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

"Brain-dead" was how French President Emmanuel Macron described Nato in 2019 when he said there were signs that the US was "turning its back on us", said The Economist.

Then in 2022 Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine confronted the Western alliance with a "new geopolitical reality" and a threat "previously thought consigned to the past: a full-out conventional land war on the European continent", said the Kyiv Independent.

In response to the threat posed by Vladimir Putin on its eastern border, Nato has scrambled to present a united front. Its member states have plied Kyiv with weapons and enforced the most severe economic sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. But they have wavered over Ukraine's bid to join the alliance, are increasingly divided over further financial and military support for the battered country and face, in Donald Trump, a US president who has been a vocal critic of Nato in the past, and signalled that his administration does not view European defence as a priority.

Subscribe to 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

A mutual assistance clause sits at the heart of the security alliance, which was formed in 1949 with the aim of countering the risk of a Soviet attack on allied territory. Article 5 of Nato's North Atlantic Treaty says that an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all member states – which presents an obstacle for Ukraine's membership while it remains at war with Russia.

In his first term, Donald Trump repeatedly criticised member states for failing to meet their defence spending obligations. Members have been slow to hit the Nato guideline of 2% of gross domestic product defence spending. By contrast Nato's biggest player, the US, spends almost as much on defence as the next 10 spenders in the world combined. Its total in 2023 was about $916 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).

Nato's resources have 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.

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".

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 partnership is "heavily dependent on the United States acting as first responder", Stephen M. Walt wrote on Foreign Policy, and "there are powerful structural forces gradually pulling Europe and the United States apart" – most notably the return of Trump to the White House.

Russia's military power

Despite Russian forces' well-publicised struggles in Ukraine, their overall military capability remains considerable. Russia's defence budget has been increasing year on year since the invasion and estimates project that in 2025, it will effectively double its pre-war level to $142 billion.

It has 1.32 million active military personnel, according to Statista, but only about 4,814 military aircraft compared with Nato's combined 22,308, and 781 military ships compared to Nato's 2,258. And although Russia does outnumber Nato for tanks (14,777 to 11,390), in terms of armoured vehicles overall its stock of 161,382 is dwarfed by Nato's 849,801.

The two forces are evenly matched in terms of known nuclear capability, with the Nato nuclear powers – the US, the UK and France – able to field 5,759 nuclear warheads to Russia's 5,889.

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," although "it still cannot keep up with battlefield losses", said Al Jazeera.

Who would win then?

Despite small signs of improvement, "Russia is in no shape to take on Nato", which has been "revitalised" by its invasion, 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." Even without the might of the US, 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".