Russia vs. Nato: who would win in a war?

Nato jets intercepted Russian drones in Poland in the alliance’s first direct military engagement with Moscow since the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022.

Both Polish and Nato jets responded to the violation of Polish airspace, which occurred during a Russian aerial attack on Ukraine. “There was an unprecedented violation of Polish airspace by drone-type objects,” the Polish military operational command said in a statement. “This is an act of aggression that posed a real threat to the safety of our citizens.”

The incident has “thrust Nato’s collective defence principles into the spotlight”, said Al-Jazeera. Being a Nato member, a drone attack on Poland “could trigger Article 5 of the Nato treaty”, meaning that all other Nato countries, including the US, would be compelled, under the mutual assistance clause, to come to their aid. And, together, their substantial firepower could give Nato the edge in all-out war.

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Nato’s military power

The return of Donald Trump to the White House at the beginning of the year has forced other Nato members to boost defence allocations in a bid to keep the US – the primary guarantor in alliance – onside.

America is by far Nato’s biggest player and spends almost as much on defence as the next 10 spenders in the world combined. Its total in 2023 was about $916 billion (£715 billion), according to Statista – nearly 40% of the total military spending worldwide that year. The UK sits in sixth place, with spending of $74.9 billion (£60 billion).

Amid fears the US could even pull out of the alliance, Nato members in June agreed to an ambitious 2035 target of spending 5% GDP on defence. While the US commitment “should remain iron-clad,” said a Washington Post editorial at the time, it was only right Europe should take up more of the burden so that Washington can “make major investments” to confront the rise of China. This is still worth it to Europe: Nato is “worth fighting, and spending, to preserve”.

Nato’s resources have also been bolstered by the accession of two new member states since the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine: Finland, which joined in April 2023, and Sweden, which was admitted in March 2024 after a two-year struggle to overcome vetoes from Hungary and Turkey.

While both have large defence industries and advance military capabilities, the biggest contribution the two new members bring to the table is “geostrategic”, said the US Institute of Peace think-tank, their location shoring up the alliance’s exposed northeastern flank and shielding the Baltic states, regarded as most vulnerable to future Russian aggression.

But as well as how much governments spend, how they spend that money is also important. “Duplicate and incompatible capabilities” are a problem: there are 178 weapon systems types and 17 different makes of tank in the EU alone, said the BBC. Defence contracts tend to be negotiated years in advance and production takes a long time so untangling inefficiencies and pooling resources would not be quick or easy.

Collectively, the 32 members of Nato can field a “powerful, and modern fighting force,” said Kyiv Independent, “but – its European contingent at least – faces ammunition shortages, a fragmented defence industry, and insufficient air defence coverage”.

Western armies, with their artillery and armoured vehicles, are out of date whereas “it is Ukraine that today has perhaps the most combat-ready army in Europe”, wrote Oleg Dunda, a member of parliament for Ukraine, in The Spectator. The US has more weaponry but Ukraine’s army is unique in having adapted to the new, mostly electronic, unmanned systems that are the most successful elements of the Russian barrage. A potential invasion of the Baltic states might not involve a single tank.

“It will be unexpected: with communication blackouts, drone strikes on infrastructure and civilian convoys in uniform without identification marks,” said Dunda. “Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania may simply wake up as part of Russia. Without a single shot fired by Nato." An invasion of the Baltics could happen at any time, including while Russia is still fighting in Ukraine. Europe does not necessarily have much time to prepare but it is not necessary to spend 5% of GDP, as Nato chief Mark Rutte is pushing for, because drones cost a lot less than nuclear submarines and are more effective for the war ahead.

There is also the question of how Nato’s untested “mutual assistance” agreement would play out in the event of an attack by Russia on a member state.

The latest German intelligence assessment “suggests Putin may seek to challenge how seriously that commitment would be honoured”, said UK Defence Journal. In a February report, Danish intelligence said Russia could engage in a local war with a neighbouring country within six months and pose a credible threat to one or more Nato countries within two years.

Russia’s military power

Despite international sanctions and its well-publicised struggles in Ukraine, Russia has “accelerated its military production”, said UK Defence Journal. Military spending has surged to an estimated €120 billion (£103 billion) in 2025 – equivalent to over 6% of GDP – nearly quadrupling the country’s 2021 defence budget.

The German intelligence service and army “believe the Russian war economy is generating more output than is required solely for operations in Ukraine”, suggesting it could be preparing for a wider confrontation.

Earlier this year, Putin launched Russia’s biggest conscription drive in over a decade, as he looks to boost the number of active servicemen to 1.5 million. While this would give Russia a bigger army than the US alone, it still falls well behind Nato’s collective might. According to Statista, Nato has 3,439,197 active soldiers, compared to Russia's current 1,320,000. Russia has only about 4,292 military aircraft compared with Nato’s combined 22,377, and 419 military ships compared to Nato’s 1,143. Russia is decisively outnumbered by Nato for tanks (5,750 to 11,495), and in terms of armoured vehicles overall its stock of 131,527 is dwarfed by Nato's 971,280.

The two forces are evenly matched in terms of known nuclear capability, with the Nato nuclear powers – the US, UK and France – able to field 5,559 nuclear warheads to Russia's 5,580.

Russia's war economy has so far remained remarkably resilient in the face of Western sanctions. This has allowed its “military-industrial complex to churn out tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, missiles, ammunition and artillery pieces”, said Al Jazeera.

While it continues to make slow but steady gains on the battlefield, Russia is also “ramping up its war machine at breakneck speed”, said United 24. According to Ukrainian military intelligence, Moscow plans to produce 2,500 missiles, nearly 250 tanks, 1,100 armoured vehicles, and 57 advanced fighter jets by the end of the year.

These ambitious production targets reveal preparations not only for its war against Ukraine but also for a potential confrontation with Nato by 2030.

A full-scale attack on a Nato member is not as far-fetched as it might seem, according to Germany's chief of defence, General Carsten Breuer. Russia has been producing “hundreds of tanks a year”, he told the BBC – enough to attack a Nato Baltic state by the end of the decade.

And the ammunition supplies that Russia is also producing, such as drones, missiles and artillery shells, aren't all going to the war in Ukraine; “there's a build-up of the stocks”, too, the general said. He identified the Suwałki Gap, an area on the Russian border with Poland, Lithuania and Belarus as the most “vulnerable” area for an invasion that “could trigger a larger war between Russia and the US”.

The cost of war

Fatalities and displacement of people would be the immediate human cost of a Russian attack on one of its Baltic neighbours and the effect on the wider economy would be a drop in global output by 1.3% or $1.5 trillion (£1.1 trillion) in the first year according to Bloomberg Economics. That figure includes the direct cost of destruction in the warzone, higher energy prices as supply from Russia is cut off, and a sell-off in financial markets.

Who would win then?

Despite small signs of improvement, “Russia is in no shape to take on Nato”, with the alliance having been “revitalised” by the invasion of Ukraine, said Al Jazeera.

Even without the US, the collective military capability of Nato members is “formidable”, said George Allison in The Telegraph.

“The technological sophistication and interoperability of Nato forces significantly amplify their combat effectiveness.” The alliance's “strength resides in its ability to leverage cutting-edge technology and integrated command structures to conduct operations adaptable to the battlefield’s rapidly changing circumstances”.

With an integrated command structure developed over decades, better trained and equipped troops and the “notable difference in the quality of Western weapons, all this adds up to the conclusion that Nato would quickly prevail in any conventional war against Russia”, said Al Jazeera.

Yet herein lies the “danger”: that “a series of defeats might force Moscow to use tactical nuclear weapons or face total defeat”.