NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe has set out a three-stage approach to defeating an attack on the alliance, which he calls blocking, blunting and breaking.
General Alexus Grynkewich described it as a Theory of Victory grounded in the alliance’s agreed strategy for the Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic area. “So, while I referred to it as ‘my theory,’ it’s more than that. It is based on a strategy agreed to by all 32 Allies, so it represents and includes all of us. In other words, it is our Theory of Victory,” he said.
“In recent days, some have called it a plan, but it’s not, at least not in the military sense of the word,” he said. “Rather, our Theory of Victory provides the Alliance a common vision for how we win in deterrence and defence. It provides my ‘commander’s intent’ to help us focus our militaries on the key tasks we must accomplish in combat.”
“I do not assess that conflict is imminent or inevitable. It isn’t,” he said. “We help avoid conflict by clearly articulating our defensive intentions, and by maintaining open lines of communication to resolve misunderstandings and encourage transparency.”
“My Theory of Victory is simple. We will block the initial attack. If the attack persists, we will blunt it and prevent enemy advance. And if required, we will break the enemy’s forces and the operational warfighting system that is arrayed against us,” he said.
He described the first stage as falling to land forces at the point of contact, supported from the air and at sea. “To block, our land forces will move to and dominate any enemy assault at the point of contact. Through manoeuvre, we will fix the enemy formations and deny the seizure of Alliance territory. Land-based forces will attack the enemy and destroy his advancing forces, but they won’t be doing this alone.
“Our air forces and navies, working in concert with our space and cyber forces, will rapidly gain freedom of manoeuvre. With air and maritime superiority rapidly secured in and over the battlespace, these forces will bring mass and precision to bear, denying the enemy the ability to hold their ground.”
“Using advanced sensors, autonomous systems, and multi-domain forces, we will deny the attacker the ability to generate momentum or gain the initiative. Synchronised employment of multi-domain effects down to the tactical level will overwhelm enemy formations in contact, and their advance, if it’s continuing at all at this point, will falter further,” he said.
“Should the adversary choose to press the attack or commit his reserves, we will break the warfighting system engaged against us. This includes not just the attacking force itself, but anything and everything that supports, sustains, or controls that force,” he said.
“To do this, we will layer high-end and highly effective precision munitions with an overpowering mass of affordable and scalable systems. We will apply constant and unyielding pressure, both kinetic and non-kinetic, we will do this across and through domains, land, air, sea, space and cyber space. Doing this will break the enemy system and defeat it in detail. Enemy formations will be starved of replenishment. Any enemy commanders will be unable to control their forces. And enemy forces and support capabilities will be reduced and destroyed.”
General Grynkewich said the alliance expects warning of any attack, through “a sophisticated layering of intelligence provided by multi-source collection assets” interpreted with advanced algorithms. “This means the Alliance is unlikely to be caught by surprise. We will see if an attack is coming, giving us time to assess intent and rapidly position our forces,” he said.
The capabilities he named as priorities for investment were “high-end and affordable long-range precision strike capabilities, sensor networks, and a warfighting cloud”. Forward Land Forces on the eastern flank will exercise to demonstrate the blocking task, and air and maritime forces will demonstrate freedom of manoeuvre and multi-domain effects.
“If attacked, we are ready to fight tonight, but we are not complacent. We will continue to prepare and rehearse each and every day, and will be more ready tomorrow, and even more ready the day after that,” he said, adding that any adversary considering an attack should reach “the only conclusion that matters: Today is not the day.”
He forgot the bit where he needs to ask his boss for permission to fight.
If its the agreed plan which his boss has signed up to …..
No such thing as an agreed plan when it comes to NATO. Everything needs unanimous concent beyond initial air and missile defence.
Sorry must have read it wrong. Seemed the article was about a strategy agreed by all 32 members to block, blunt and break.
Personally if I think that if there were a call for article 5 for something substantive the US and T’s ego would want to be onboard. Especially as he would almost certainly be on the winning side. Indeed would Europe alone not be on the winning side.
T ultimately wishes to reduce the defence budget and make himself a hero by balancing the budget. Unlikely to happen in my view.
Who’s side would the Americans be fighting for? I’m not sure anymore. Russia or NATO?
So they’re the country that has provided more aid to non-NATO Ukraine than any other, and you’re questioning which side they’d fight on if NATO was attacked?
No, they haven’t provided more aid than anyone else, and yes it’s entirely legitimate to question the US commitment to NATO given that Trump is very obviously a Russian asset.
What evidence have you got that Trump is Russian asset? Being less hawkish than yourself is not evidence. It’s like McCaratharism in reverse with some people these days.
Here is a link to show aid provided to Ukraine. The US has provided more direct aid than any other country. Even when you combine Germany’s aid with its share of the EU institution aid, the US has provided more than double Germany’s amount
Evidence?? Just of the top of my head: His constant siding and sucking up to Vladimir Putin, his constant undermining of NATO allies, his “trade” and economic war on western allies to the benefit of Russia. His attempt to blame Ukraine for the Russian invasion, and not surrendering to Russia. That’s just in the past few months alone. And they haven’t provided more direct aid than anyone else, they’ve sold, via European allies, more than anyone else. There’s a big difference between direct aid and arms sales.
BTW, did you mean McCarthyism ?
Carrickter, as an individual country that must be true, but Europe has provided more aid to Ukraine than USA for all but three Quarterly periods since the Russian invasion. Source is statista.com.
‘In cumulative terms, Europe has now clearly overtaken the United States as Ukraine’s main backer, allocating more than $235 billion (€200 billion) in military, financial and humanitarian aid between January 2022 and February 2026, compared with roughly $135 billion (€115 billion) from the United States’.
Then you are incredibly ignorant and stupid.
A bit like MAGA Americans then and their traitorous, spineless president.
‘We help avoid conflict by clearly articulating our defensive intentions’
But those ‘defensive intentions’ have to be backed up by a credible conventional deterrent. And, because Russia is a land power, that credibility relies on massed formed armoured and mechanised divisions…which we do not currently have…
‘As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the attack option is foreclosed to (Russia). But that is a bare minimum. In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to (Russia) the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage.’
Lt Gen DeWitt C. Smith Jr
You seem to be under the impression that we share a land boarder with Russia.
We have plenty of land boarders, over a million boarding this country illegally within the last two decades. How many of those were Russian we do not know. We do know that Russian boarders into Britain killed Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, killed Dawn Sturgess in 2018 using enough CBRN materials to kill thousands.
But perhaps you really mean ‘land borders’. We are a member of NATO.
‘…the UK, with its allies—especially those in NATO—must once again be ready to deal with the most demanding of circumstances: deterring and preventing a full-scale war by being ready to fight…The UK’s Armed Forces must once again be able to endure in long campaigns…Nevertheless, the fundamental importance of meeting Alliance commitments and shaping deterrence in the Euro-Atlantic every day is reflected in the enduring and mutually reinforcing roles that Defence must fulfil…:
Role 2: Deter and defend in the Euro-Atlantic…providing one of two Strategic Reserve Corps to NATO, in line with NATO’s Regional Plans, ready to deploy rapidly from the UK to anywhere in the Euro-Atlantic area. The Army must also sustain its contribution to NATO’s forward presence in Estonia and Poland.’
SDR 2025
NATO shares a total border of approximately 1,340 kilometers (about 1,584 miles) with Russia.
The British Army does not possess the Army Corps that it has promised NATO in order to deter the massed Russian land army of over one million men.
Jim, NATO shares a land border with Russia and her key ally, Belarus, for many thousands of km.
‘SACEUR has political authority to deploy any element of the ARF, just as it did with the unit’s predecessor in February 2022. He could deploy elements or all of the ARF to a region or to a country that was under potential threat of aggression from Russia. He can do that without waiting for a council decision…SACEUR has the delegated authority to activate NATO defense plans…NATO forward land forces are multinational battle groups and brigades stationed on the eastern flank…Under NATO doctrine, they have the right to respond in self-defense. They would not need permission to respond.
The other risk I would say is Russian miscalculation. And we do not think about that enough.’
CEPA 05 Oct 2026
This war isn’t going to go away and so neither is the possibility of a miscalculation…which is how it started (again)
‘…the truth has gradually started to filter through to Putin, because real shortages of resources force him to make decisions one way or the other. The question is whether people dare to go to him with a real issue and, if they do, whether he can be bothered to listen and take it into account…’‘Ukraine must belong to us; the core of the Slavic empire consists of three brothers — the Great Russians, the Little Russians and the Belarusians,’…he has a great deal of bias that can obscure reality.
Russia will change if society undergoes de-Stalinisation, which has never happened in Russia. In other words, that Russian people would come to understand, in the broader sense, what went wrong in the past. And only Russia itself can do that. Nobody from outside can do it for them. My fear is that, looking at the brainwashing of the next generation and young people in Russia, Russia will remain a concern for us here for decades. Unfortunately, I really do not see a positive scenario. Regardless of who is in power there, what they say, or whether they are more aggressive internationally or less, it is very difficult to see that underlying nature changing.’
Kaupo Rosin, Director General, Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service (VLA) 09 Oct 2026
There is no reason for a NATO v Russia war. Or China for that matter. All that needs to happen is for every NATO nation, including us to make our committments of 3% of GDP by 2030 and 3.5% by 2035. We are all in ENATO capable of building a suitable force struture without needing the US to hold our hands.
I agree Luke, however I think we need a lot more nuclear weapons. ENATO already has massive conventional forces.
‘Strategic nuclear parity, coupled with conventional superiority in Europe, could lead to temptations that even the traditionally conservative (Russian) regime might find hard to resist.’
And so it proved in 2014 and 2022
‘But of equal concern to the West is the political leverage and freedom of action this condition would provide the (Russians) in other areas of the world. An Atlantic community paralyzed by its military inferiority in Europe could only wring its hands as (Russian) power and influence moved
unimpeded into the so-called Third World, portions of which provide the materials upon which the industrial, economic, and social health of the industrial West depend.’
And so it also proved, in Iran, Yemen, Syria and parts of Africa
‘In essence, we would have a situation in which the West, in tactical terms, is “pinned down” in Europe, while growing (Russian)…surrogates slowly but not imperceptibly isolate its Atlantic adversaries. So even if one believes that an attack on Western Europe is not a very likely scenario,
(one) still cannot view the growing strength of the (Russian) Army in Eastern Europe without a certain uneasiness. For that Army not only serves (Russian) legitimate security interests, but it also exercises an influence on the Atlantic Community that could be in the long run as fatal as naked aggression…
‘As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the attack option is foreclosed to (Russia). But that is a bare minimum. In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to the Soviet Union the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage.’
Lt Gen DeWitt Smith Jnr
The key here is deterrence. It matters not a jot how many NATO troops there are on paper, if Putin is briefed that he can attack a NATO member with impunity, sooner or later, he will do that. It may very well go catastrophically wrong for him but, as Ukraine has demonstrated, the price of idiocy is millions of casualties, millions displaced. That is why he must be deterred. And, given nuclear (kind of) parity, the deterrence of a major land power with a million strong army must be a mechanised NATO army of considerable mass. That is simply not there, and, in particular, Britain’s Army Corps promised to NATO does not exist.
The failure of NATO’s conventional deterrent beckons.
And that myopia will be a great deal more expensive than 5% of GDP.
We know what to do. We have done it before. It works.
Probably the first time we’ve agreed on anything Jim , so thats good news at least. We certainly need to have a very capable nuclear weapons force. Ourselves and France are in the process of huge updates so we’re going in the right direction i think. Maybe if the rest of Euro Nato wanted to help out with funding we could expand the force?
Britain has promised a mechanised army corps to NATO.
Britain no longer has a mechanised army corps.
That must be remedied immediately:
‘Given the intensity of the Russian fire, a mechanized assault “was the only real way to push positions in an effective manner to keep losses low as well as gain and hold momentum and aggression,” O’Leary wrote. Walking into battle under the cover of trees might help the infantry avoid the attention of overhead drones, but it takes too long to sustain an aggressive assault, and it can be difficult to mass enough footborne infantry to overcome stiff enemy defenses.
“This is something that hasn’t changed even with the advent of drone warfare coming of age,” O’Leary added. “Suppression tactics and such have changed and now there is more than just indirect fires and counterassaults that you must be able to suppress and plan for.”
But the concept of the infantry-carrying armored vehicle “isn’t going anywhere,” O’Leary stressed. “Especially when it takes a drone tens of minutes to get to target area, acquire target and hit the target. Right now, the front is extremely susceptible to maneuvering forces on assaults if it is planned right and executed properly.” 09 Oct 2026