NATO outlines three-stage response plan for a possible Russian attack

NATO has outlined a concept for responding to a possible Russian attack. It envisages stopping the initial assault, preventing the enemy from advancing deeper into allied territory and, if necessary, striking the forces and systems supporting the offensive.

General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, presented the concept at a security forum in Warsaw. He said he did not consider conflict inevitable or imminent.

Three stages of the defensive operation

The first stage would stop the opening attack. If the offensive continued, NATO would seek to weaken it and prevent further advances. The third stage could involve attacks on the operational system supporting the war effort, including communications, depots and headquarters.

The report says this third stage could involve strikes on Russian territory. These would most likely target operational rather than strategic objectives.

The Baltic region and Suwałki Gap

The Baltic states and Poland are viewed as potential theatres of war. Particular attention is focused on the Suwałki Gap, a 65-kilometre stretch of the Polish-Lithuanian border between Russia’s Kaliningrad region and Belarus.

Military deployments in the region are being expanded. Germany is forming a brigade in Lithuania that is planned to reach 4,800 troops by the end of 2027. US tank and engineering battalions, numbering more than 1,000 personnel, have also returned to Lithuania.

Lithuania and Poland are preparing evacuation plans for the Baltic states, including alternative border crossings and reception centres for refugees. Belarus conducted command-and-staff exercises near the Suwałki Gap from 15 September, while Russian Baltic Fleet aircraft trained to strike ground targets in Kaliningrad region.

Deterrence without escalation

The concept is based on “deterrence by denial”: positioning forces near likely battle areas so an attack cannot succeed. This differs from a model in which a smaller forward contingent would only delay an assault while a major counterattack was prepared in the rear.

Israeli military expert David Gendelman said NATO appeared to be describing a minimum necessary response to avoid increasing the risk of uncontrolled escalation. Grynkewich, meanwhile, said responsibility for further escalation would rest with the side that started the conflict.

NATO identifies advantages in intelligence, decision-making, air power, precision weapons and coordination across land, sea, air, space and cyberspace. The concept presented by Grynkewich does not mention the use of nuclear weapons.