish between the really severe and deep threats in the late 1930s and then how we entered into a world war, and not use loose language that we’re somehow on the cusp of a world war now.”
Despite the heightened risks, Admiral Radakin sought to reassure the public, saying, “The world’s got a bit more dangerous. But we should be reassured by all that we’ve got in place.”
The interview with Sky News was conducted to mark the 80th anniversary of D-Day, a significant milestone in military history.
“Russia ‘not looking for direct confrontation with NATO’”
Great, then get TF out of Ukraine and stop being dick in the world at large.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Ukraine is not in NATO.
Are you really THAT naive?
I must be naive as well, when did Ukraine join NATO?
About a month or two after Frodo thrown the One Ring into Mount Doom.
💯
Agree. Although I am not sure Radakin is correct, Russia under Mad Vlad seems very willing and able to try to distract and damage NATO via hybrid warfare. He is more than happy enough to deploy chemical weapons in Salisbury, to assassinate his opponents in foreign countries.
You can guarantee our sub sea and internet cables are rigged to be severed the very minute any conflict erupts between NATO and Russia/ China.
Going on record to downplay the Russian threat is akin to appeasement. How does Radakin know what he thinks he knows. Putin is a proven pathological liar.
I would imagine the Admiral knows a bit more than you do ! Don’t embaress yourself.
A (slightly) bigger navy (and airforce and army) can’t come soon enough. I tend to agree with you. Top Brass can say what they like and they should know. All the weaker spots of the country’s defences should be being addressed, like undersea cables, even satellites, exposed radar facilities and the fact that there’s next to no GBAD anywhere in UK especially over ports, bases and other critical infrastructures. All very exposed and this sort of situation should be resolvable. We have to leave it in others hands and hope to God it is getting done. The D-Day coverage on… Read more »
The chief of the defence staff says Russia doesn’t want a war the same week the “Prime Minister” says we will be bringing back national service.
More Tory chaos.
How is this Tory chaos? The statement said Russia is not seeking DIRECT confrontation with NATO. This has been Putin’s (and others) policy for some time: to instigate conflict at a level just below that which triggers NATO directives. And those threats have definitely escalated in recent years, including to the UK.
It’s chaos because Rishi Sunak just announced plans to begin national service.
You can’t have the CDS saying all is well and we have over match and the PM saying we need to draft 18 years olds because our security is so bad.
Tory Chaos
And IF Labour pull our SF, our Intelligence assets and other forces out of the Grey zone countering Russia China as they’re not in the NATO area that’s hardly helping matters is it.
And that Grey zone is exactly below the threshold of conflict that Trevor describes.
Never mind Tory chaos, I fear the Labour party is incredibly naive.
Not saying it’s a good idea but you do realise that all 18 yr olds were NOT going to go into the military don’t you? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon and not reading or listening to what was actually said.
How can you know that when there is no actual policy, it’s just an announcement made up on the spot.
Funny enough it’s called listening to what the man said on more than one occasion and taking notice not jumping on a sound bite and shouting it to the world🙄
I very much doubt The Prime Minister consulted Sir Tony. This dreadfully lame ‘national (sic) service’ policy was the last gasp of a nincompoop government that, realising it had neither moral backbone or mental ability to deal with very real and actual issues, seized upon the possibly worst idea after flying illegal economic migrants to Central Africa. The issues that need addressing are, I imagine, close to the hearts of anyone sitting on a bus, but not this nor any conceivable at time of writing government we shall see elected on 4th July. The moral courage simply isn’t to be… Read more »
It’s pretty clear Rishi didn’t even consult the cabinet much less the Military about his draft plans, that’s the Tory chaos, policy dreamt up on the back of a fag packet at the last minute.
It’s easy when all you do is lie and have no intentions to actually follow through.
Its an attempt to hide the frankly awful force levels and numbers of personnel in the armed forces after 15 years of yes Tory chaos and nothing but cuts, cuts, cuts.
National service is not required. What is required is a correctly resourced armed forces with pay and conditions able to attract people into the services and retain them longer term so they have fulfilling careers serving our nation.
Harder to achieve that though- It would cost more money to do a proper job.
As i understood it , the plan of some sort of National Service was discussed with the Military about six or seven months ago,they aired their views and put the case that it was a non flier.Having thought the idea was safely tucked away never to be heard of again they were as surprised as the rest of us when it was announced.
The fact they were surprised surprises me even less than thesurprise the annoucement caused in the first place….
The Tory chaos results from their abandonment of ‘one nation conservatism’ and goes pari passu with the decline of the C of E: both organisations have committed hara kiri. If we see a labour govt with a large majority the country needs a rational and decently sized opposition. We are entering a new era. Hold on to your hat.
What people do not want to happen is not always the same as what does not happen. We continue to creep a little further into the Ukraine conflict each month, ie by authorising the use of Nato weapons for strikes inside Russia itself. I’m not saying we shouldnt be doing this, but continue far enough down this path and we will continue to risk a misunderstanding or crossing of a line that dramatically escalates everything. Don’t see any alternatives necessarily, just being wary about the difference between Putin not wanting a war and Putin not getting a way (after all… Read more »
‘We’ are not creeping anywhere. several countries independently contributed arms to Ukraine from early in Putin’s war; the Anglo-french have already helped to sink major elements of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The Ukrainians are fighting. We are watching. If or when the Ukrainians stop fighting the war ends. Excuse me if I don’t tell them when that should be for my convenience.
What matters first is the British national interest. Is it in Britain’s interest to just continue escalating to the point where a nuclear confrontation could result? To what extent is Britain prepared to risk that? What is the stop line? … those are legitimate questions for the UK to be asking itself, irrespective of whatever the Ukrainian interest might be.
So. Putin threatens nuclear holocaust so we should all just bow down and allow Russia to do unto others whatever it wants?
That’s cowardly and appeasement.
Russia is a bully. Bullies need standing up to and occasionally punching hard in the face to teach them a lesson.
So true. In fact I agree that Ukrainian interest is not the same as British or French interest. But saying we should bow because Russia is making nuclear threats is simply not right, as this kind of blackmail could happen any time. And then, it may be interesting to consider one thing: If Ukraine loses, who will be next, how could we defend the five next countries? Would having to do so be in UK or France best interest?
At the end of the Cold War, NATO countries started to wind down their military industries, but the autocracies (Russia, Iran, China) never did. So it can be argued that they don’t want war with NATO, but they are certainly prepared for it.
Um, what? Russia’s military industry is a shadow of the USSRs.
But still at a larger capacity than many Western countries, plus factor in supplies from Iran and China, North Korea, so I am still of the opinion that collectively they are prepared better for attrition.
“But still at a larger capacity than many western countries.” It also was such in 1980, but the gap is considerably narrowed.
They are definitely not prepared for a conflict with NATO. It is taking all of Russia’s military strength and national mobilisation to hold a very small area of Ukraine. That does not say much for Russia’s wider military capability.
I agree. And what is more, Russian doctrine suggests that they also agree. Hence the emphasis in Russian doctrine on nuclear escalation in any wider conflict. Tactical nuclear forces is the one area where the Russians have an advantage. Apparently, the Russians came close to nuclear use in late 2022. On GPS: Did Russia consider using nuclear weapons in Ukraine? | CNN
I think there needs to be a cautionary note added to your comment. The Ukrainian army is making the Russians fight for every metre of land they capture. It is a brave and heroic defence. That is why Russia is bogged down and suffering huge attritional loses.
That and frankly their inability to conduct combined arms warfare
👍
Thanks, great ,excellent. That will be ceased on every politician to slash the defence budget further.
The very reason they don’t want to tangle with NATO is its perceived strength but that will quickly evaporate if we don’t bring the country’s defences back up to scratch.
Because they know they’d get their $hit kicked in if they did.
Can you be less technical ? Most of us readers are layman, Thank You
Sorry, I’ll try to use laymans terms in the future 😂
I believe the layman’s term is “receiving the excremental boot”
Russia’s that poker player who has a sht hand but keeps doubling down hoping that Thier opponent will take fright and fold. Issue is, they’ve done this one to many times, and now we are calling their bluff, to which they are doubling down again, and again.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they performed a live nuclear weapons test.
Long term they are toast. They’ve succeeded in uniting NATO and making people believe that they are a problem and a threat.
“Putin does not want a war with NATO. Putin does not want a nuclear war. And we have enormous overmatch because of the strength of NATO…” Putin didn’t want any kind of war. He initially wanted to bribe Ukraine, and when that worked it was met by the Maidan revolution. Frustrated, he annexed Crimea and sent little green men into the Donbas. Years later that still hadn’t brought Ukraine to heel, so he tried a fast overwhelming strike against Kiev. Even then he didn’t want to call it a war, he called it a Special Military Operation, closing his eyes… Read more »
You have got it in one. Few start out wanting outright war…one can sleep walk into it, much like the Great War. I fear that we are ill prepared for such an eventuality, what’s more I find certain people’s overconfidence just as dangerous and unhelpful.
Cold hard facts and a healthy dash of ‘worst case scenario’ planning are needed. That means we must re-arm with a sense of genuine purpose. Whether it is Russia today, or China tomorrow, or another threat, the UK and Europe are utterly underprepared for a conventional war, and that must change.
Good Evening, Russia does not want a conflict with NATO? If they continue they will have it. The question is are British forces strong enough and NATO prepared? Will Labour in power ensure the damage created under Conservative incompetence is repaired? 2.5% or increase to 3.5% or perhaps more as per Polands example as well as some Baltic states?
Let’s hope before it’s to late ladies and Gentlemen (and Diverse).
Nick
I think we would have to be at war for Labour to elevate Defence to the top of its agenda. Labour is committed to too much other spending surely.
As are all governments Mark, look at what the Tories have done. No longer can they ever be allowed to call themselves the party of defence. When they have just spent 15 years cutting our armed forces to a shadow of their former selves.
Mr Bell as with all elections the key consideration is which is the least worst candidate. I had the joy of one of the recent by-elections where I was clearly told on the doorstep that the Labour plan for the Royal Navy was a coastal defence force. Remember that 99% of the Labour MPs standing will be those that stood side by side with Corbyn. It doesn’t matter what the manifesto says – Keir can be swept away quickly along with his promises which are designed to get him into power – not necessarily ones even he intends on keeping.… Read more »
Agree Nick- after 15 years of Tory cuts and incompetence we can only hope that Labour will be able to turn things around. However the Tories are leaving behind a scorched earth economy with little to no financial wiggle room and a huge national debt, ratchetted up under the Tories from around 70% of our national GDP , at the beginning of the Tory “reign of disaster”, to well over 110% now. Dodgy PPE contracts, overpaying for literally everything, mismanagement, the paying of furlough during the pandemic, the financial credit crunch and underwriting the banks. The pensions triple lock, and… Read more »
Whilst l’m liking your optimism Mr Bell, I can’t see Labour being enthusiastic on defence spend expansion. I tend to go on past history which is not a great reflection for either Tory or Labour post the 2004 defence review.
Still, I do hope you are correct in your analysis.
So…if they really don’t want conflict with NATO and by all metrics would be defeated in short order in a conventional conflict why the hell are NATO not ordering Russia to get the hell out of Ukraine? There are numerous red lines Russia has already crossed in the conflict including crimes against humanity, use of rape as a weapon of war, pillaging, targeting civilians and deploying chemical weapons. If demented Joe and daft Johnson hadn’t simply stated they would not defend Ukraine the war would never have happened. They practically invited Russia to invade by going on record and stating… Read more »
Both USA, UK and RF signed the Budapest memorandum to protect Ukraine. . The reason that kaputin was confident that his actions would have no consequences was the US and Allies conduct in Afghanistan which showed that USA could not be relied on. . Specifically when #45 did a ‘really great deal’ with the taliban and not the national government or Allies. His misunderstanding of Diplomacy caused the national government and armed forces to collapse so there was no avoiding a panic exit and much blood and treasure lost. . So #45 gave permission to the FSB run Crimlin to… Read more »
I don’t think the Kaiser was actively seeking a war with the British Empire either.
WW1 was basically a War born out of Treaty Obligations – some parallels to the situation today.
No they do not want to go toe to toe with NATO as they know they would get their butts kicked. Tgat is why they keep rattling the nuclear sabre… that’s all they have left. That bluff has now been called so often even the Germans are starting to doubt it.