A brief observation of the recent Warsaw Security Forum (October 12/13), which gathered NATO officials, such as Supreme Allied Commander Europe NATO, General Alexis G. Grynkewich aside United States Lieutenant General (ret.) Ben Hodges (former commanding general of the United States Army Europe from Nov. 2014 to Dec. 2017), aside European foreign and defense ministers, such as J. Wadepuhl (Germany), Miliband (UK), Sikorski (Poland), Barth Eide (Norway) as well as the Lithuanian defense minister and defense experts, illustrated very clearly that Europe – being caught between its rejection of US politics and Russophobia – has nothing to offer at present but empty sophism which it calls “Vision”. The climax of European sophistry was the huge applause given in Warsaw for the speech of NATO SACEUR commander Gen. Grynkewich on “The Theory of Victory.”
It is indeed astonishing to see how much Grynkewich’s “Theory if Victory” was hailed in the European press, which is contradicted by the facts on the ground on the battlefield, where reportedly, according to some voices, Ukraine is l o s i ng the war with major reverberations on Europe.Gen.Grynkewich began his speech by pointing to the special role that Poland plays for NATO – which “since joining 1999 NATO has led by example. Today, Poland continues to lead with historic investments in defense, a commitment to an expanded industrial base, rapid military modernization and a focus on societal resilience in the face of a complex and unsettled environment.” (Poland is negotiating right now with the US to become a major US military hub in Eastern Europe E.H.)
He emphasized that the reason why NATO exists, is that it is “a defensive alliance, constructed to preserve peace. And as such, we have no plans, no intentions, and no ambitions beyond the protection of our people and the defense of our territory.”
Presenting his “Theory of Victory”, Gen Grynkevich underlined that it is based on a strategy agreed to by all 32 Allies. Its main principles being: To “block” the initial attack. If the attack persists, we will “blunt” it and prevent enemy advance. And if required, we will “break” the enemy’s forces and the operational warfighting system that is arrayed against us.” (“The 3 B principle”):
“To block, our land forces will move to and dominate any enemy assault at the point of contact. Through manoeuver, we will fix the enemy formations and deny the seizure of alliance territory. Land-based forces will attack the enemy and destroy his advancing forces, but they won’t be doing this alone. Our air forces and navies, working in concert with our space and cyber forces, will rapidly gain freedom and manoeuvre..With air and maritime superiority rapidly secured in and over the battlespace, these forces will bring mass and precision to bear, denying the enemy the ability to hold their ground.”
“Following this initial block, we will “blunt” any ongoing or follow- on offensive actions against us. Using advanced sensors, autonomous systems and multi- domain forces, we will deny the attacker the ability to generate momentum or gain the initiative. Synchronized employment of multi- domain effects down to the tactical level will overwhelm the enemy formations in contact, and their advance, if it’s continuing at all this point, we will falter further.”
“If the adversary chooses to press the attack or commit his reserves, we will “break” the warfighting system engaged against us. This includes not just the attacking force itself, but anything and everything that supports, sustains, and or controls that force.”
“To do this, we will layer high- end and highly effective precision munitions with an overpowering mass of affordable and scalable systems. We will apply constant and unyielding pressure, both kinetic and non- kinetic, we will do this across and through domains – land, air, sea, space and cyber space. Doing this will “break” the enemy system and defeat it in detail. (!) Enemy formations will be starved of replenishment. Any enemy commanders will be unable to control their forces. And enemy forces and support capabilities will be reduced and destroyed. (…) given this Theory of Victory- this vision of how to win- where do we go from here? Across the Alliance, we are taking steps to operationalize this theory and maximize the readiness of our forces. “If attacked, we are ready to fight tonight (!) but we are not complacent. We will continue to prepare and rehearse each and every day, and will be more ready tomorrow, and even more ready the day after.”
In the various panels which followed, one could see European ministers of defense and foreign affairs, aside experts from the Baltic states arrogantly parading and echoing the line touted by the Media that the West is winning the war against Russia, which is catastrophically losing on the battlefield and is paying a high economic price. Especially people like Foreign affairs Minister R. Sikorsky aside German FM J. Wadphul were trumpeting how huge the losses are on Russia’s side and how much Putin is stuck on land, Lieutenant General(ret.) Ben Hodges bluntly stated in one of the panels “Russia is only a superpower in the heads of the US and European elites.” (sic) Meaning that they are bluffing on nuclear weapons, as several experts underlined. In the enclave Kaliningrad Russian forces would be thinned out, i.e. vulnerable. The line given was that Putin’s warning at Valdai that Russia would respond with all weapons disposable (including nuclear) was cast aside as pure Russian Bluff.
Reality check at Valdai discussion Forum (Moscow) – Putin’s speech
The speech showed a president that was quite relaxed, responding in a conference hall in Moscow for three and a half hours to questions from experts around the world. In his speech President Putin put emphasis on the rapidly changing world, the crisis of institutions and the erosion of international law. “The absence of universally recognized rules and a shared understanding of the principle and equal and indivisible security- or cancelling that principle altogether- often encourages selfish behavior. In some cases, it turns into aggressive attempts to secure unilateral advantages, aggravate the confusion and exploit it to promote one’s own interests. International politics provides example of this almost every day. Every conceivable and inconceivable taboo is being violated. (…) The ‘might makes right’- principle sometimes appears to guide certain international actors who are convinced of their own military-political, economic and, as they think, moral exceptionalism. We know perfectly well from history that this never ends well.”
Speaking about the Ukraine conflict, he listed a few elements that led to this conflict. “Aggressive nationalism and Russophobia in Ukraine becoming a tool for fighting Russia; NATO should not have embarked on an effort to make our historical territories part of its military space in its own interests and should not have planned setting up its basis there. Radicals in Kiew should not have been pushed to a government coup while the de facto illegal regime should not have been pumped full of all kinds of offensive weapons after that. … unnamed people should not have been rolled over by tanks, shelled with missiles and bombed from the air and burnt alive just for being Russians, in terms of both their ethnic background and their spirit.” Sooner or later,according to Putin, the international situation and the international system will settle into some form of stable equilibrium…The former hegemon will unavoidably have to acknowledge the realities of a multipolar world – just look at the trends shaping the global economy- and learn to cooperate with the countries of the Global Majority on the basis of respect for their fundamental interests. “
Special praise of German SPD politician Egon Bahr
Although Putin had never met in person German “Architect of Ostpolitik”, Egon Bahr,( 1933 -2025), he spent some time by paying attention to Egon Bahrs peaceful vision for Europe at the end of the Cold War. “Bahrs main concern was the threat of a lingering confrontation in Europe after Germany’s reunification and once -and I quote- ‘those circles within NATO which are not at all eager to pursue the path of pan-European cooperation and ending the confrontation’ reinforced their positions and influence.” During the 1990 talks, Egon Bahr said according to Putin “Without a decisive step towards overcoming Europe’s disintegration into hostile blocs, events can take quite a negative turn that would doom the USSR to international isolation. (…) What was the offer to Eastern and Central Europe? The proposal consisted of setting up a security council that would include both the United States and the USSR and giving this structure a broad mandate. This council was designed to include almost all Eastern and Central European countries.”
“However, after the USSR’s dissolution, the forces which came to dominate the West, just as Egon Bahr said, had little, if any, interest in pursuing the path of a pan-European cooperation. Despite the fact that new Russia spent many years – trying to integrate into the so-called Western civilization, they did everything to effectively isolate the Russian Federation and break it down even further. All the shifts in Russia’s domestic politics notwithstanding, and despite all these changes, they still viewed Russia as the core element of the historical Russian Empire. To this date they keep talking at all kinds of events and gatherings about the need to complete the effort to break up the Empire. “(…) I would say that it is my deep belief is that Mr. Bahr did not have anything other than Europe’s future on his mind at that time. He was thinking about this pan- European home. The USSR leadership also talked about it a lot at that time but, unfortunately, they failed to put words into action.”
He then spoke about the necessity of a New World Order. “The fundamental formations of a new world order are inevitable- and one hopes it will occur within the foreseeable future.” Aside pushing for the idea of a “Greater Eurasian Partnership”, Putin warned that at present “military political confrontations are undermining global connectivity and endangering industrial transport and logistics chains, as well as established trade and communication paths (…) Eurasia can become the prototype of international communication in conditions of diverse cultures, approaches and interests, where differences do not become an obstacle but an advantage for the development of a sustainable and balanced partnership.”
He also mentioned the dangers inherent in AI. “Technological progress cannot be halted; however, we must understand the consequences of that progress- above all when it comes to the use of its achievements, particularly in the military domain…Yet humans possess other qualities: instinct, intuition and the ability to make decisions that may not be immediately obvious but ultimately prove to be the only correct ones, and even life – saving.” He referred to a famous incident in September 1983 and the story of Russian Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov – an officer at a missile early warning center, who was on duty when the system picked up a signal. “Both we and the United States had long since had such systems in place and operational. The system detected the launch of five American intercontinental ballistic missiles. Any algorithm would have classified this as unambiguous trigger for a retaliatory strike. Yet, the experienced officer questioned the accuracy of the signal, suspecting a systemic malfunction. And he turned out to be right. Had artificial intelligence been in his place, things might have turned out very differently. To my mind this is a very compelling example.”
During the discussion period Putin was asked about present NATO exercises that are taking place in the Baltic Sea, accompanied by very stern statements and threats directed at Kaliningrad and that the Russian side has promised that, should the need arise- specifically, in the event of an attempt to blockade Kaliningrad- it would every means at its disposal, including nuclear weapons. “Are we on the brink of war, or are we simply trying to scare one another?” he was asked.
Putin answered to this: “We are not trying to scare anyone. (…) If it comes to a direct attack on the Russian Federation – in this case- Kaliningrad-, although it could possibly involve other territories as well- the question of Russia using all the weapons at its disposal would inevitably and immediately arise. That is inevitable. (…) We would not have a vast array of forces and means at our disposal to counter such a threat. We would have to rely on our competitive advantages in this struggle. And what are they? That fact is that we possess such advantages in the means we have to defend ourselves.” He complained that the West is “pursuing an aggressive policy towards Russia and pushing their people towards a dangerous threshold of confrontation. (…) We are not threatening anyone. We have no intention of attacking anyone, whether in 2029, 2030 or 2050. But if we are subjected to aggression, we will have no choice but to respond. People in European countries need to understand this clearly and distinguish between our position and that of their current political leaders. It seems to me, however, that they do understand the difference. We can see it in the election results and in public sentiment across major European countries.” He again underlined that Ukraine is totally reliant on space-based intelligence and technical assistance from western specialist, “It means that these countries are getting involved in the war against Russia, which creates additional threats for the future… Ukraine and I know and everyone knows, cannot exist on its own. Its actually losing elements of its statehood. In my view its obvious: It is being governed from outside.”
Putin further underlined that the major European countries are taking a far more aggressive stance toward Russia, that the United State is seeking to end the conflict, while many European countries, according to Putin are driving this aggressive approach. “Faced with adverse economic trends at home, an increasingly precarious position for their ruling political classes, and changing public sentiment, they seem to be provoking confrontation with Russia and fuelling further crises between Russia and Europe. They’ re doing so precisely in order to justify preparations for war and to rally as many supporters as possible around themselves, thereby enabling them to remain in power.”
Victor Trenin and Ian Proud on Europe’s existential crisis
In this context one should look at an interview which the influential strategic military expert Victor Trenin (Moscow Carnegie Foundation), who was present at the Valdai Conference, had with the former British diplomat to Moscow, Ian Proud, in Proud’s channel “The Peacemonger”. Trenin essentially evaluated Putin’s Valdai speech as a very rich and spirited one, showing a relaxed and joking president, who gave one of the most forceful statements in relation to Europe. With his answer about Kaliningrad during the panel, Putin, according to Trenin “left no doubt that Russia would resort to anything in its arsenal.” Trenin when being asked about future diplomacy steps, said that “For Russia it’s an existential conflict. (…) Russia can’t afford to lose the conflict… Ending the war shows its strong position.” He spoke about the liberation of Luhansk the situation in Donetzk and that Russia began to take the two oblasts, and had signed treaties with them in 2022 with referenda being held then.
He further stated further that for “Trump Russia is a piece of a geopolitical puzzle; for the EU the whole thing with Ukraine is ‘existential’, they feel abandoned by Trump. Europe needs to consolidate the EU on the international scene. They use Russia as an enemy, as an instrument to hold Europe together. Military expenditures used to spur the economy. For the European elites it’s convenient to brand their rivals as pro- Russian, or Putin agents. For the US the Ukraine conflict is one among many. For Europe its existential.”
When being asked by Ian Proud about a possible outcome, Trenin underlined that “The outcome of the war will have enormous implications for the EU. For the EU the so- called Russian threat is a major instrument in placing it above national interests of countries.” He underlined that the talk about Russia trying to take over is not existing and “hollow”. The EU would seek the “impossible”: They want to create a “European mega- state in opposition to Russia. It’s a mission impossible. Russia can’t be defeated.” What he meant by peaceful terms, Trenin replied that rather than seeking a peaceful coexistence, European countries want “transactional” relations with Russia. “We are not in supranationalism. Trump stands for MAGA and Europe will not be an outsider eternally.”
Trenin in addition referred to the period before the war (which began in February 2022) when Russia tried to prevent a military solution to the Ukraine conflict. It came up with a treaty plan in December 2021 (presented to NATO countries and the US) whereby Ukraine was to stay permanently outside the NATO framework. It further stipulated that the status of Ukraine be fixed in the constitution: a neutral- non nuclear state. That was the basis upon which Russia had recognized previously the independence of Ukraine. (…) “We are not at the point of a viable security architecture now,” Trenin said. He referred to Putin, who had said at Valdai: “We are ready for dialogue with Europe.” And Trenin continued: “But Europe is not eager for this. The ball is therefore in Europe’s court. The supranational elites in Europe need Russia as an enemy. Whether Europe is able to overcome this, is a question. We can have transactional, neighborly relationship, but no more. The idea of a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok— this is passé.”
