Lieutenant General Alexus G. Grynkewich of the United States Air Force has been officially nominated as the next Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), NATO announced on 5 June 2025.
The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s top political decision-making body – confirmed the appointment following consultation with Alliance members.
Grynkewich currently serves as Director for Operations on the U.S. Joint Staff. Upon completion of U.S. national confirmation procedures, he will succeed General Christopher G. Cavoli (U.S. Army) at a formal change of command ceremony at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, expected later this summer.
Grynkewich’s nomination had been anticipated for weeks, with U.S. President Donald Trump formally putting forward the selection earlier in the day. A senior administration official told reporters the decision reflects a desire to maintain continuity in U.S. leadership of NATO’s military command structure and to reassure allies of America’s enduring commitment to the Alliance.
Lieutenant General Grynkewich is a career Air Force officer with extensive operational experience in the Middle East, including roles as commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command and Director of Strategy at U.S. Central Command.
His nomination marks a continuation of SACEUR’s tradition of rotating among senior U.S. officers, though his Air Force background stands out in a role historically dominated by Army generals.
Why SACEUR Is Always an American
Since the post was first created in 1950, the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe has always been filled by a United States officer. While the decision technically lies with the North Atlantic Council – NATO’s highest political authority – it has become a standing tradition for the U.S. President to nominate a candidate, which the Council then endorses.
There are several reasons for this enduring practice:
- U.S. military strength – The United States remains NATO’s largest and most capable military power, with global reach and the resources to lead large-scale operations.
- Symbolic reassurance – Appointing an American officer as SACEUR signals continued U.S. commitment to the defence of Europe, a message viewed as especially important amid renewed threats from Russia and strategic uncertainty.
- Nuclear command and deterrence – As the vast majority of NATO’s nuclear arsenal is American, having a U.S. officer in the top military role reinforces control and coherence over nuclear deterrence strategy.
Other top NATO roles are filled by non-Americans to maintain a balance. The Secretary General of NATO is traditionally a European (currently former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has been nominated to replace Jens Stoltenberg), while the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is always either a European or Canadian officer.
A second NATO Supreme Commander role, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), has been held by non-Americans since 2009. The current SACT is a French officer, reflecting the broader multinational leadership model within NATO.
General Cavoli, whom Grynkewich is set to replace, served as both Commander of U.S. European Command and SACEUR since 2022. His tenure included overseeing NATO’s post-Ukraine war force posture adjustments and strengthening Eastern Flank defences.
I know SACEUR is always an American, but in light of the US Defence Sec saying only last week that Europe should not rely on the US as its focus is Asia, doesn’t this appointment smack of the US having its cake and eating it?
America no longer exists as a coherent entity. Its foreign policy is determined by a reality tv star that’s clearly having mental difficulties and changes his mind frequently. It consciously generates conflicting policies with an almost child like understanding of the effect on the American people.
A point I made last week and I would fully support SACEUR actually being a European.
Time for a European SACEUR for sure.
“The best of the best of the best”.
Why…😒
US is no longer relevant on the world stage
European SACEUR is needed
John, you think the worlds only superpower with enormously powerful forces is no longer relevant on the world stage? You may not like Trump or his preference for the A/P region but you cannot dismiss the USA so readily.
Difficult to be relevant with a paralysed government no matter how big your military is.
Just too risky having SACEUR from a country which has signaled it does not believe in article 5 and is already violating article 1 and 2.
Haha, many European countries violated the agreements. Including UK.
What agreements? What has the UK violated?
None that I’m aware of in the history of NATO, you can read the NATO articles on google if you care to do a little research.
Meanwhile US Army general Joseph Ryan says that AH-64D are not anymore capable for frontline combat and AH-64E are borderline. He also said
“Fighting an opponent who deploys capabilities worth $1,000 with capabilities that cost $1 million cannot be a winning strategy”.
I have a different view.
They’re still a part of NATO.
Till such time as they’re not, and we have doom mongers hoping for them to leave here weekly, then it doesn’t bother me.
Not against rotating the position with other nations, but it would surely only open to France and Britain, due to our Nuclear capability ( and financial burden ) that others do not have.
Wider ENATO pay for their own nukes, then SACEUR could happily rotate more widely.
Interestingly, I believe Deputy SACEUR is always assigned to a British Officer.
Putting it simply the American’s were not going let a non-US Officer command US Forces which includes all tactical Nuclear Weapons. Deputy SACEUR is a British Officer…..It’s worked for years….For all the doom and and gloom buggers, its about time we and Europe spent more on our Armed Forces.
Alex, this General is saying that it is impossible either to defeat or degrade drones OR to protect AH from them. That is an alarming admission of defeat…and I am sure he will be proved wrong. Does he also write off the tank and all other AFVs for the same reason?…and how about the dismounted soldier…they have also been picked off by drones.
No, he just said that Attack Helicopters are more limited than they where and that they’re no longer the War winning instrument the US views them at (and it’s worth noting the US views Attack Helicopters as a Maneuver arm not a fire support Arm, and the fire support role is where the Russians where using KA-52’s to break up Ukranian advances during the Zaphorizia counter attack).
“[Attack Helicopters] are also on the cusp of being capabilities where we don’t necessarily see them contributing to the fight the way they have done perhaps in the past.”
In many ways the FPV is just a smaller unmanned helicopter than can provide much of the fire support role. But it’s limited range prevents its major use in maneuver operations