NATO Supreme Commander Grynkewich’s ‘Theory of Victory’ against Putin

 “My Theory of Victory is simple. We will repel the initial attack. If the attack continues, we will weaken it and prevent any enemy advance. And, if necessary, we will shatter the enemy forces and the combat operations system deployed against us.” Block, Blunt, Break: yesterday, US Air Force General Alexus G. Grynkewich, Commander of NATO’s Allied Command Operations in Europe (SACEUR), delivered a much-anticipated speech at the Warsaw Security Forum – a speech that had been the subject of speculation for days – on the new NATO’s “Theory of Victory”. Since its foundation, no operational vision of the Alliance had ever been defined in this way, and although other doctrines with a similar function have been publicised throughout history – namely, to explain publicly how to deter and how to fight if deterrence fails – the new name of the strategy outlined yesterday by Grynkewich is in itself a powerful message, directed above all at Moscow, even if it was never mentioned. Because publicly stating how NATO intends to win – and not merely deter Russia – represents a turning point, at least in terms of communication. “We are not seeking to inflict a strategic defeat on our adversary, nor do we need to,” the general clarified. “We are simply seeking to nip any attack in the bud, denying the possibility of conquering and holding our territory. Achieving this requires the tactical and operational defeat of the forces deployed against us, but nothing more.” 

Grynkewich’s speech in Warsaw is one of those moments that mark a turning point. With the intensification of Russia’s hybrid war against Europe and the threat of American disengagement from the continent, it is the first and most concrete public statement of a response from the North Atlantic Alliance, upon which military exercises, readiness and budgetary targets will subsequently depend. A version of his ‘Theory of Victory’ – which, compared to other doctrines of the past approved by consensus, was presented as the ‘commander’s intent’, almost a personal statement, anchored in NATO’s military strategic framework approved by member states, but formulated in deliberately simple and straightforward language – had been previewed last week by Bloomberg. NATO command subsequently confirmed the existence of a ‘theory’ that was to be formalised in the following days at the Warsaw Forum, one of the most important platforms for dialogue on European security. The doctrine consists of three phases: ‘block, blunt and break’: first, the armed forces must block the initial attack at the point of contact, with land forces supported by air, sea, space and cyber capabilities; then they proceed to blunt subsequent offensives, preventing the enemy from gaining momentum and the initiative; finally, if the aggression continues, to shatter not only the attacking troops but the entire system that supports, supplies and commands them – which requires depth, precision and technology. To achieve this, he explained, the Alliance is focusing on a combination of high-end precision munitions and cost-effective, scalable systems – namely drones – sensor networks and a combat cloud. Grynkewich is American, and according to many military experts, although he is formally an independent figure, in his presentation he had to take into account the US Administration’s disengagement plans and the dialogue between Washington and Moscow (which at least explains the reference to the fact that NATO does not seek to strategically defeat the adversary, but only to halt the attack and prevent it from holding the conquered territory). “Preparing to fight in accordance with this Theory of Victory means, first and foremost, of course, winning in defence,” said Grynkewich. “But demonstrating our readiness is also central to preventing conflict. Showing that we are ready to implement our Theory of Victory is therefore also fundamental to winning through deterrence.” So “it should be clear to everyone” that “every activity, every exercise and every euro, dollar, lira, pound or krona that we invest contributes to this”.

To prevent anyone from attacking, to keep the adversary on the back foot, says the general, we must demonstrate “our strength and convey our determination, without provocation”. The document serves to demonstrate once again – particularly to those who, for example in Italy, speak of NATO inciting war – that the system functions solely because it is defensive, not aggressive. But “if anyone were mad enough to attack us, we will fight”, he said, “and we will ensure that any attack against any ally proves utterly futile”. In recent days, several NATO officials, including Secretary-General Mark Rutte, have stated that there is “no imminent threat” to the Alliance’s territory, and Grynkewich also emphasised yesterday that shared intelligence serves to anticipate events before they occur, so as not to be caught off guard. Yesterday, however, many were commenting on NATO’s ‘Theory of Victory’ in far more concrete terms: what changes with attacks in the so-called ‘grey zone’? What about sabotage and cyber-attacks? The other issue is that of the budget. Grynkewich is a military man; he does not deal with accounts, and in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg he said that all NATO countries are making greater efforts, but what is lacking above all is “the issue of human resources, that is, the fighting force”, which is inadequately trained and, in many cases, poorly paid.