NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe has told an audience in Warsaw that he does not assess conflict to be either imminent or inevitable, while arguing that the alliance must still prepare for what is possible, according to remarks at the Warsaw Security Forum.
General Alexus Grynkewich made the point before setting out the approach he calls a Theory of Victory. “Before I describe this theory in more detail, let me make one point very clear. 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.”
“But deterring conflict also requires warfighting readiness, and readiness requires to plan against what is possible, not just what is probable,” he said. “As America’s first president, George Washington, stated, the most effective way to preserve peace is to prepare for war. Or, as America’s current president puts it, this is peace through strength. In the case of NATO, that’s the strength of 32 nations, together.”
He described the alliance as unlikely to be taken unawares, drawing on “a sophisticated layering of intelligence provided by multi-source collection assets that deliver tremendous amounts of data” and advanced algorithms used to make sense of it.
“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. “In doing so we aim to deter, but these movements also prepare us to deny any potential attack, including those aimed at seizing and holding NATO territory as a fait accompli.”
Speaking of Poland’s accession to NATO in 1999, he said: “It reminds us NATO is a defensive Alliance, constructed to preserve peace. And as such, we have no plans, no intentions, and no ambitions beyond the protection of our people and the defence of our territory.
“Still, no one should mistake our defensive nature for weakness or lack of resolve. Through our collective strength we aim to deter and keep the peace. But if someone is foolish enough to attack us, we will fight.”
His Theory of Victory, which he stressed is a common vision and his commander’s intent and not a military plan, sets out three stages, blocking an initial attack, blunting it if it persists, and breaking the enemy forces and the warfighting system supporting them if required.
General Grynkewich said implementing it would require him to issue orders he hopes never to give, and that demonstrating the readiness to do so is what prevents the need arising. “If attacked, we are ready to fight tonight, but we are not complacent,” he said, adding that any adversary weighing an attack should conclude “today is not the day.”
‘…deterring conflict also requires warfighting readiness’
Can we honestly say that Britain is warfighting ready?
Against Russia, in a conventional fight, no problem.
I think you are , at best, deluded..
Thanks,
How due figure that
‘Head of the Armed Forces Sir Richard Knighton has said the UK is “not as ready as we need to be for the kind of full-scale conflict we might face” Jan 2026
Yeah but that was like ten months ago.
Much better now
🤣
‘…we have been preparing for shorter wars and for conflicts that are confined and limited. What we need to ready ourselves for is potentially much greater, longer conflicts, as we’ve seen in Ukraine.”
CDS 16 Sept 2026
I don’t think we can say that, at present the NATION is not prepared to fight a long protracted war in which the population must suffer for the greater good.
‘…we have been preparing for shorter wars and for conflicts that are confined and limited. What we need to ready ourselves for is potentially much greater, longer conflicts, as we’ve seen in Ukraine.”
CDS 16 Sept 2026
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin stated that the UK military “needs to be stronger” to counter growing global threats, but affirmed that Britain could “absolutely” fight a war in its current state.
November 2024
He was anticipating the wrong kind of conflict as the current CDS has recently pointed out:
‘…we have been preparing for shorter wars and for conflicts that are confined and limited. What we need to ready ourselves for is potentially much greater, longer conflicts, as we’ve seen in Ukraine.”
CDS 16 Sept 2026
The state of the British Army in 2024 was stated by the then CGS, General Sir Patrick Sanders
‘Is the Army ready for every single scenario and every eventuality? No…I can absolutely assure the Committee that we can provide a trained divisional headquarters and certified and assured brigades—16 Brigade, 7th Light Mech Brigade Combat Team, and an armoured brigade—but there will be capability gaps in our ability to get there and our ability to sustain it for time.’
Again, you seem to be confusing the uk with a country that shares a land boarder with Russia .🤦♂️
If the uk is going to war with Russia solo then what use is the army?
If there is a land war with Russia then it’s going to be NATO or a coalition of European forces fighting Russia so Russia will be heavily outnumbered.
The only war that can directly involve the UK and Russia is a naval and air war. And in that regard the Russians are at an extreme disadvantage.
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 core message of SDR 2025 is ‘NATO first’.
‘…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.
Britain is therefore very clearly not ‘warfighting ready’. That fact significantly weakens the NATO conventional land/air deterrent in Central and Eastern Europe.
The British Army must reconstitute its manoeuvre army corps immediately:
‘Defying critics who insisted vehicles couldn’t possibly survive in the drone-patrolled gray zone, the 3rd Army Corps repeatedly deployed mechanized forces as it counterattacked across a roughly 100 sq km salient the Russian 20th and 25th Combined Arms Armies had extended toward Sloviansk, one of the last two big free cities in Donetsk Oblast.
Maneuvering for months under a veil of secrecy, the 3rd Army Corps found and exploited gaps along the flanks of the 20th and 25th CAAs, ultimately breaking into the Russian armies’ rears and forcing them to pull back across the Zherebets River in order to avoid encirclement.
Armored vehicles were key to the Ukrainian effort. They sped assault troops into battle, dropped them off under fire, and then supported them as they clashed with the Russians. “Maneuver warfare isn’t going anywhere,” stated Ryan O’Leary, a US Army veteran who once commanded volunteers in Ukraine.’ 9 Oct 2026
Again your arguing about something else, changing the goal posts to suit your argument, the conversation was nothing to do with promises made by the uk to NATO, it was a war between the UK and Russia. If NATO is involved in the conflict then Russia has zero chance irrespective of any UK land commitment.
Can we honestly say that Britain is warfighting ready?
No. 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.
Britain is therefore very clearly not ‘warfighting ready’.
That British mechanised army corps must be reconstituted immediately.
You’re just posting AI slop, what’s the point in me debating you if all your doing is copying and pasting shite.
No doubt you’ll be back on to net zero next.
Boarder 🤣 Men, stand by to repel boarders!
I beg to differ. The Russian submarine fleet stands at 64 or thereabouts.
Unless the UK government change there way of thinking the UK is never going to be fighting ready . 🙄
We are a member of NATO. The core message of SDR 2025 is ‘NATO first’:
‘…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
That formed British army corps that I and many others have been calling for since 2014 does not exist. It must be reconstituted immediately as a matter of national emergency. 5% of GDP is a great deal cheaper than millions of casualties, millions displaced.
Are we warfighting ready? No, we quite clearly are not.
Good post your right in what you say. 5% should be on defence however it’s a fight to get HMG to 3% sadly .But strongly agree paying this it’s a lot better than Casualties 😟 🇬🇧
🇬🇧
Is not imminent or inevitable is a statement he cannot really make.. it could be tomorrow and it could be inevitable..
Infact we have all the factors required of an organic war kicking off anytime.
An organic war ( WW1 and 2 are the classics as the war between Britain and revolutionary and napoleonic France) is a conflict that arises because of structural instability within nations and international systems, systemic decay of national and international systems including the rules of law and economic decay, or deep societal pressures make violence a foreordained or organic outcome.
It is driven by longer term internal national forces, geopolitical forces and a loss of political legitimacy, or cascading complex system failures (like the alliance structures and demographic pressures preceding Europe in 1914, the rise of revolutionary France and national socialism and communism in the mid 20c ) rather than a single neat policy decision.
Because of this massive complexity and essentially national and geopolitical inertia the leaders and states often feel carried along or overwhelmed by both historical paterns and present or potential future structural conditions rather than orchestrating the timing and scope of the breakdown or decision to go to war or work to peace.
Quit frankly if you look at the modern world it is literally a pile of fuses ready to be lit, with a load of people running around with lit torches.. gunpowder all over the ground and not a bucket in sight.. one person drops the wrong torch and the whole world is going up.. and some people seem to be juggling torches and throwing them around for fun..
The most important thing about organic wars is that it’s the one time “Deterrence” does not work.. it the triggers for war are simply to complex and have to much inertia to be effected by anything as blunt as Deterrence.. The central powers in 1914 knew very well they were in for an arse kicking bloodbath like the world had never seen, Japan in 41 knew the US was essentially unbeatable in almost all cases.. but they did it anyway.. because organic wars are by nature unstoppable when the inertia reaches a tipping point.
So the torches..
Russia: essentially a modern take on classical fascism, is following the classic fascist view of everything in the state for the state.. but its view is that the Russian state is essentially a load of NATO countries as well.. and it will use all methods to achieve its goal.
China: a communist state in which its population have essentially been brainwashed from birth to believe China must be united ( the 3 kingdoms mythology).. and the communist party have essentially bet the house on this happening the 100 anniversary of the century of humiliation.. (2049) and China will be at its optimum geostrategic power in about 2035 ( just at the time the USN will be at it Nadir)… China will reunite with Taiwan ( it has to its core to its identity and would collapse the CCP if it did not become the CCP has bet the house on it happening) and just to make sure it’s undertaken the largest Navel building programme in the history of the world… China will start a world war over Taiwan it’s set itself on that course a long time ago.
Taiwan: Not being idiots they know the CCP will by necessity have to destroy the ROC and so it has utterly tied itself with treaty and economic necessity to the western world. It’s also geostrategicly the cork in the bottle preventing total domination of the western pacific by China… this will cause a Sino Chinese war..
USA: The US is bound to fight China for the western Pacific for a number of reasons.. this makes a Sino US war very very likely ( inevitable unless the US gives up and retreats from the western pacific). In that war China will inevitably need to attack the US mainland.. ( you cannot really win an existential organic war without hurting the enemies homeland) this will trigger a NATO response ( unless the US are such fools as to leave NATO). Add in the political instability and rise of far right political agendas.
Middle East.. well who needs to go much further than a whole host of religofascist governments all attacking each other.. straddling the major shipping routes the world uses as well as its major energy suppliers..
European NATO.. a group of nations suffering a significant collapse in government legitimacy due to political warfare developing very significant far right fascist and far left political instability at a time Russia is trying to exploit such weakness. But all bound by NATO .
It’s essentially a shitshow of everything that indicates an organic war.
We will not be able to take on Russia untill we get some UK air defence that can take out Ballistic missiles (e.g. Aster 30 block 1 or 1NT). We also need more SSNs in the water not in port. We also need to Expertise our frigate delivery tge RN needs more hulls. The RAF needs an additional inject of 24 new Typhoons to bulk out the air capability until GCAP. Major UK basses should get perminent air defence. ALL UK warsgips at sea should be FULLY armed witg all VLS filled and CIWSs installed. We should get two more AEW platforms. Also move an AEW Merlin to the Falklands. We should get 200 Challenger 3,, all with APS.