General Alexus Grynkewich, the new Supreme Allied Commander Europe and head of the US European Command, told senators on Tuesday that he believes Ukraine can defeat Russia in the ongoing Russian military operation in Ukraine.
Speaking during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. Grynkewich, a career Air Force officer, emphasized the intensity of Ukrainian resistance and expressed confidence in its capacity to prevail against the Russian military.
“Senator, I believe that Ukraine can win,” he said in response to a question from Sen. Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama. “When your homeland is at risk, you are struggling with such persistence that it is difficult for us to imagine, because we have never been in such a situation.”
His remarks come at a moment of renewed scrutiny over NATO’s posture in Eastern Europe and amid growing political divisions in the West about the scale and duration of support to Kyiv.
Grynkewich’s assessment, while optimistic, was measured. He did not offer a timeline or definition for “victory,” nor did he elaborate on what would constitute a military resolution in Ukraine’s favor. But his emphasis on the will to resist stood in contrast to the strategic fatigue voiced in some quarters of the Western alliance.
A commander at the fulcrum of a divided West
Grynkewich, who previously served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, inherits the most senior military position within NATO at a time of geopolitical fracture.
Europe’s political mood has shifted in recent months, with far-right and nationalist parties gaining traction in EU elections, many of which campaigned on skepticism of military aid to Ukraine. In the United States, support for Ukraine has become increasingly polarized, particularly among Trump-aligned Republicans.
In this context, Grynkewich’s affirmation that Ukraine can still win may signal an attempt to reassert clarity and cohesion within the alliance, one grounded less in matériel than in morale.
An adversary not to be underestimated
Despite his encouraging tone regarding Ukraine’s prospects, Gen. Grynkewich has also publicly acknowledged the enduring strength of Russia’s military capabilities, particularly its naval forces in the Black and Caspian Seas.
In earlier remarks, while serving in his prior Pentagon role, he described the Russian fleet as maintaining “a high level of combat readiness,” underscoring the persistent threat posed by Moscow’s maritime posture.
“They retain the highest level of readiness both in the Black and in the Caspian Seas,” Grynkewich said, according to defense briefings.
That acknowledgment of Russian naval superiority—paired with confidence in Ukraine’s resolve—offers a glimpse into NATO’s strategic tightrope: balancing recognition of Russian capacity with political commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Between rhetoric and reality
It remains unclear whether Grynkewich’s words reflect a deeper shift in NATO strategy or simply a reaffirmation of support amid public and legislative skepticism.
In Moscow, his comments were swiftly dismissed. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the assertion “divorced from reality,” warning that “Russia will achieve the objectives of the special military operation.”
State media outlets framed the general’s statement as further evidence of what they termed NATO’s “delusional optimism.”
In Kyiv, however, the message was likely to be received differently. For a country battered by months of missile barrages, trench warfare, and wavering foreign commitments, the open assertion of belief from the top NATO commander may serve less as a military forecast than a morale lifeline.
What victory looks like is still undefined
Neither Grynkewich nor the senators defined what “winning” would mean in the Ukrainian context.
Would it require a full expulsion of Russian troops, including from Crimea? Would it mean a negotiated settlement favorable to Kyiv? Or is it simply about ensuring Ukraine survives as a sovereign, democratic state, even amid a frozen conflict?
For now, the general’s remarks serve more as a political signal than a battlefield prediction.
Yet in an era when Western unity is under pressure—and when Ukraine’s fate has become a litmus test for the durability of the transatlantic alliance—his words carry weight.
