By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Speaking at the LandEuro symposium in Wiesbaden, Germany, Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich emphasized the potential for simultaneous conflicts in Europe and the Pacific, possibly by 2027, requiring immediate preparation. He highlighted the need for increased weapons production across the 32-nation NATO alliance and closer military collaboration with industry. Grynkewich, also the NATO supreme allied commander, addressed ongoing efforts to increase support for Ukraine, particularly in air defense, and the importance of allies meeting defense spending pledges. Furthermore, he cautioned against viewing the threats posed by Russia and China as separate, stressing the need for a global approach to deterrence.
Read the original article here
NATO must be ready for a two-front conflict with Russia and China, according to the top US commander in Europe, and that’s the core issue we’re discussing here. The implication is clear: the potential for simultaneous conflicts in Europe and the Pacific necessitates a rapid shift in strategic planning and resource allocation. The situation demands immediate preparation, given the limited time available.
The question of how NATO gets drawn into a war with China naturally arises. While some might speculate about economic pressures and the expansionist aims of both Russia and China, the primary focus is on military readiness. It’s not just about a single war, but a potential entanglement across multiple theaters. The US military, as we know, has war-gamed these scenarios extensively. The concern seems to be less about if, and more about when, and how.
Considering Russia, there’s a strong consensus that its military is severely weakened, particularly after the war in Ukraine. Russia’s economic challenges, including sanctions and internal instability, further limit its ability to sustain a large-scale conflict. Some even suggest that several NATO countries could individually overcome Russia within a short time. The implication here is not that Russia is invincible, but that China might see an opportunity in a weakened Russia.
China’s ambitions, while primarily focused on economic dominance, are also under scrutiny. The question of a Chinese invasion, particularly of Taiwan, is a key factor. There’s a debate about China’s motives and whether it would risk a war with its biggest customers. Some sources even suggest that China might use Russia as a distraction while pursuing its own goals. The consensus is that China’s military strength is rapidly increasing.
The geographical distribution of such conflicts is complex. While Russia and China share a border, the potential for simultaneous conflicts stretches across multiple continents. The US will need to divide its resources. There’s a fear that the US is increasingly insecure about its odds of winning a war against China, or China plus Russia. This leads to the concern that Europe might be drawn into a war in Asia. It suggests that the US is willing to risk war, as a means of influencing world power.
The core argument is clear: NATO must prepare for a two-front war involving Russia and China. This requires serious consideration of how these nations might engage in conflict. It suggests that military leaders must recognize the risks and the resource allocation needs that these conflicts could generate. The need to push for greater defense spending, particularly among European countries, is implied.