NATO top commander to warn Russia over alliance’s ability to counter-attack

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, US General Alexus Grynkewich, is expected to tell Russia that the alliance can respond effectively if attacked. He will deliver the warning at a security conference in Warsaw. The purpose is to strengthen deterrence and reassure members worried about Moscow’s actions.

Grynkewich is expected to explain NATO’s “theory of victory.” His spokesman, Colonel Martin O’Donnell, said the plan is to maintain NATO’s advantage through deterrence and defence. It also aims to prepare the alliance to win if aggression occurs. The commander is unlikely to reveal detailed defence plans.

The warning comes amid Western claims that Russia is conducting sabotage and interference against countries supporting Ukraine. NATO says it remains defensive and does not intend to attack Russia. The alliance is also dealing with uncertainty over possible US force reductions in Europe and growing European defence concerns.

In this context, NATO’s “theory of victory” is a framework for preventing aggression and defeating an attack if deterrence fails. It is not presented as a plan to attack Russia. Instead, it connects NATO’s military advantage with its defence and deterrence plans.

Colonel Martin O’Donnell described the theory as simple: maintain NATO’s advantage. He said the unsettled global security environment means the alliance must set conditions now to deter aggression and, if necessary, win if attacked. Grynkewich is expected to explain this framework in Warsaw without exposing sensitive operational details.

The concept matters because NATO faces both traditional invasion risks and actions below open war. The alliance says Russia’s alleged sabotage and interference have become more reckless. Its theory therefore supports readiness, unity, and credible defensive strength while NATO continues insisting that it has no intention of attacking Russia.

NATO currently has 32 member countries. That makes it a large multinational alliance rather than a single national force. Russia has one armed force under its own government. Comparing them is difficult because NATO countries retain separate militaries, while estimates differ over active troops, reserves, equipment, readiness, and defence spending.

Using widely cited recent estimates, NATO’s members together have several million active military personnel, compared with roughly 1.5 million active military personnel claimed or planned by Russia. NATO also has a far larger combined economy and defence budget. These figures describe potential combined capacity, not a single army that can automatically deploy everywhere.

The article focuses on NATO’s advantage and its ability to counter an attack, not on exact force totals. Its warning is intended to show Russia that the alliance remains stronger collectively. However, NATO must still coordinate its members, sustain readiness, and address possible reductions in US forces stationed in Europe.

“Hybrid attacks” are hostile actions that combine or use methods below open conventional warfare. They can include sabotage, interference, cyber operations, disinformation, or other covert pressure. The article specifically highlights alleged sabotage and interference by Moscow against countries supporting Ukraine. NATO finds these actions difficult because they occupy a grey zone beneath open conflict.

A concrete example is the discovery of an explosive-laden drone at a German airport. An incident like that can threaten lives, disrupt transport, damage critical facilities, and create public fear even without soldiers crossing a border. Interference can also weaken political support for Ukraine or strain cooperation among allies.

Western officials say Russian hybrid activity has become more reckless as Russian forces remain stalled in Ukraine. NATO has struggled to decide how to respond to such incidents. The article does not identify a single standard response, but says the danger could cause significant loss of life and demands stronger deterrence and defence preparations.

If a suspected Russian hybrid attack caused deaths or serious damage in a NATO country, the alliance would face pressure to respond collectively. Under NATO’s established treaty process, an ally could request consultations, and members would decide whether the incident qualifies as an armed attack. Collective defence does not automatically require one identical military response.

The first steps would likely include confirming what happened, identifying those responsible, protecting the affected country, and coordinating public statements. Allies could then consider diplomatic measures, sanctions, intelligence support, cyber assistance, or military measures. The choice would depend on the evidence and the scale of the harm.

The article does not say that any particular incident would trigger war. It says NATO has struggled with grey-zone incidents and that hybrid attacks risk significant loss of life. The alliance’s warning is meant to reduce that risk by showing that aggression will not go unanswered, while preserving its stated defensive posture.

Aggression below an openly declared armed attack does not leave NATO without options. The alliance and individual governments can investigate, publicly attribute responsibility, strengthen security, impose sanctions, expel officials, share intelligence, and improve cyber or infrastructure protection. These steps can impose costs without immediately entering conventional war.

For example, after sabotage, allies could protect transport and energy sites, assist police and intelligence services, expose the operation, and coordinate economic penalties. NATO could also increase exercises, surveillance, and defensive deployments. The mechanism is to raise the cost of further attacks while denying an adversary easy opportunities to create fear or division.

The article says NATO has struggled to work out how to cope with grey-zone incidents, so it does not announce a fixed response. Its current approach is to maintain deterrence and defence, reassure eastern members, support Ukraine, and signal to Moscow that reckless hybrid activity could meet a united response.

Deterrence is the effort to prevent an attack by making the consequences clear and the chance of success low. It depends on capability, readiness, communication, and political unity. NATO’s message is that an attacker should expect a strong defensive response rather than an easy victory.

The alliance’s “theory of victory” reflects this mechanism. Colonel Martin O’Donnell said NATO must maintain its advantage and set conditions now to deter aggression. General Alexus Grynkewich’s public warning is therefore part of deterrence itself. It signals capability while avoiding disclosure of sensitive defence plans.

NATO civilian head Mark Rutte said Russia knows the alliance is stronger, while urging countries to remain calm and support Ukraine. The strategy faces challenges, including alleged hybrid attacks, uncertainty over US deployments in Europe, and doubts about American reliability. NATO is therefore trying to demonstrate strength while preparing for possible changes in the security environment.