What attitude you have to the civil service. A man has been charged with causing the deaths by dangerous driving, of two young girls as they crossed a road on new years eve in oldham. Shares in the clothes Retailer Next have fallen by 9 , following worse than expected sales before christmas, and a gloomy forecast for this year. German police have arrested a tunisian man over the berlin market attack. Israels Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu, has called for the pardon of an israeli soldier convicted of manslaughter for shooting dead a wounded palestinian knife attacker. Now on bbc news, its time for hardtalk. Welcome to hardtalk. Im stephen sackur. The Military Threats facing the Western World have changed dramatically. The wests Military Doctrine and capabilities have failed to keep up. Thats the view of my guest today not an outside observer, but, until last year, one of the most senior generals in the British Armed forces. General sir Richard Barrons led the uksjoint forces command. Hes fought in wars, from the falklands to the middle east and afghanistan. How vulnerable is the west in the new balance of Global Military power . General sir Richard Barrons, welcome to hardtalk. Thank you very much. How comfortable are you in a civilian suit and out of uniform . Well, after nearly a0 years of service in the military, this is still in transition. In transition well, lets call upon your authority and experience, both with your new suit on, but with your uniform still in the cupboard. How, or what, would you define as the most pressing Military Threat facing the Western World today . I think its a very complex answer to what, on the surface, is a simple question. But i think we have to recognise that we are at something of a strategic Inflection Point where the world weve known for the last 25 years is changing very rapidly, and not changing to the advantage of the west and europe, in particular. So we have to acknowledge that are a new range of risks out there. And indeed the way conflict and confrontation is prosecuted, in terms of both method and thinking and ideas and capability, has changed. If you bundle all that together, we are looking at a mix of threats from russia, as well as from terrorism. Am i to take it from what youve just said that you believe right now that the assumptions being made and the posture being adopted by the key Western Military Powers and, lets face it, were talking about the United States and the uk as well, maybe you could call in france theyve got it wrong . I think its to be expected that many of the western powers, particularly in europe, are running on assumptions that reflect all our Adult Experiences from the end of the cold war, where we didnt feel any existential risk to our homeland. We felt that the western way was holding primacy in the world, and we had an initiative on how the world would actually turn out. And i think that is eroding very quickly. So, complacency is what you are suggesting . A combination of hubris, for sure, complacency. But also a preoccupation with our own internal business, such as brexit or austerity, which has caused us not to look at these things. But even as you say this, im mindful of the fact that one of the key issues of our day and we experience it sadly almost daily or weekly, with bombs going off in western cities, istanbul or further afield is this notion that there is a threat to the wests homelands, and that threat is from jihadist extremist terror. Are you suggesting that is the wrong way of looking at the threat to our homeland . Im suggesting its only part of the problem. So, yes of course, theres an existential risk, a risk to our way of life from people like the so called islamic state, who will bring whatever weapons they may bring to bear. So we are used to the idea now of shootings, such as in the nightclub, and the use of explosions. Just recently in our own media, a recognition from the British Government of the potential risk from weapons of mass destruction. But the fact is, in the modern age the risk to our homeland and our interests abroad are greater than that and they must include, clearly, cyber, but also the evolution of advanced precision ballistics missiles and a new generation of aircraft and cruise missiles. But whose missiles . Are you suggesting, because youre not actually using the word, but are you suggesting to me that russia, which we know now has very sophisticated precision missiles, not least based in kaliningrad, right on the border of europe, within easy reach of berlin. Are you suggesting that russia should be regarded today as an active threat to European Security . I think we need to look at the potential of russian capability. So, im absolutely not suggesting we are at imminent risk of a major armed confrontation with russia. And i think most russian leaders would say that was fanciful talk anyway, and absolutely not in their interest. But if you look at the evolution of capability, then there are now things in the Russian Military inventory that could cause great harm, notjust to the uk, but to our european neighbours as well. As you say that, i think of donald trump. He is about to become president of the United States of america. In the recent days and weeks hes described how smart he thinks Vladimir Putin is. Hes actually sided with Vladimir Putin in a very important argument about the allegation that Russia Meddled in the american president ial election, using its cyber capabilities. Donald trump has sided with a russian leader against his own security establishment. And yet youre here sitting with me, telling me that russia has to be regarded, in terms of its capability, as a threat to the wests interests. Whats going on . Well, i think we have to allow mr trump some room to manoeuvre, since hes not yet the president , and one would expect to see a very strenuous conversation between mr trump and the Formidable Machine that resides In Washington that will give him intelligence and advice. Hes just told us that he doesnt actually believe what he hears from his own intelligence agencies. That is, in a sense, the great import of this argument, over what the russians did in us election. My first point is, lets allow that discussion to mature a little bit as mr trump takes office. But in terms of capability, im in absolutely no doubt that russia, and others, have invested very thoughtfully over the last 15 years in evolving their Military Capability to do two important things. One is, keep nato out of their territory, their airspace, their waters and their land in the investment of things like advanced air defence. But also to invest in capabilities that in very sophisticated ways can bring harm in an opportunistic way. Not in a grand, strategic assault, but in an opportunistic way, to berlin or london. And cyber is an important part of that. Theres quite a rich conversation about cyber. But we also have to recognise that in the russian inventory are capabilities that could deliver conventional so not nuclear conventional, Precision Effects in our homeland. And thats not a comfortable place that we would want to be. Until eight or so months ago, you were one of the top six generals in the uk armed forces. You actively were on duty as the ukraine crisis unfolded, for example. What do you take from that, in terms of the way the west has responded and is still trying to respond by ramping up nato capability and forces on the eastern flank directly facing russia . Would you say that the west on your watch and after it has reacted with strength and credibility or not . Nothing like enough yet. I think its a very, very difficult proposition for any government. Because in our Adult Experience we have not had a confrontation or conflict with russia. And nobody wants to go back to the cold war. And nobody is talking about, actually, a reset of the cold war. The dynamics now are very different. I think the primacy of terrorism as a risk consumes an awful lot of government attention, resources and bandwidth, and we would all understand that. I think the effect of austerity since 2008 has made public spending decisions really, really difficult, and so theres no enthusiasm to think about unpalatable events that have not yet occurred that would cause perhaps difficult and different spending choices. Im interested to know what you think is actually happening on the ground. Michael fallon, the British Defence minister, secretary, said only a few weeks ago to a parliamentary committee, he said that he thought britain and nato would be ready to fight a war with russia if necessary in two years time. Is that good enough, and is it even true . I dont know, since i dont work in the Ministry Of Defence any longer. You were there until eight months ago. Not much has changed, frankly. Well, there would have to have been a massive acceleration in planning, capability and in discussion with our nato partners for a two year horizon to be ready, deliverable. Always something can be done. But the fact is, we have to look at the state of nato as an alliance which has gone through progressive demobilisation, for very good reasons during the aftermath of the cold war. And it now sits with a lot of capability which is not held at high readiness. And in any case, quite a lot of nato capability is not designed to deal with the sort of things that russia is now able to present. You are using very diplomatic language, but i know, and of course you know, that your real views came out last september in a memo that ended up in the newspapers when you talked about the deliberate withering of britains defence capabilities. You listed in terms of naval power, air power, manpower on the ground, all of the different ways in which, in your view, the British Military was being hollowed out. And britain, of course, being outside america perhaps the most important member of nato. And i think that is absolutely so. I also think its entirely understandable in the sense that if you look at the passage of our history since the end of the cold war, in the absence of that sense of a threat from russia, and with many other compelling things to spend the public purse on, why wouldnt you take some risk with your defence capability . And my point is, first of all, lets be honest with ourselves about the state of western defence. This is much more than the uk. But, secondly, lets look at the world as its really turning out, and ask ourselves the question, ok, so if we are in the place we are now for good and understandable reasons, is it the right answer for the future . Can you guarantee that the future Going Forward will be as reasonably benign as the recent past . And if you cant, then you may have to do some Different Things and make some different choices. Well, i come back to the central fact that the Western World faces right now, which is that in a few days time donald trump will be the de facto leader of the Western World, the most important man in nato. Not only has he talked about the smartness of Vladimir Putin, he has said he will consider whether the United States under his watch should recognise russian sovereignty over the crimea, ie, recognise the annexation of what was ukrainian territory. He has suggested that nato members who dont meet the spending commitments of at least 2 of gdp on Military Expenditure will have to go their own way. And that nato, in effect, would be over, finished. This is the man that you are now saying has to take responsibility for leading the west in a much more proactive building up of military resources. Well, i currently want to stick with the hope, as mr trump takes office, a richer discussion with his new team, with the organs of state In Washington and with his allies, will make it clearer to mr trump that we have all bought into collective security. Certainly since the end of the second world war. That its not in the uss interests to break with nato, or to cause article 5 to be. When you look at his tweets, when you look at his mindset, how worried are you . Im worried, but i would want now to be in the position where i would like to give him the time to have that discussion with his own people. Fascinating, you keep talking about, i hope he will talk to his own people. You know some of his key appointees very, very well. Thinking about general mattis, who is now going to be defence secretary. Were talking about the other generals, one of whom is now his National Security adviser, a very controversial figure indeed. Other generals who have been appointed to homeland security. Talk about another one being director of intelligence. These were guys who worked with in the field, general to general. Yes. I count them as friends. Iadmire them. They are uniquely experienced in the business of confrontation and conflict, and they know their business. And they have learnt their business through hard yards, principally in iraq and afghanistan. They are military men with no experience of statecraft or diplomacy whatsoever. Yeah, so if you ask them for a cool, clear, genuinely strategic experienced military view, then there are almost nobody better in the world to give that advice. But these are guys who know how to fight wars. Now were talking about political roles, being the head of the defence department, the boss in the pentagon. Thats not a job for a bloke in uniform. Thats a job for a bloke like you now, with a suit on. They are now faced with a very difficult transition. I have such confidence in their character and their abilities and experience that i think they will be able to seize this transition into what is clearly a political and policy role, but its going to be difficult. Why do you have such confidence . In the United Kingdom there is no way that generals fresh out of uniform, men such as yourself, could be hoisted into Politicaljobs Like Being defence secretary. Why do you think its appropriate that it happens in the United States . I think in the United States there is a cultural difference. So the role of senior retired military in commercial and political and public life in the us is cast in a different way than it is in the United Kingdom, where people are genuinely uncomfortable with it in the United Kingdom. I also think that these folk are used to operating at the genuinely strategic level. They are soldier statesmen. They will find it relatively easy to make the transition into the political space because as senior commanders they so often operated in support of that. Theres a phrase that gordon adams, a very respected professor at the American University school of International Services coined. He says theres no risk of a Military Coup in the United States under donald trump, but given the nature of his appointments, there is what i call, he says, a velvet militarisation of American Foreign and National Security policy. Do you see what hes driving at . Absolutely i do. I dont think its proven, but i think if you fill your administration with a lot of senior Military Leaders then people are going to make that accusation of them. But if You Askjim Mattis and john kelly for their view of how the world turns, then i think you would get a much more sophisticated answer. You know them very well. You just told me you regard them as friends. Its quite obvious that actually the British Government doesnt have that many strong contacts with the people at the heart of the trump team. At least one conservative mp has suggested that people like you should be deployed to reach out to these new top figures in the Trump Administration, in a sense, general to general. Are you prepared to do that . Does the government want you to do that, more importantly . Of course im prepared to do it, because i know these people well. But i dont think its ever been done successfully. First of all, jim mattis would have to want it and find it useful. And even if they did, we invest a lot in currently serving officers and senior officials and politicians who own that relationship. And they would have to do think its helpful for somebody like me to come and have a supporting role and actually, thats pretty unlikely. Yeah, the truth is that also there are things being said by, for example, michael flynn, the general who is now going to be the National Security adviser to the president inside the white house, his suggestion that there is something fundamentally dangerous about islam. But if you were to talk to him you would have to say, would you not . This kind of language is completely inflammatory, unacceptable and unhelpful. Yes. Well, we would have to be able to have that sort of conversation, but