NATO commander outlines how alliance would respond to an attack on a member

NATO’s top military commander, Alexus Grynkewich, outlined a response to a potential attack on an alliance member at the Warsaw Security Forum in Warsaw on Monday, October 12. He said NATO would first block an attack, then blunt it if it continued and, if necessary, break the forces and systems sustaining it. Grynkewich also said he did not believe a conflict was imminent or inevitable.

Grynkewich called the approach a ‘Theory of Victory’. His account matters to the alliance’s members because it describes how its military leadership thinks about defending their territory. It was an outline of a hypothetical response, however: he did not specify where an attack might occur, what form it might take or which forces NATO would deploy.

How Grynkewich described NATO’s response

The first aim, Grynkewich said, would be to prevent an attacker from gaining ground. If that failed and an assault continued, NATO would blunt it. The final stage he described would target the enemy’s forces and its operational war-fighting system, including what supports, sustains or controls the attack. He said the alliance would seek to make an assault on any ally futile.

The Associated Press reported that his account brought together land, sea and air forces with sensors and autonomous systems. The purpose, as AP described it, was to stop an attacker from seizing and holding territory. Grynkewich did not set out a force package or explain how those elements would be used in a particular country or against a particular threat.

Why the remarks come amid concern about Russia

European governments have accused Moscow of increasing sabotage, drone incursions and cyberattacks, according to Al Jazeera. Russia has denied involvement in sabotage and other hybrid operations. Russian President Vladimir Putin said this month that Russia had no plans to attack a European country and wanted peaceful coexistence, Al Jazeera reported, while European leaders remained unconvinced.

AP has tracked at least 211 incidents blamed on Russia by Western officials since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. That figure describes incidents and attributions tracked by the news agency; it does not establish responsibility for every case. Grynkewich said NATO members should coordinate their response to Russian activity, and that the response to increased hostile activity and sabotage should include more support for Ukraine.

The possibility of an attack on NATO also has to be distinguished from an assessment that one is about to happen. AP reported that Denmark’s defense intelligence service judged the risk of a limited Russian military attack on NATO countries bordering Russia to be ‘low but growing’. It said an outright attack would be difficult while Russia was fighting in Ukraine.

What remains unspecified about NATO’s plans

Grynkewich said NATO was unlikely to be caught by surprise, AP reported. Yet some members have struggled in drone-warfare exercises and in responding to drones entering their airspace. A NATO spokesperson told AP that systems linking ground sensors and other technology to detect and counter drones were being established, but had not yet taken down any drones.

His remarks did not settle how an individual attack would be classified or how many troops would be sent. Grynkewich said troop deployments are ultimately political decisions. The military sequence he presented therefore does not by itself announce a deployment, establish a timetable or disclose the operational plan that members would use in a specific crisis.

The immediate development is the commander’s public description of the response he wants the alliance to be ready to deliver. Its practical test remains hypothetical. What NATO would do in any real incident would depend on circumstances that Grynkewich did not identify in Warsaw, including the attack, its location and political decisions by alliance members.