NATO’s new “block, blunt, and break” doctrine promises deterrence through military might, but technological overconfidence, resource constraints, and fragile political unity could turn deterrence into strategic instability.
What Does the Theory Assume?
The Theory of Victory is a military concept, apparently meant to achieve deterrence and defense and, therefore, prevent any attack on the alliance. It is an example of a denial defense strategy that is consistent with the alliance’s “strategy of deterrence and defense of the Euro-Atlantic area” (DDA). The theory consists of the following key elements:
1. Block
The land forces of NATO will try to dominate any attack by the enemy at the point of contact and fix the formations of the enemy and deny him any territory. Air and maritime forces, along with the space and cyberspace forces, will ensure freedom of maneuver and air and maritime supremacy.
2. Blunt
After the first block, NATO will blunt any follow-up offensive moves. They will utilize smart sensors, autonomous technologies, and multi-domain forces to ensure that the attacker does not achieve the advantage.
3. Break
Should the opponent persist in the attack or use reserves, NATO will disrupt the opponent’s war-fighting system, which consists of the attacking force and its enablers, through the employment of precision weapons combined with affordable mass, coupled with relentless application throughout all domains (land, air, sea, space, and cyber).
Strategic Fallouts and Operational Risks
Practicability, or implementation of the proposed theory, is not at the drop of the hat. The devil is in the detail, as failure to have clearly defined limits, escalation management processes, and political objectives may lead to the success of the operation being disconnected from the general objective of securing Europe. Let’s keenly analyze the aforementioned assumptions of the theory to assess whether this theory holds any substance or if it’s just a wild goose chase.
Firstly, the core objective of the theory is to pursue the road to hell with good intentions. The Russian Federation has warned numerous times to halt NATO expansion or any kind of provocative military buildup, which could destabilize the status quo. But once again, NATO is trying to get Russia’s goat. Under the banner of deterrence and defense, NATO is making preparations that could increase insecurity or countermeasures in Russia. This, instead of maintaining deterrence, could pave the way for strategic instability in the already volatile region.
“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,” said SACEUR.
It seems like General has drawn a long bow. This assumption of technological superiority and flawless execution is highly questionable.
This concept depends much upon advanced sensors, autonomous systems, multi-domain forces, and precision munitions. However, what about the assurance of effectiveness of the advanced technology that will be used in the case of severe wars? Russia has moved quite ahead in the development of modern weapons. In this way, the theory tends to overstate the level of effectiveness of technological superiority for achieving victory.
Deployment and utilization of such a massive war fighting structure as suggested by the theory within 32 member states would also need a considerable number of financial resources. The main issue in this case is whether NATO will be able to maintain its capabilities as demanded by the theory during the entire course of the war.
The theory also raises questions about the durability of political will and unity among NATO’s 32 member states, particularly during the most demanding stages of a conflict. While asked during the Warsaw Security Conference about the political will of the political leadership, in particular that of the American one, General Grynkewich replied diplomatically,
“I’ll reference the Ankara Declaration from the summit in Ankara. All 32 allies signed onto an extremely strong declaration that talked about the ironclad commitment to Article 5.”
We all know how strong the Ankara commitment was more focused on Trump-Erdogan bromance than the so-called ironclad pledges. With just a war with Iran, the US has been forced to relocate its military presence away from Europe and other regions, think what will happen in case of Russia. Thus, even if NATO possesses the military capabilities required to execute the theory, its success would also depend on whether all relevant allies remain willing to support its implementation under the extreme pressures of war.
Conclusion
Strategies that seek to undermine an opponent without tackling the political roots of tension may succeed in deterring aggression but will fail in bringing about sustainable peace. At the end of the day, European security is not possible through the ability of NATO to block, blunt, and break Russian military strength. It simply requires a diplomatic framework that addresses Russia’s security concerns once and for all.
Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer who publishes on South Asian geopolitics.
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
