NATO’s new defence strategy aims to make any attack on the alliance “utterly futile”, Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexus Grynkewich has said, outlining a plan to stop hostile forces from entering allied territory, halt their advance and destroy their ability to sustain a war.
Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum, Grynkewich presented the strategy as NATO members face growing security concerns, particularly along the alliance’s eastern flank, where authorities have reported incidents involving sabotage, arson and drone incursions.
“If attacked, we are ready to fight tonight,” Grynkewich told the audience, drawing loud applause. He said NATO would continue training and preparing for potential conflict to strengthen its readiness over time.
Known as the “Theory of War”, the strategy is designed to prevent adversaries from gaining a foothold in NATO territory and to undermine their ability to continue military operations. Grynkewich said it was intended to reassure the one billion people living under NATO’s security umbrella while making clear to potential adversaries, including Russia, that an attack would meet a coordinated military response.
“Enemy formations will be starved of replenishment. Enemy commanders will be unable to control their forces. Enemy forces and support capabilities will be reduced and destroyed,” he said. “We will, in short, ensure any attack, against any Ally, proves utterly futile.”
Endorsed by all 32 NATO members, the strategy combines conventional military strength, including ground troops and military equipment, with newer technologies such as drones, counter-drone systems and artificial intelligence. It also reflects lessons from recent conflicts, particularly the war in Ukraine, where developments in drone warfare, surveillance and battlefield logistics have reshaped military operations.
“We’re learning a tonne from Ukrainian partners,” Grynkewich told the forum.
The plan is built around three principles: block, blunt and break. Together, they describe how NATO intends to respond if an adversary launches an attack against allied territory.
The first stage, “block”, would focus on stopping an initial assault before hostile forces could seize territory. NATO ground forces would engage advancing troops, restrict their movements and attempt to destroy formations pushing into allied territory.
“We will fix the enemy formations and deny the seizure of Alliance territory,” Grynkewich said. “Land-based forces will attack the enemy and destroy his advancing forces.”
If an attack continued, the second stage, “blunt”, would aim to stop further advances by disrupting enemy operations and reducing the effectiveness of attacking forces. NATO would draw on capabilities across different military domains, including advanced sensors and autonomous systems that can help identify, track and assess threats with limited direct human intervention.
The final stage, “break”, would target the wider systems that allow an adversary to fight. These include military command structures, supply networks and logistical infrastructure. Long-range precision strikes and sensor networks would help NATO disrupt those systems, making it harder for enemy commanders to coordinate troops, move supplies and maintain an offensive.
Rather than focusing exclusively on the destruction of individual military units, the approach aims to weaken the wider operational system supporting an attack. The strategy draws on lessons from modern warfare in Ukraine and the Middle East, where technology, supply lines and command capabilities have played important roles in determining military effectiveness.
Grynkewich stressed that NATO’s plans were defensive and did not signal an intention to seize territory or pursue military ambitions beyond protecting member states.
“We have no plans, no intentions, and no ambitions beyond the protection of our people and the defence of our territory,” he said.
Although he described the threat of an imminent attack on NATO as low, he warned that the alliance would respond if an adversary chose to strike. “If someone is foolish enough to attack us, we will fight,” he told the forum.
His remarks come as NATO countries, particularly those closest to Russia, remain concerned about security incidents involving drones, sabotage and arson. Such incidents have added to pressure on the alliance to improve its ability to detect threats, protect critical infrastructure and respond quickly to potential aggression.
The strategy also comes amid questions in some NATO countries about the strength of the United States’ long-term commitment to the alliance. Asked whether the plan remained viable in that context, Grynkewich pointed to NATO’s collective defence commitment and a statement agreed by Washington at the alliance’s July summit.
He said the United States had reaffirmed its “ironclad commitment to Article 5”, the treaty provision at the heart of NATO’s collective defence system. Under Article 5, an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all, although each ally determines the action it considers necessary to assist the country under attack.
Grynkewich’s message was that NATO’s response would not depend on stopping an initial assault alone. By preventing an enemy advance, disrupting its operations and targeting the systems needed to sustain a prolonged fight, the alliance aims to make aggression against any member too costly and difficult to achieve its objectives.
