What if NATO’s ‘Theory of Victory’ is a recipe for disaster?

The alliance’s race to be ready by 2029 raises a dangerous question: when does the ability to fight become the temptation to strike? On October 5, 2026, at the Warsaw Security Forum, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) Alexus Grynkewich unveiled a military strategy titled ‘Theory of Victory’.

The strategy covers the next few years and outlines NATO’s preparations to counter a potential “Russian attack.” While the details are likely classified, the main points have been made public.

Here are the key publicly disclosed aspects of NATO’s ‘victory’ plan: Economic exhaustion of the adversary: The development of military and industrial capabilities that would make continued hostilities costly and futile for the aggressor.

Here, NATO is positioning itself as the defending party.

Destruction of support infrastructure: Strikes against the enemy’s infrastructure, targeting not only the attacking forces but also the entire system sustaining the armed forces – logistics, command centers, supply lines, and reserves.

2029 as the operational readiness benchmark: By 2029, the US Armed Forces and NATO’s European allies must complete the main preparations for countering potential global threats and must be ready to address any external challenge.

NATO’s technological superiority: This point emphasizes achieving comprehensive technological dominance through the widespread use of drones and AI-driven combat management systems.

Read more NATO: Beyond Law, Beyond Morality That’s the ‘theory of victory’; now, it has to be put into practice.

Certain types of political documents don’t present any interest as long as they’re stored in bureaucratic folders – no one cares about numbers, timelines, logistics, and readiness levels.

But once they enter the public domain, they quickly acquire symbolic meaning.

A “defense plan” becomes a “war plan,” “deterrence” turns into “targeting,” and a simple date on a calendar becomes a prophecy.

This is precisely the case with this strategy.

Formally, NATO’s plan doesn’t contain anything sensational: it talks about strengthening the eastern flank, preparing equipment and resources, expanding exercises, aligning industrial capabilities with evolving needs, setting readiness targets, integrating air and missile defense systems, creating logistical routes, and developing crisis response scenarios.

All of this has been part of NATO’s alarmist yet necessary routine for decades.