NATO Plans Deep Strikes to Deter Russian Military Escalation

NATO is preparing a revised military strategy that would allow conventional strikes deep inside Russian territory to counter potential aggression against its eastern members. The initiative, outlined on November 4, 2026, reflects lessons from the war in Ukraine and aims to weaken Russia's ability to sustain military operations before an invasion can develop.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the Alliance is moving beyond its traditional emphasis on border fortifications, defensive barriers and checkpoints. Military planners increasingly believe that stopping advancing troops alone would not be sufficient to prevent a large-scale Russian offensive.

The revised approach would target military installations, ammunition supplies, logistics networks and industrial facilities supporting Russian forces. The strategy does not include a transition to nuclear weapons, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper described the shift in NATO's deterrence thinking as follows:

"Deterring the Kremlin's conventional forces now requires more active prevention or, in military speak, denial. That entails not just blasting troops that might pour across borders, but also hitting military bases, supply depots and industrial facilities behind the front line, on Russia's home ground." The Wall Street Journal reported.

Supreme Allied Commander Europe Alexus Grynkewich has outlined the concept through what NATO describes as its "theory of victory." The approach involves stopping an initial attack before disrupting the systems that allow an opposing military to continue fighting.

Grynkewich explained the operational objective:

"We will break the warfighting system engaged against us by hitting both advancing forces and anything and everything that supports, sustains or controls that force." Grynkewich said.

The proposed doctrine draws on Ukraine's use of long-range weapons against Russian infrastructure. Ukrainian operations have targeted oil refineries, drone battery factories, data centers and fuel depots using long-range drones and missiles.

Polish Major General Ireneusz Nowak argued that military deterrence must include the ability to retaliate against an aggressor's supporting infrastructure. He highlighted the importance of deep precision strikes in preventing further attacks.

"Defence also means striking back." Nowak said.

He specifically identified Russia's defence industry as a potential target in a conflict involving the Alliance.

"We definitely would want to strike the defense-industrial base in a fight with Russia. We need to treat deep precision strike as deterrence." Nowak said.

Nowak also emphasized that NATO's warning to Moscow would need to be supported by actual military capabilities.

"Don't do anything stupid, because we can punish you. But to be credible, we need to have those capabilities." Nowak said.

Ukraine's Ambassador to NATO Alyona Getmanchuk similarly stressed that defensive measures must address the origins of military threats rather than only their immediate effects. She compared air defense to a painkiller that "can alleviate the symptoms – but you need to target the source of the pain".

Building the necessary capabilities will require additional weapons and larger missile inventories. The United States is modernizing and replenishing its Tomahawk cruise missile and ATACMS ballistic missile stocks, while European countries are seeking to expand their supplies of Storm Shadow/SCALP and Taurus cruise missiles.

European partners are also developing less expensive long-range strike systems. Fabian Hoffmann, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, identified at least 48 announced European projects focused on developing affordable cruise missiles.

Hoffmann warned against entering a major military confrontation without comparable long-range strike capabilities.

"What we've seen is that you don't want to be caught in a high-intensity conflict where your adversary has access to deep arsenals of long-range strike capabilities and not have them yourself." Hoffmann said.

Separately, NATO's membership and its relationship with Russia remain central issues in European security discussions. In an interview published by Ukrinform on October 28, 2026, Jim Stokes, a senior expert with GLOBSEC's Future of Security program and former NATO director of nuclear policy from 2023 to 2025, rejected the possibility of reversing the Alliance's expansion.

Stokes said Russia would have to recognize the existing membership structure rather than expect NATO to withdraw countries that joined after the Cold War.

"Russia will therefore have to accept the reality: NATO now has 32 members. Russia can continue talking about this, and NATO can simply respond: 'Noted. We are not going to change,'" Stokes said.

He considered Moscow's demand for NATO to return its military presence to pre-1997 levels "absolutely impossible." His assessment included Finland and Sweden, which joined the Alliance, alongside 16 other countries admitted after the Cold War.

Stokes explained that existing members would not support the departure of countries that had already joined the organization.

"They are not going to agree to leave the Alliance, and the other Allies are not going to agree simply to let them go. That has never happened in NATO's 77-year history." Stokes said.

He distinguished the question of reversing existing membership from the separate issue of admitting additional countries. Any future enlargement requires agreement among all 32 NATO members.

Stokes also attributed the changing security environment to Russia's own military actions, particularly its war against Ukraine. He noted that Finland and Sweden chose full NATO membership rather than maintaining their previous partnership arrangements because of the perceived threat.

He said Russia had transformed NATO enlargement into a political confrontation despite previously showing less resistance to the process.

"Much of the responsibility therefore lies with Russia. It can blame NATO for expanding closer to Russian borders, and I understand that it is unhappy about it. But Russia had no problem with this in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

It turned the issue into a political one, and now it will have to come to terms with it." Stokes concluded.