NATO general presents plan for Russian attack
General Alexus Grynkewich presented a new military strategy in Warsaw for the event of Russia attacking a NATO country.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
.jpg){kind=link}
NATO's highest-ranking commander in Europe, General Alexus Grynkewich, explained the so-called Theory of Victory in Warsaw on Monday. According to the first public descriptions, the plan focuses on deterrence, rapid deployment and combining conventional forces with drones and artificial intelligence.
Grynkewich presented the strategy at the Warsaw Security Forum. According to a report published by Nukta based on AFP, the framework includes autonomous drones, electronic warfare, layered air defence and the rapid reinforcement of the eastern flank.
The strategy describes how NATO troops would operate if a conflict with Russia arose. In an interview with TVP World ahead of his speech, Grynkewich said that the alliance has a plan to win, but is not seeking escalation. He said the document concerns how troops would conduct operations if a conflict broke out.
The plan is not a decision to start a war and does not in itself alter the treaty obligations of member states. It is military planning for a scenario in which an ally is attacked. The precise operational details remain largely confidential.
The presentation comes at a time when European countries are considering their defence responsibilities and the future American contribution to European security. In the public descriptions of the strategy, relatively inexpensive drones, sensors and AI play a greater role alongside aircraft, missiles, ground troops and traditional air defence.
For the Netherlands, the strategy is relevant because NATO's eastern flank also affects the security of Western European allies. Credible deterrence requires not only military resources in Poland and the Baltic region, but also transport, ammunition, cyber defence and industrial production in countries further west.
At the same time, the significance of the presentation remains limited as long as it is unclear which countries will provide which capabilities and how the plans will be politically endorsed. The Theory of Victory is a framework from the military commander; the final decisions on funding, deployment and risks lie with the member states.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- On 12 October, NATO publicly explained a military strategy called the Theory of Victory.
- The strategy assumes a possible conflict on the eastern flank and mentions drones, AI and air defence, among other things.
- The precise implementation and funding have not yet been fully disclosed.
Left
Arguments Stronger military deterrence may be necessary, but technology and higher defence spending should not automatically take precedence over diplomacy, conflict prevention and social investment. A strategy that speaks mainly in terms of winning could further harden the security dynamic with Russia.
Values International law, diplomacy, democratic oversight and the protection of public funds.
Consequences Over-hasty militarisation could divert money from other public objectives and increase the risk of miscalculation; at the same time, European resilience remains necessary.
Centre
Arguments NATO must be prepared for an attack, but the planning should remain defensive, transparent and politically accountable. New technology can supplement existing shortfalls, as long as allies jointly determine when and how it is deployed.
Values Collective security, proportionality, the rule of law and institutional oversight.
Consequences Credible preparation could actually help prevent war, but only if the member states explicitly manage the risks, costs and channels of escalation.
Right
Arguments Deterrence works only if an adversary believes that NATO can repel an attack quickly and convincingly. European countries must therefore invest more in their own military capability, production and border control and must not remain wholly dependent on American support.
Values National security, decisiveness, sovereignty and military credibility.
Consequences Greater defence capacity could raise the threshold for Russian aggression, but it requires sustainably higher spending and could make the military confrontation more structural.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The presentation, the name of the plan and the technologies described have been confirmed by current reporting. The article clearly distinguishes between a military strategy and political decisions that still have to follow.
- confirmed Alexus Grynkewich presented the Theory of Victory in Warsaw on 12 October. — Reported by Nukta based on AFP and published on 12 October. source
- confirmed The plan includes AI, autonomous drones, electronic warfare and layered air defence, among other things. — Mentioned in the current report on the presentation. source
- confirmed Grynkewich said beforehand that NATO is not seeking escalation. — Mentioned in the interview with TVP World. source
- confirmed The full operational details are not public. — Public sources describe the main points, not a complete operational plan. source
Editor's note
The presentation and its main points have been confirmed by current sources. The full military strategy and the precise implementation agreements are not public.Sources
- Top NATO commander presents 'Theory of Victory' at Warsaw Security Forum to deter Russian aggression — Nukta, op basis van AFP
- NATO 'ready to act' if Russia attacks, general tells TVP World — TVP World
- Agenda Warsaw Security Forum 2026 — Warsaw Security Forum
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „navo rusland”
- NU.nl — „navo rusland”
- De Telegraaf — „navo rusland”