Nato vs. Russia: who would win a war?

As Nato condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden dismiss Moscow’s warning against joining military alliance

When Russian troops crossed into Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, Nato was caught flat-footed by Moscow’s sudden and unorthodox military campaign.

Now, with Russian troops once again massing at the Ukrainian border, the international military alliance is keen to avoid a repeat performance.

The two sides are negotiating, with the stated aim of avoiding an armed escalation that would pull in many of the world’s most powerful military forces. But if a conflict cannot be avoided, who stands to lose if Nato and Russian go head-to-head on the battlefield?   

The latest

Finland and Sweden have brushed off warnings from Russia that an effort to join Nato would trigger “serious military-political consequences” for the two countries.

The Russian Foreign Ministry released a statement on Friday in which it accused the US and its allies of attempting to “drag” the two Nordic nations into the military alliance. With conflict already raging in Ukraine, Moscow threatened “retaliatory measures” if Sweden and Finland began efforts to join Nato, The Independent said.

Finnish foreign minister Pekka Haavisto responded to Moscow’s threat on Friday, telling the nation’s public broadcaster YLE: “We’ve heard this before. We don’t think that it calls for a military threat.” 

“Should Finland be Nato’s external border, it rather means that Russia would certainly take that into account in its own defence planning,” she added. “I don’t see anything new as such” in the statement issued by Russia’s Foreign Ministry.

Finland has an 830-mile land border with Russia, the longest border shared by any EU member state and Russia.

The Swedish prime minister, Magdalena Andersson, responded to Moscow’s statement in a joint conference with her most senior military commander, Micael Byden. 

“I want to be extremely clear. It is Sweden that itself and independently decides on our security policy line,” Andersson said.

The Russian statement had warned Sweden and Finland that their “policy of military non-alignment” was “an important factor contributing to stability and security in northern Europe and on the European continent as a whole”.

What is Nato’s capability?

The core principle of Nato’s international military alliance is its system of collective defence, meaning if any member state is attacked by a third party, then every member state must step in to defend it.

Fortunately for countries such as Montenegro, which spends just £67m a year on defence, there are some military big hitters in the alliance. 

The US spends more on defence than double the rest of Nato combined, with 2021 spending estimated at $705bn (£516bn), according to the Department of Defense.

As well as being the biggest defence spender in the world, the US has a powerful arsenal and a huge amount of manpower – 1.3 million active troops, with another 865,000 in reserve, said The New York Times in 2017. The UK is the second biggest overall spender in Nato, putting nearly £50bn into defence annually compared to Germany’s £45bn, France’s £42bn and Italy’s £20bn.

What is Russia’s capability?

Russia’s military capability is not to be sniffed at, easily ranking among the world’s most powerful.

ccording to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, its inventory includes “336 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 2,840 battle tanks, 5,220 armored infantry fighting vehicles, over 6,100 armored personnel carriers and more than 4,684 pieces of artillery”.

But it is lacking in some areas of modern military technology, including drone capability, electronic components, and radar and satellite reconnaissance, Russian journalist and military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told Deutsche Welle.

“That’s what the Russian military is talking about: yes, we have weapons, including long-range weapons, but our reconnaissance capabilities are weaker than our attack capabilities,” Felgenhauer said. “So we have-long range, sometimes precision guided weapons, but we don’t always know where the target is.”

Who would win?

Research published in 2019 by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) found that British forces would be “comprehensively outgunned” in any conflict with Russia in eastern Europe. 

The RUSI found that the British Army and its Nato allies have a “critical shortage” of artillery and ammunition, meaning they would struggle to maintain a credible defence position if Russia were to opt for all-out aggression.

“At present, there is a risk that the UK – unable to credibly fight – can be dominated lower down the escalation ladder by powers threatening escalation,” said RUSI’s report.

But the UK wouldn’t need to stand alone against Russia. And Nato’s biggest player, the US, has an overwhelming advantage over Russia in conventional forces, Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts told Deutsche Welle.

While Felgenhauer agreed with Golt’s assessment of the US’s military advantage, he warned that open warfare often comes down to far more than the inventories that each side of the conflict can call upon. 

He told DW that “it’s like predicting the result of a soccer match”, adding: “Yes, basically, Brazil should beat America in soccer, but I have seen Americans beat Brazil in South Africa, at the Confederations Cup. You never know the result until the game is played.”

Via The Week