Since U.S. Air Force Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich assumed the critical role of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) in July 2025, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has navigated a complex and evolving security landscape. Under his command, the alliance has faced persistent challenges, including Russian drone incursions and sophisticated hybrid warfare tactics targeting member states, alongside Moscow’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine. Gen. Grynkewich, a career fighter pilot who also heads U.S. European Command (EUCOM), is currently spearheading a significant transformation of the forces under his purview, adapting what is known as the “NATO Force Model.” This adaptation is occurring against a backdrop of the Trump administration’s strategic rebalancing, which involves scaling back the capabilities the United States would traditionally commit to Europe in a crisis, aiming instead to address burgeoning threats in the Pacific. Simultaneously, other NATO members are increasing their defense spending and assuming greater responsibilities within the alliance, signifying a broader shift in burden-sharing.
Gen. Grynkewich recently discussed these pressing issues and the ongoing transformation during an interview from his office at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) near Mons, Belgium. The following insights have been adapted from that discussion.
Transformation of the NATO Force Model and U.S. Contributions
Addressing inquiries about adjustments to the NATO Force Model, General Grynkewich refrained from detailing specific classified reductions. However, he confirmed that these adjustments primarily pertain to air and maritime capabilities, emphasizing that NATO allies are expected to step forward and address these emergent requirements. From his vantage point as SACEUR, he views this recalibration as leading to a “more realistic plan” should the alliance face a major conflict.
He explained that the United States is now taking into account its potential commitments in other global contingencies, thereby avoiding promises of capabilities it might not realistically be able to deliver. This provides allies with a clearer, more accurate expectation of their required contributions. Historically, the United States maintained a stance of “everything is available” to the Alliance, making decisions on deployment at the moment of need. In contrast, other nations have long reserved certain capabilities from the NATO Force Model for their national defense plans. General Grynkewich noted that this marks the first instance of the United States adopting a similar approach, driven by its broader national security interests.
Expansion of Nuclear Sharing
When asked about expressions of interest from Polish and Finnish officials regarding expanding NATO’s nuclear sharing program—an arrangement allowing non-nuclear member states to deploy U.S. nuclear weapons using their dual-capable aircraft—General Grynkewich acknowledged the operational benefits. He stated that “additional flexibility is never bad for a commander to have.” However, he underscored that any such expansion would fundamentally constitute a political decision, carrying significant strategic implications for the alliance and global security.
U.S. Troop Deployments to Poland
Regarding President Trump’s stated intentions to send additional U.S. troops to Poland, a move that had yet to materialize at the time of the interview, General Grynkewich confirmed that the matter remained “pre-decisional.” He indicated that he had received orders to commence planning and develop various proposals and options. The process was ongoing, awaiting further guidance from the Secretary of Defense on the preferred course of action.
Assessment of the Russian Threat
General Grynkewich provided a stark assessment of Russia’s military capabilities, particularly its air and missile forces. He highlighted that these forces have not suffered the same level of attrition in the conflict with Ukraine as Russia’s ground forces. Consequently, Russia retains substantial platforms and capabilities, including bombers, fighters, and ballistic missiles. While some munitions are being expended in Ukraine, the production of replacement ballistic and cruise missiles continues, ensuring a sustained supply. He emphasized Russia’s considerable firepower and potential within its Aerospace Forces (VKS), especially when combined with the proliferation of one-way attack drones.
He warned that NATO must be prepared to counter what he termed this “combined aerospace attack.” Furthermore, Russia’s military modernization efforts persist, including the development of its fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jet and its “big six” strategic weapons programs. Although the war in Ukraine may have impacted the pace of this modernization, it has not halted it, and NATO is closely monitoring these developments.
Shifting Command Responsibilities within NATO
A notable evolution within NATO’s command structure involves the transfer of leadership for certain long-standing U.S.-commanded alliance headquarters to other NATO nations. General Grynkewich described this as a positive development, indicating that European allies are “stepping up and taking the lead in some very key positions across the alliance.” Specifically, he noted that two of the four-star commands subordinate to SHAPE and within Allied Command Operations (ACO), traditionally held by American officers, will now be filled by European officers.
He elaborated on the optimization efforts underway for how these joint four-star commands and domain-specific three-star commands interact and are linked. The immediate and mid-term strategy involves thoroughly testing these adjusted structures through NATO’s comprehensive exercise program. The potential for further adjustments in the future will be assessed as this process unfolds.
Hardening NATO Facilities Against Attacks
In response to concerns about the vulnerability of NATO facilities to potential attacks, similar to recent missile and drone strikes observed in the Middle East, General Grynkewich affirmed that the alliance “clearly account[s] for the threat.” While not disclosing specific details on facility hardening, he confirmed that NATO employs a comprehensive range of active and passive defense measures. Active measures include traditional air defense capabilities and non-traditional electronic warfare systems designed to counter drone attacks. Passive hardening strategies, such as camouflage, dispersion, and dispersal of assets, are also regularly practiced and implemented in preparation for a crisis.
Objectives for the Ankara Summit
Looking ahead to the Ankara Summit, General Grynkewich articulated a clear objective: to focus on “pragmatic and realistic outcomes,” emphasizing tangible progress. He advocated for a frank and open discussion among allies, where they hold each other accountable for meeting prior commitments from summits like The Hague, achieving established capability targets, building resilience into forces, and refining strategic plans. He anticipated that such an honest assessment would highlight areas of celebration for achievements, as well as areas where collective effort is required to strengthen the alliance further.
Allied Defense Spending and Commitments
On a broader note regarding allied contributions, General Grynkewich underscored the importance of defense spending. He clarified that the 3.5 percent spending commitments agreed upon at The Hague Summit were not arbitrary figures. Instead, these targets are directly derived from the specific capability requirements embedded within NATO’s strategic plans, representing the resources SACEUR needs to effectively execute those plans. His overarching message to allies was clear: “The first thing allies need to do is spend the money and ramp up quickly” to meet these essential requirements.
Why This Matters
The insights provided by General Grynkewich illuminate the profound strategic shifts and pressing challenges confronting NATO in the mid-2020s. The adaptation of the NATO Force Model, driven by the United States’ decision to rebalance its global military presence towards the Indo-Pacific, signals a fundamental change in transatlantic burden-sharing. This requires European allies to significantly increase their defense spending and take on greater leadership roles, not merely as a gesture of solidarity, but out of strategic necessity to maintain credible deterrence against potential adversaries. A weaker European pillar within NATO could embolden aggressive actors, particularly Russia, whose air and missile capabilities remain largely intact and continue to modernize despite the conflict in Ukraine.
The discussion around expanding nuclear sharing carries immense geopolitical weight. While offering commanders increased flexibility, such a move could be perceived as escalatory by Russia and other nations, potentially leading to further arms proliferation or heightened tensions. Similarly, the “pre-decisional” status of promised U.S. troop deployments to Poland highlights the political complexities and uncertainties that can impact alliance cohesion and operational planning.
NATO’s ongoing efforts to harden its facilities and refine its command structures are direct responses to the evolving nature of modern warfare, characterized by sophisticated drone attacks and hybrid threats. The ability to defend critical infrastructure and ensure effective command and control under duress is paramount for the alliance’s operational readiness. The emphasis on “pragmatic and realistic outcomes” for future summits underscores a mature approach to alliance management, recognizing that concrete deliverables and mutual accountability are essential for maintaining unity and effectiveness in a period of heightened global instability. Ultimately, these transformations collectively determine NATO’s capacity to protect its members, project stability, and deter aggression in an increasingly volatile world. The success or failure of these adaptations will have far-reaching consequences for international security and the geopolitical balance of power.
A senior NATO military commander has underscored the urgent need for the Alliance to continually adapt its defense strategies and capabilities in response to a rapidly evolving global threat landscape. The commander, speaking on the critical imperative for modernization and readiness, highlighted the dual challenge of increasing defense spending and ensuring those investments are directed towards capabilities relevant to contemporary and future warfare.
Central to the commander’s message is the understanding that military capabilities cannot remain static. The nature of modern conflict, as demonstrated by recent geopolitical events and ongoing conflicts, necessitates a fundamental rethinking of traditional military structures. “Don’t build me an armored brigade today if you have a target for one that looks like one did in 2021,” the commander stated, emphasizing that new units and existing forces must be designed and equipped to account for the dramatic evolution of operational environments. This means considering advancements in areas such as drone warfare, cyber operations, sophisticated electronic warfare, precision long-range fires, and integrated air defense systems, which have significantly altered battlefield dynamics. The composition of military units, from infantry brigades to naval fleets and air squadrons, along with their specific technological capabilities, must reflect these changes across all domains – land, sea, air, space, and cyber. The goal is not just to acquire more hardware, but to integrate smarter, more resilient, and more effective systems that can counter current and anticipated threats.
To facilitate this critical transformation, NATO leverages specialized bodies such as the Supreme Allied Commander for Transformation (SACT). SACT plays a pivotal role in ensuring the Alliance remains at the cutting edge of military doctrine and technology. This command is responsible for meticulously analyzing lessons learned from ongoing conflicts, particularly those like the war in Ukraine, which offer invaluable insights into the efficacy of modern military tactics and equipment. These lessons are then systematically propagated across all 32 member nations, ensuring a unified and informed approach to capability development. Furthermore, SACT conducts extensive war games and simulations designed to test future force structures and operational concepts against a variety of hypothetical scenarios. This collaborative effort ensures that the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), while central to military planning, operates within a broader, integrated system dedicated to continuous adaptation and strategic foresight. The synergy between these commands ensures that military planning is not only grounded in current realities but also proactively prepares for future challenges, preventing the Alliance from falling behind the curve.
The commander elucidated SHAPE’s unique and critical role within the Alliance. Its voice, it was explained, is directly tied to NATO’s foundational mission: the collective defense of every inch of Allied territory. In this capacity, the commander serves as a principal military advisor to heads of state and government, their respective ministers, and chiefs of defense across all 32 member nations. This direct line of communication involves providing unvarnished assessments and strategic guidance on the necessary actions and investments required to ensure NATO’s defense plans are viable and robust. Crucially, this advisory role extends to holding nations accountable for their commitments. “I’m telling them when they’re not doing enough,” the commander asserted, highlighting the responsibility to deliver frank, militarily grounded feedback directly to the political leadership. This mechanism ensures that political decisions are informed by operational realities and that nations uphold their collective defense obligations, translating strategic objectives into tangible military capabilities and readiness.
The core message conveyed by the commander revolved around two significant developments. Firstly, there is an observable and highly encouraging shift in allied contributions and leadership within NATO. European allies, in particular, are increasingly stepping up, taking on greater responsibility not only in fielding enhanced capabilities but also in assuming more prominent leadership positions across various Alliance initiatives. This movement signifies a profound shift towards a “much stronger Europe,” which, in turn, promises to forge a “much stronger and durable alliance over time.” This evolution is characterized as the emergence of “NATO 3.0,” suggesting a significantly enhanced and more resilient iteration of the transatlantic security pact. The commander expressed personal satisfaction with this trend, noting that as SACEUR, the past year following the Hague Summit has demonstrated a consistent increase in the Alliance’s overall capabilities. This “burden shift,” as it was termed, indicates a healthier distribution of defense responsibilities and a strengthening of the collective defense posture.
The second pivotal message reiterated the Alliance’s immediate state of preparedness. While NATO is actively in a transition phase, evolving into what is termed a “warfighting headquarters” – a structure designed for even greater operational effectiveness and responsiveness – the commander firmly stated that “we are ready today.” This declaration serves as a powerful assurance of the Alliance’s immediate defensive capabilities. It acknowledges that continuous improvement is an ongoing process: “Will we be more ready after a few more exercises, and after a few more capabilities are about? Absolutely.” The commitment is to be “more ready tomorrow, and we’re ready the day after that.” However, the core assertion remains that the Alliance is prepared to act now. This steadfast readiness is described as “serious business,” underscoring the gravity with which allies approach their collective defense commitments and the active steps being taken to maintain a credible deterrent and defense posture in a volatile global environment.
Why This Matters
The statements from a senior NATO military commander carry significant weight, offering crucial insights into the strategic thinking and operational priorities of the world’s most powerful military alliance. This perspective matters for several key reasons, impacting global security, international relations, and the future of defense planning.
Firstly, the emphasis on adapting to an “evolving threat” and the “evolution of warfare” highlights a profound shift in military doctrine. The conflict in Ukraine has served as a stark laboratory, demonstrating the devastating effectiveness of modern technologies like drones, precision artillery, and advanced cyber warfare, while also revealing vulnerabilities in traditional military structures. By actively integrating these lessons, NATO is not merely reacting but proactively shaping its future defense posture. This directly impacts the security of its 32 member states, ensuring their collective defense remains robust and credible against sophisticated adversaries. For non-NATO nations, it offers a blueprint for modernizing their own defense forces, understanding that yesterday’s military capabilities may not suffice for tomorrow’s conflicts.
Secondly, the call for allies to direct increased defense spending towards specific, modernized capability targets is vital for effective burden-sharing and military efficacy. In an era of finite resources, inefficient spending on outdated equipment or doctrines weakens the overall deterrent. The direct accountability mechanism, where a senior military commander provides “direct feedback to the political level,” underscores the seriousness with which NATO approaches its collective defense. This ensures that political commitments translate into tangible military assets and readiness, strengthening the Alliance’s ability to respond coherently and decisively to aggression. This commitment to smart investment and accountability influences defense industries, procurement cycles, and national defense budgets across Europe and North America.
Thirdly, the recognition of a “burden shift” and the emergence of “NATO 3.0” points to a significant geopolitical realignment. A “much stronger Europe” taking a more prominent leadership role within the Alliance suggests a more balanced transatlantic partnership. This has implications for global stability, potentially allowing the United States to recalibrate its security focus while ensuring a strong European pillar for Western defense. This strengthened European defense capability could enhance the continent’s capacity to address regional crises independently or as a more powerful partner in broader international coalitions.
Finally, the unwavering assertion that “we are ready today,” despite ongoing transitions to a “warfighting headquarters,” is a critical message of deterrence. In a world characterized by geopolitical tensions and conflicts, clear signals of military preparedness are essential to discourage potential aggressors. This readiness is not static; it is a dynamic process of continuous exercises, capability enhancements, and doctrinal refinements. It reassures NATO citizens and allies that the Alliance stands prepared to defend its territory and values, while simultaneously sending a powerful message to adversaries about the potential costs of aggression. This dynamic readiness is a cornerstone of collective security and a testament to the enduring relevance of the NATO alliance in a turbulent world.