The alliance is shifting towards a more offensive form of deterrence, with military commanders arguing that precision long-range weapons are essential to countering a potential Russian attack.
NATO is developing a new defence strategy that would include strikes against military bases, supply networks and industrial facilities deep inside Russian territory in the event of an attack on the alliance.
The shift reflects lessons from Russia’s war in Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Middle East. NATO commanders increasingly argue that simply slowing an enemy advance would not be enough to defend European territory. Instead, the alliance would need to weaken the systems supporting an offensive before they could sustain a prolonged campaign.
The strategy was discussed at NATO’s first Deep Strike Symposium in June, hosted by US Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, the alliance’s top military commander.
In a recent speech in Warsaw, Grynkewich outlined a possible response to a Russian attack: NATO forces would first stop the initial assault and then target the military infrastructure sustaining it. He said the alliance would seek to break the entire warfighting system, including forces on the battlefield and the facilities supporting them.
Precision long-range weapons are central to the approach. The US is expanding its arsenal of systems such as Tomahawk cruise missiles and ATACMS rockets, while European allies are seeking to increase stocks of Storm Shadow, SCALP and Taurus missiles.
At least 48 low-cost cruise missile projects involving 20 manufacturers have been announced across Europe, according to Fabian Hoffmann of the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies. However, many projects may not reach production, and those that do could take years to deliver weapons.
The strategy draws heavily on Ukraine’s experience. Kyiv has increasingly used long-range missiles and drones to hit Russian military and industrial targets, including oil refineries, weapons-related facilities and infrastructure far from the front line.
Ukraine’s ambassador to NATO, Alyona Getmanchuk, described air defence as a way of alleviating the effects of attacks rather than eliminating their source. She argued that striking back against the systems responsible for those attacks had become an essential part of defence.
Polish Major General Ireneusz Nowak also said NATO would need to target Russia’s defence-industrial base in a conflict. He argued that deep-strike capabilities should be treated as a deterrent, rather than simply as weapons to be used after a war begins.
However, questions remain over whether European political leaders would support strikes deep inside Russia following a limited attack on NATO territory. Former German Defence Ministry official Nico Lange pointed to a gap between military planning, which increasingly includes offensive operations, and political thinking that still tends to frame defence in terms of barriers and interception systems.
NATO planners also face the challenge of building sufficiently large missile stockpiles. Fixed facilities can be relocated or dispersed, while mobile systems such as missile launchers are difficult to track and target. Ukraine’s experience has highlighted the need for a sustained supply of precision weapons as targets change throughout a conflict.
Long-range strikes are not new. They were used extensively during the Second World War, although with limited accuracy. The US demonstrated the potential of precision cruise missiles during the 1991 Gulf War, when it fired hundreds of Tomahawks. Since then, advances in missiles, rockets and drones have expanded the range of available capabilities.
NATO commanders now see these weapons as a key part of deterring Moscow. As Nowak put it, the alliance must be able to demonstrate that any attack would carry a significant cost for Russia.
Be First to Comment