NATO’s Top Commander to Warn Russia Alliance Is Ready to Win if Attacked

US General Alexus Grynkewich is expected to warn Russia that NATO retains the military advantage needed to defend against an attack. His message is meant to deter aggression before it becomes open conflict. It also reassures allies worried about Moscow’s growing pressure.

At a security conference in Warsaw, Grynkewich is expected to explain NATO’s “theory of victory.” Colonel Martin O’Donnell said it means maintaining NATO’s advantage through deterrence and defence plans. The alliance wants to prepare now so it can discourage aggression and win if attacked.

The warning comes as NATO accuses Moscow of a reckless hybrid campaign involving sabotage and interference. An explosive-laden drone found at a German airport was one high-profile incident. NATO says it remains defensive, but Europe is also preparing for possible reductions in US forces while strengthening its own militaries.

NATO’s “theory of victory” describes how the alliance believes it can prevail if Russia launches an attack. The core idea is to maintain NATO’s advantage and use that strength to deter aggression. It matters because credible preparation can discourage an enemy from testing the alliance.

Colonel Martin O’Donnell said the theory is grounded in NATO’s deterrence and defence plans. It sets conditions now for resisting aggression and winning if NATO is attacked. Grynkewich is expected to explain this framework at a security conference in Warsaw, without revealing closely guarded operational details.

The concept also responds to a changing threat. NATO is concerned about sabotage and interference below the level of open war. The alliance must therefore prepare for both armed invasion and grey-zone pressure. Its challenge is to show strength while continuing to describe itself as defensive.

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR, is the alliance’s top military commander in Europe. The role turns political guidance from NATO governments into military planning and prepares forces for collective defence. It matters because the commander helps coordinate the armed forces of many countries.

Alexus Grynkewich holds the position and is also described as a US general. He is expected to present NATO’s “theory of victory” at a Warsaw security conference. His spokesman said the approach focuses on maintaining NATO’s advantage and preparing to win if attacked.

The position has significant military authority, including directing NATO military activities within agreed plans. It does not independently decide whether NATO goes to war. That authority belongs to the member states through NATO’s political leadership. The article does not detail Grynkewich’s formal chain of command, so this distinction comes from established NATO practice.

NATO is a 32-member alliance built around collective defence. Its central promise is that an attack on one member is treated as a threat to all. This matters because it raises the cost of attacking any single country, especially one with smaller armed forces.

The commitment works through consultation, joint planning, shared capabilities, and assistance from other members. Assistance can include military forces, air defence, intelligence, logistics, or other support. It does not automatically dictate one identical response from every country. NATO members decide the practical response through their political institutions.

The article describes NATO’s main purpose as deterring an armed Russian invasion. It also says the alliance is struggling with threats below open conflict, such as sabotage and interference. The collective-defence promise is therefore being tested by ambiguous incidents. NATO must show that members are protected without treating every disruption as a declared war.

If Russian sabotage or interference caused deaths or directly damaged a NATO country, pressure for a stronger response would rise sharply. The incident could be treated as more than a nuisance because it would threaten public safety and national security. It might also test NATO’s collective-defence promise.

NATO would first need to establish what happened, who was responsible, and whether the event met the alliance’s threshold for collective action. Governments could consult, share intelligence, strengthen protection, impose sanctions, expel personnel, or increase military readiness. A severe armed attack could lead members to consider collective-defence measures, but no automatic response is guaranteed.

The article says Russian hybrid attacks are becoming more reckless and could cause significant loss of life. It also highlights an explosive-laden drone found at a German airport. NATO’s difficulty is responding firmly while avoiding an uncontrolled escalation into open conflict.

Hybrid attacks occupy the space between ordinary crime and open military conflict. They can involve sabotage, interference, cyber activity, disinformation, or covert pressure. NATO’s challenge is to protect members and deter Russia without automatically treating every ambiguous incident as an act of war.

A measured response can begin with attribution and coordination. Members can share intelligence, protect infrastructure, improve airport and border security, expose interference publicly, impose sanctions, and strengthen cyber and military readiness. NATO can also consult through its political bodies and increase defensive deployments. These steps raise the cost of attacks without requiring immediate offensive action.

The article says the alliance has struggled with incidents in this grey zone. Its leaders urge calm while warning against naivety about Russia. A flexible response is especially important because hybrid operations may be designed to create fear, divide allies, or provoke an unnecessarily dangerous escalation.

NATO was founded in the wake of World War II to counter the Soviet Union. Its basic purpose was collective security: members would cooperate so a hostile power could not easily intimidate or defeat them one by one. That history still shapes the alliance’s role.

Deterrence means preventing an attack by making the expected costs and risks too high. NATO maintains military plans, coordinates forces, and signals that an attack on one member would concern the whole alliance. Grynkewich’s planned explanation of a “theory of victory” is part of that effort. The message is that NATO can defend itself and win if attacked.

Today, the challenge includes both invasion and hybrid pressure. The article says NATO is trying to deter Russia while responding to sabotage and interference. Mark Rutte urges countries to remain calm and support Ukraine. Possible US force cuts in Europe make European defence preparations more urgent.