British army not as strong as it should be because of ‘historic underinvestment’ says defence chief

Britain’s army is not as strong as it should be because of “historic underinvestment”, the head of the military has admitted, with “deficiencies in people, equipment, stockpiles, training and technology”.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the chief of defence staff, said there was a need for “humility” to recognise the limitations and “near-term financial challenges” faced by our armed forces.

But he said Russia, the main adversary of the West, has been hugely damaged by brutal losses in Ukraine and will take a decade or more to rebuild its military strength to the level it had at the time of Vladimir Putin’s invasion and rectify the shortcomings exposed.

And he rejected the idea that conscription was needed, as proposed in the Conservative manifesto at the election. Baltic and Nordic nations “are talking about mass resilience and conscription”, he said. “That is understandable. They border Russia. The threat is close. Our geography is different.”

Keir Starmer’s new government has committed to raising defence spending to 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product but has not said when it will meet that aim.

“There are near-term financial challenges to work through,” said Admiral Radakin. “We are addressing historic underinvestment. And beneath the headline capabilities, there are deficiencies in people, equipment, stockpiles, training and technology.”

He sought to refute critical comparisons made by some analysts between Russian and British military capabilities, pointing out that UK forces would be fighting alongside Nato partners in any conflict with Putin.

“It’s frustrating when I hear commentators contrasting Britain’s capabilities with those of Russia without acknowledging the context that we will only ever fight a war with Russia or any other peer aggressor alongside our allies and partners,” he told the Land Warfare conference at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. “The Nato overmatch against Russia is enormous.”

Putin may threaten the nuclear option if a major conflict broke out with the West, he said, and one way to ensure he does not go down that path is to demonstrate that Nato is united and strong

“There is the conundrum of deterrence: that it is because of the disparity in conventional forces that Putin might be tempted to raise the nuclear spectre,” said Admiral Radakin. “Paradoxically, this is precisely why we must continue to strengthen and extend our conventional overmatch so that we are never confronted with that scenario.”

Nato, he pointed out, is growing from 30 to 32 nations; 23 member states now spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence, compared to just three members a decade ago. And the combined 3.2 million uniformed personnel “already outmatch Russia’s 1.2 million.” New member Sweden brings an additional 25,000 active personnel and 40,000 reserves, while Finland adds another 23,000 regulars and 280,000 reserves. On any measure of conventional strength – troops, tanks, armoured vehicles, fast jets, submarines – the alliance is battle-ready, he said.

He warned, however, that Russia could offer a clandestine threat rather than a conventional attack under which a Nato state would invoke the Article 5 clause on mutual aid.

“Putin may not directly attack a Nato member in such an overt manner as to trigger Article 5, we have seen that he’s able to threaten us in other ways, in cyber and space and underwater where our energy infrastructure and digital networks are most vulnerable,” Admiral Radakin said.

“Our role as military leaders is to reassure the nation and stiffen its resolve. And our advice to ministers needs to be grounded in a thorough and honest assessment of the threats we face.

“Yes, the threats can change and evolve, which is why we keep them under review and test them against the intelligence we receive from our allies.”