NATO commander: we will fight Russia even without US involvement

Full text

NATO’s top commander U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich on Monday vowed to block, blunt and break any Russian attack as part of a new “Theory of Victory,” and underlined that alliance troops would fight even if U.S. forces were engaged elsewhere.

Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum, Grynkewich outlined how the 32-member alliance would respond to an invasion of NATO territory as concerns grow that Russia could be capable of attacking a NATO member by the end of the decade .

“Our alliance exists to preserve peace,” he said, “but let there be no doubt: should war come, we will block, blunt any attack, and then, if it does not cease, we will break the forces conducting aggression against us.”

The rare intervention by the four-star general to discuss a military blueprint underscores NATO’s effort to deter Russia. It is also aimed at sending a message of NATO unity after a grueling year for the alliance, which was rocked by Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and infighting over the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran .

Under the three-part blueprint, NATO would initially use land-based troops — buttressed by air, naval, cyber and space capabilities — to stop an assault, targeting attacking forces and preventing them from seizing territory, Grynkewich said.

NATO would then use sensors and autonomous systems among other capabilities to “overwhelm enemy formations … and their advance,” he said, before using “highly effective precision munitions” and unmanned systems if necessary to “break the [enemy] warfighting system” and “everything that supports” it.

Lithuanian Defense Minister Robertas Kaunas said the theory laid out by Grynkewich “will send a strong message to our adversaries that we are going to defend ourselves.”

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe said he does “not assess that conflict is imminent or inevitable.” But “we will … ensure any attack against any ally proves utterly futile.”

The speech describes a more forceful response if a foe attacks, but its credibility depends on allies having the forces, infrastructure, and coordination to implement the plan.

Asked whether the plan factored in a scenario where the U.S. was engaged elsewhere, Grynkewich said: “It absolutely does account for that, and in fact, it must.”

Under Trump, the U.S. has sought to refocus its military on other priorities such as the Indo-Pacific, homeland security and the Western Hemisphere. U.S. ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said in Warsaw on Monday that Europe only ranks fourth among Washington’s strategic concerns.

The Pentagon has already cut its contributions to NATO crisis forces and is set to unveil a review of U.S. forces in Europe by the end of the year.

“No one should question the commitment of the United States to this alliance,” Grynkewich argued, but added that “ultimately, it’s a political decision about who’s providing troops where.”

Camille Grand, NATO’s former assistant secretary-general for defense investment, said the plan was “a very deliberate effort” to signal that the alliance would be ready to fight with or without large-scale involvement of U.S. forces.

“For my country, fighting with Russians is with or without Americans,” said a separate senior European defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “We expect them to come, but if they won’t, we will fight anyway.”

Grand added that the blueprint is also an indication that NATO is ready to take a bolder approach toward Moscow by threatening the destruction of its war machine even deep behind the front lines.

That comes as Moscow sent a letter to NATO last month threatening to use its nuclear arsenal if the alliance tried to isolate its Kaliningrad exclave.

Grynkewich warned that NATO would be ready to respond — even with its nuclear arsenal.

“Should an adversary threaten escalation by saber-rattling, or should one actually decide to escalate during conflict, it will not fracture our alliance,” he said. “We should take comfort in our ability to deliver mass effects and the implicit warning that we could match any enemy move up the escalation ladder.”