Analysis: NATO is politically fragile, and it is difficult to influence the alliance with a new "theory of victory".

Some people have thought that the fate of Finland or some Baltic country could be the same as that of Ukraine. It has been speculated whether Russia would want to attack a NATO country and whether it could manage it. The NATO supreme commander presented the "theory of victory" on Monday. The commander of the European forces, Alexus Grynkewich, stated in his speech at the Warsaw Security Conference how Russia would be hit if it miscalculated and attacked the NATO territory. – If someone is so foolish that they go for it, we will fight, the general said. Grynkewich is SACEUR, supreme allied commander Europe. He commands NATO military operations and leads the United States forces in Europe. The speech was exceptional. This had not been previously considered. It still did not contain new revelations about how NATO would fight. The speech was intended to put the finger on the table of Russia, which is increasingly posing danger to Europe with more dangerous sabotage. It was also a way to calm worried people whose concerns are raised by Russia's actions. The general wanted to assure Russia that there was no reason to even consider an attack on NATO territory. The speech was intended to prevent war. Indirect messages can also be read from the speech. NATO would not have to fight like Ukraine Ukraine has been forced to defend itself for years from the Russian invasion. But NATO would not fight like Ukraine. The starting point is completely different. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, but it depends on the capabilities of NATO countries. Therefore, it lacks its own aircraft, intelligence data, location information, air defense, and long-range weapons. Unlike Ukraine, NATO has access to all domains, meaning the dimensions of warfare. In terms of self-defense, Grynkewich summarized it into three points: block, blunt, and break. That is: The task of the ground forces would be to stop, block, and initiate the attack. This would be supported by air and naval forces, space capabilities, and unmanned systems. Then the enemy would be weakened in different ways, blunt, also by unmanned systems, as in the wars in Ukraine and Iran. If the opponent does not yield to this, it would be broken, break: NATO would attack the opponent's support, maintenance, and leadership with the most effective precision weapons and a large number of cheaper weapons. This means that NATO would strike the opponent's land. Finland has also acquired weapons that can be used from very far away from Finland, in practice over Moscow. If the theory works in practice, the weapon systems of NATO countries would avoid being drawn into such a war as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The general says that it would be sufficient for the defense councils that the attack stops and the opponent cannot hold onto NATO territories. NATO would not "escalate" or accelerate the war. But if the opponent decided to do so, NATO would be able to respond. In this way, the general emphasizes NATO's role as a defense alliance. War cannot be won only by fighting War cannot be won only by fighting. A political victory must also be achieved. Russia does not appear to be a victor in the war in Ukraine. The United States does not appear to be a victor in the war in Iran. Therefore, the NATO general tells what would happen to the attacker if it tried to enter NATO territory, and what the outcome for NATO would be sufficient. The military plan is actually a side issue. The goal is not to threaten or tilt weapons but to prevent war. Having the possibility of resistance by being strong and speaking with strength is intended to make the opponent renounce their intentions. The attack has been prevented since 2014 by strengthening the border: NATO has acquired more weapons, transferred them, and trained with them. Grynkewich has access to air forces and missile defense as well as frontline FLF forces, the number of which can be rapidly increased. If someone goes for it, the forces can defend themselves without needing to ask for permission separately. Being militarily strong can be politically fragile NATO countries are committed to helping each other. The extra tension around this obligation to Article 5 has intensified in recent months. If Russia tests NATO, it is testing whether other countries will help when one attacks. Every NATO country must defend itself. The NATO can defend itself together with the forces given to the commander of the European forces, without activating Article 5. But if someone crosses the border, the article must be activated. Otherwise, the alliance will lose its credibility. It would be the political end of NATO. The country that is likely to be the target will likely ask for consultations or discussions from others in due time, as they would have intelligence about the opponent's intentions. The article is activated only once. In 2001, NATO countries activated it without a separate request after the dual-lock missile strikes by the United States. Uncertainty is created by the fact that the article is decided by consensus, or collectively. Would someone delay the consensus? Would there be some political maneuvering? The discomfort has been increased by the fact that the President of the United States has downplayed and questioned its allies. The NATO countries in Europe depend on the capabilities of the United States: intelligence and location data, missiles, and nuclear weapons. One measure of this relationship is the US forces stationed in Europe, which are also on the eastern flank, such as in Poland and Russia. The decision-making power over the forces' actions is under the administration of the United States, in practice by the president. Since Russia has bound its military forces largely to Ukraine, it is unlikely to have the strength for a large-scale war but rather for an experiment. It would still mix the security of all of Europe. A small conflict could also get out of hand. Although NATO is militarily strong, it may be politically fragile. It is difficult to influence this through the alliance's "theory of victory."