NATO ‘isn’t prepared’ for war with Russia | General Sir Richard Shirreff

Let's be clear: if you send NATO troops to Ukraine in a combat role that means war between NATO and Russia, the only way to do it is if you are ready for war with Russia and there is no way NATO will be ready for the war. with Russia right now Hello and welcome to Frontline for Times radio. I'm James Hansen and today we're talking about the latest on the war in Ukraine and I'm delighted to be joined by General Sir Richard Sheriff, former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Europe and the authorization of war with Russia in 2017, an urgent warning from the military high command.

General Sheriff really appreciates his time. Thank you very much for joining us, thank you for inviting me first of all. I wonder if he could give us his assessment of the current situation. State of the war, well, I think the optimism of early spring 2023 has given way to quite a bit of pessimism, frankly, the Russians have the advantage or are gaining the advantage, they have the strategic initiative in the east. the Russians are able to develop capacity lost capacity faster than the Ukrainians are replacing their ammunition they have had over a million artillery attacks 155 or heavy artillery attacks from the North Koreans and the last one uh in the last one since last August last year, about nine months, um and Ukraine is suffering.

Ukraine is finding it very difficult to defend itself against the Russians. We saw the failure of the much-vaunted Ukrainian counteroffensive last summer and late spring, which in my opinion was already over, there was an enormous degree of excess optimism that was widely disseminated by the Western media and the reality is, for Of course, without the air power and without the capability that the West needs to provide to Ukraine, it was never going to be successful, but the Russians are moving forward against that there have been some notable things. Successes of Ukraine I would highlight, for example, the neutralization of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, uh, and doing that without a Navy has been really smart on the part of the Ukrainians, they have used drones and long-range precision missiles, um , so they have been real successes there. uh, and there are fights and of course Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure as well, uh, but I think we have to be quite pessimistic about the prospects for Ukraine this year and it all comes down to the West not providing the capabilities that Ukraine needs .

Ammunition equipment Long-range precision missiles Of course, the $60 million package in Washington has been stalled by Trump's impact in the run-up to the US election, and unless Ukraine obtains the equipment, the ammunition and the long-range missiles it needs. we're going to keep going back and that's really bad news well let's move on to that because in the last 24 hours we've had the UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron visiting Donald Trump in Florida and of course it's Trump who is seen as being the big guy blocking the approval of this renewed US military aid to Ukraine because it would appear that his supporters in Congress are following his lead.

Do you think Donald Trump is persuadable on the Ukraine issue? Don't know. I don't know what it is, I just couldn't comment on Trump, I mean, he's so... I think words fail me when I try and Des, you know, there's very little logic, there's a real Iranian nationality. there and I think we have to be very, very concerned, but the impact of Trump on the elections, um, yes, of course, negative, if Trump gets in, the potential impacts on NATO will be more than negative, but the very threat of a Trump election is forcing NATO now. Thinking a lot about Trump being tested and therefore the actions taken at last week's Foreign Ministers' Summit at NATO, for example the drawing up of a 100 billion euro package of measures for Ukraine without Trump and without the United States is really good.

The news and Trump's impact is forcing European NATO members and I would include Canada in that as well. Canada should not be exempt from thinking really carefully about how they can prove Trump's support for Ukraine, but there is another point here, it is a strategic point that NATO has provided and the United States has provided the equipment for which the decision has been to provide the equipment necessary to avoid the defeat of Ukraine, as we have seen, that is not working, it is still not good enough and it is running out of sand and it has been done with the current capacity there has been no mobilization of the military industrial base nor contracts of long-term ammunition multi-year ammunition contracts uh uh agreed with the industry and the consequence of that is that it is not enough, the only thing that is going to work, frankly, is if NATO changes its strategy not to avoid defeat but to achieve victory over Russia, because only victory over Russia will provide Ukraine and Europe with the security it needs and its allies, NATO will at the same time have to form a very, very powerful alliance. and a strong deterrent capability around Ukraine to include Ukraine in NATO and that is something that will be with us for generations to come or at least for a generation, but

general

, why do you think that has not happened until now?

I'm sure it is. There will be many people watching or listening to our regular Frontline viewers who will think that the West should have aimed to help Ukraine defeat Russia from the beginning, it all comes down to political vision, it comes down to political leadership and it comes down to morality . the courage of our top political leaders and all three of them are in deficit, that's the answer to your question and when we talk about Trump testing NATO specifically what that looks like, I mean in terms of minimum defense spending, there has been a lot of discussion in In fact, Donald Trump himself, when he was president, pointed out the fact that in his VI too many NATO countries and it was probably a fair point were not spending enough on defending spending, there is the 2% minimum. of GDP if it increases to a base of two. and a half to 3% What does Trump's test look like in practice?

Well, you're right. Trump was right, as have many American presidents and secretaries of state who have highlighted the imbalance between the American contribution to NATO and the European Canadian contribution. contribution to NATO, so what does it mean for Trump to test NATO? Well, number one means that Trump tries measures to support Ukraine and give Ukraine the means to achieve victory and that will have to come from the Europeans and the NATO members and Canada, number two. It means spending the money necessary to give us our military capability The Edge now clearly needs and is an arbitrary figure 2%.

It was interesting to hear James Heape on the news this morning talking about two 2.5% now and a 3% promise uh in the manifestos of the two main parties for the elections, my own opinion, 3% is probably the minimum, but the key is output not input it's what you get for your money and that requires a hard look at defense uh in the UK needs a particularly deep look at how to rebuild the military to be a world class military with manpower, equipment, sustainability, logistics and training, that is necessary to provide a real advantage in NATO and it is about generating production, not just thinking in

general

terms of our percentages of GDP, do we need Be more creative?

Last week I was speaking on the front line with economist Timothy Ash, who has been very adamant that he believes now is the time, in fact, he believes that we should have done it months ago to use frozen Russian assets to funding military aid to Ukraine, we should absolutely rethink that and I think Timothy Gart Nash is absolutely on the money there and it's one of many measures that needs to be looked at and it all comes down to the audacity to take risks and and and and and put your head up. above parity and this goes back to my points about political leadership and moral courage that have frankly been lacking.

I would also go further and say that in the purely military sense we have to be creative. We should not rule out anything in order to do what needs to be done, even if it is necessary. Look kind of Scandinavian style. limited recruitment to overcome army manpa problems all these issues need to be looked at nothing should be off the table what about what president macron hinted at a few weeks ago about sending troops from

nato

countries if not to facing and certainly, Ukraine, do you think that is feasible? I think it is absolutely feasible and I think President Macr is absolutely right to raise these issues.

I would say two things, one is that President Macron's message would have much more weight if France did it. More in terms of support to Ukraine, if you look at what Germany is providing, France is far behind the curve in terms of actual material and ammunition support. I think the second point I would like to make is the sending of thousands of NATO members. military troops to Ukraine is, in a sense, the last resort. The way to avoid the last resort is to provide Ukraine with the munitions, long-range missiles and other capabilities it needs so that it does not have to send NATO troops to Ukraine. because let's be clear if you send NATO troops to Ukraine in a combat role that means war between NATO and Russia and the only way to do that is if you are ready for war with Russia and there is no way NATO is ready for war with Russia right now I mean it's very interesting that you say that NATO is not ready for war with Russia because there might be some who would argue that it's actually Vladimir Putin's nature that you have to take his head. that appeasing him will not work and that the West should have been more

prepared

at this time to potentially, if necessary, confront Putin and I am one of those, the only way to deal with Russia is to show force at any time. sign of weakness and Russia will investigate and continue to investigate and take advantage of you, that has always been the Russian way and remains the Russian way, so the only way, the only solution, therefore, is to show strength and ​establish strength. build our Armed Forces to provide a truly strong deterrence capability, there can be no appeasement, Putin's appeasement only leads to greater takeovers of his part and the only way to compensate for that is to demonstrate real strength and justice.

Returning to this point about the US and military aid that is currently being held up in Congress, do you think it is too easy for European NATO leaders to focus on US issues, while, as you He says, in general, We know that there is a problem with the amount of military aid that France has provided. There is a discussion about whether the Germans should provide tourist missiles, for example. Should we ask ourselves deeper questions? In Europe, we should absolutely ask ourselves. You are asking deeper questions. I mean, I listen continuously if I listen to the Daily Telegraph Ukraine, Ukraine, the latest podcast published daily.

I'm not a reader of the Daily Telegraph but I have to say it's very good and provides a very good update. about what is happening, you will hear our Prime Minister Rishi Sunak talk about giving Ukraine the means to do the job and they will get it done. Slava Ukraine, well, it's all talk. Britain did a very good job at the beginning but Britain has run out of ammunition they have run out of weapons they have run out of tanks we can send and we can't provide the equipment and if two years ago Britain the British government the mod had allowed a series of multi-year ammunition contracts that spanned five, if not 10 years, he had invested in If he had invested more equipment in ammunition, he had invested in defense, he could do more, so it's the kind of thing that you know .

Go back to this talk, talk, talk, it sounds great, but really, where is the problem? And I guess that's the problem politicians always have. It's the politics of all of this and the economics of all of this and the overall cost of providing Ukraine with the military support it needs. I mean, you know, there is discussion about how much defense spending should increase if the UK committed to 2.5%. rises to 3% and if the UK's two main parties were to express this in their Manifesto for the next general election, the difficulty is in the UK and around the world there are huge spending pressures in all areas of government and politically , a trustee might say that there are enormous spending pressures in all areas of government.

There are no votes on defense. Do you think there is political will to really communicate to the public the need to increase defense spending to the required level? Of course there are spending pressures, but I would put it this way: this war in Ukraine. It is not just a war against Ukraine it is a war against Ukraine it is a war against the West and it is a war against Ukraine joining the West this is a war if you ask any Russian they will think that this is a war against NATO and if not I don'tWe will provide Ukraine with the means to achieve victory.

Don't get your hopes up. Putin will continue the movement we are in. We have in Europe, on our eastern border, an angry revanchist Russia determined to rebuild a Russian Empire determined to swallow Ukraine and once it is swallowed. Ukraine will move forward, move on, continue to end, end the occupation. The invasion, uh, will finish the job that began in Georgia in 2008 and will most likely pass on to one of the Baltic states, if not all, they were all part of the Soviet Empire and, in fact, part of the first Empire, so They think that the Baltic states, the Russians, consider them theirs, if that happens, it is a war with NATO, that is, all that is war. that is, Britain is engaged in an existential struggle with Russia, how much more effective it will be, how much more profitable, to increase defense spending now, yes, of course, it will have an impact on infrastructure and transport, and, and, education and the NHS, but I can tell you that unless we do this we face the prospect of total catastrophe and that is why we need to dig deeper now and that is why our political leaders need to explain to the British people, to the British electorate, what that what is at stake is because there is very, very high General, we just go back to the situation on the front line in Ukraine right now.

It was interesting that General Buinov General Bov of Ukraine did an interview with German television, I think recently, in which he said that He anticipates a new Russian offensive in the late spring and early summer as things stand, given what we've been discussing about the need for more supplies for Ukraine, how do you think they'll deal with that? How do you think Ukraine will resist that? Offensive well with difficulty unless they are given more exactly is what we have been talking about before exactly as I said at the beginning of the discussion unless Ukraine is given the ability to resist the munitions the long-range position missiles the and and the military equipment that they need, they will find it very, very difficult and if that happens, if there is a Russian counteroffensive in the spring and late summer, unless Ukraine is given the capabilities, I would anticipate potentially significant amounts of Ukrainian land They would be captured again. on Russia's part, that's very interesting because actually what we've seen in the last few months, yes, Russia has made some small incremental advances, for example capturing AF Diva, but we haven't really seen any significant advances, but do you think that that could change in the coming months.

If we're not careful, I wouldn't really rule it out. I think the Ukrainians will defend extremely effectively. What I'm saying is that I think potentially Russia could take back more territory, whether there's a breakthrough or not depends entirely again. My point above about giving Ukraine the means to defend itself, but more than that, the means to finally defeat Russia and we are a long way from that. I mentioned General Bov a few moments ago, of course, we have seen some changes in the Ukrainian military leadership. In recent months, general uction has been replaced by RI. Have you noticed any changes in Ukraine's operational strategy since that transition?

I think it's difficult from this distance to comment on that, but what I would say. Is it completely understandable to replace a senior general who has carried the burden of Ukraine's defense and achieved extraordinary successes in the first months of the war, two years later? I mean, people get IT and and and and maybe new IT. You need to think, but what you have to be very careful with is the widespread movement and removal of personnel, which disturbs the balance, disturbs the teamwork, disturbs the dynamics. from headquarters and can cause a degree of confusion OFA rather than uh, where you need, you need.

Manage any side changes carefully, and while Ukraine is in this difficult position of waiting for new Western military aid, what really is its best strategy? I mean, they've been successful, as you mentioned, general, you know it's been phenomenally successful in terms of elimination. Much of the Black Sea Fleet around the Sasap pole we have also seen some of their attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil refineries are now forcing Russia to import gas from Kazakhstan, so they have had really significant success. He believes it is his best strategy for the next few months given that we have this stalemate with Western military aid.

I think that again and again I would not doubt the Ukrainian command, but I do think that if I were in that position, I would be. scking looking looking to hold on to dig deep literally dig deep uh build defensive capabilities build defensive fortifications strengthen my defense to allow me to develop capacity to train uh with new equipment new capacity to commission new equipment and build with a view to launching offensives further down, but the absolute priority is to keep the Sheriff General just to go back to Donald Trump and what effect that can have on NATO and I appreciate that a bit like it's almost impossible to read Vladimir Putin's mind.

It's almost impossible to read Donald Trump's mind, but do you think he would withdraw the United States from NATO? It is something that has been speculated about. He recently did an interview in which he seems to deny it, but do you think we should be making preparations for a possible US withdrawal from NATO, where Trump will be re-elected. I think you have to think about assuming the worst case scenario and be happy if the worst case scenario doesn't happen. I am referring to the reality of an American withdrawal from NATO, yes, the United States, NATO. The alliance may be able to prepare for the future in the ways we have discussed above, but the bottom line is that the alliance would find that European NATO members and Canada would find it truly impossible, if not impossible, to completely replace all capabilities. that the United States brings to the NATO part, so, what, then, start preparing, start thinking about it, start arming, it's about spending on defense and building multi-year contracts and developing your military industrial complex and their capabilities.

He very well could, uh, but even if Trump does it, I think there's a high probability that even if he doesn't take the United States out of the alliance, the United States will become sort of a sleeper partner in the alliance, still in the alliance. but without exercising power. Provide the full set of American capabilities that can still influence things there and that's obviously something we would expect, so even if it doesn't withdraw the United States from NATO completely, it might as well just cease the military in the first place. in Ukraine, but potentially even push for immediate peace talks with Russia.

He said he would end the war within 24 hours and said he would encourage Russia to attack any NATO member that does not meet spending requirements. I mean, wild, wild, deeply irresponsible. Let's talk and be clear: ending the war in 24 hours would mean nothing more than another 1938 Munich. Putin would rebuild, recover, retrain, regenerate and try again to finish the job he started in 2014. I wonder about the issue of Trump, I mean, I started this conversation talking about David Cameron, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and now Foreign Secretary, his visit to Florida to see him in the last 24 hours.

It's interesting that another former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, who has been a great friend of Ukraine and under him, of course. You know there was a large number of UK military provided to Ukraine. He appeared to endorse Trump for re-election in November, which to me seems completely at odds with his promised support for Ukraine. Can you make any sense of that? At all, it is a very curious situation. Finally, General, we really appreciate his time on the front lines. I wonder where you see Russia's alliances. There has been a lot of talk about them getting an Iranian wizard to direct the drones.

It is also interesting that Russian Foreign Minister Ser Lavro has been meeting with Chinese officials amid warnings that China is increasingly helping Russia's defense industrial base. Where do you see Russia and its Alliance being at the moment? Well, I think Russia, I mean, is receiving material support from North Korea. support from Iran and you mentioned accusations of indirect support from China, which I am sure is absolutely true. I think the broader problem with Russia is the reality that much of the global South sympathizes with Russia, I mean the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, for example. they will remember the role, especially if you go to countries like Zimbabwe, they will remember the role that the Soviet Union played in their anti-colonial struggles, so there will be a natural sympathy for Russia, Russia is very aligned with South Africa and other countries like that, etc. and the West really has to focus on winning the strategic narrative or the battle of the strategic narrative, uh, and persuading, and you know, another country that India has in India at the beginning of the war oh s in the invasion in February. 2022 was getting 10% of its oil from Russia since then, now something like 40% of its oil imports come from Russia, so in a very real sense, India is financing, uh, the bank is rolling the offensive military capability of the Russian defense limit, uh, and there are too many. countries around the world sitting on the fence and watching Russia's genocidal activities without denouncing Russia and is there more we can do to tighten the screw on nations like India with whom we have relatively good and strong relations?

Is there anything else we can do? I think it's better to ask a diplomat rather than a soldier about that question, but I mean, what I'm saying is that the battle of strategic narrative hasn't really been won by the West yet. The United Kingdom and I think a lot of influence from the United Kingdom could help win that narrative together with our other allies and friends, of course, General Richard Sheriff really appreciates his time. Thank you very much for joining us on the front lines today.