In a panel convened at the Intelligence and National Security Summit, retired and active national security leaders from the U.S., Poland, and New Zealand delivered a sobering assessment of alliance durability, strategic coherence, and adversarial momentum. Moderated by Milancy Harris (former Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence & Security, DoD), the discussion featured RADM Michael Studeman (USN Ret.), BrigGen Jarosław Strozyk (Poland), MajGen Howard (Ret. – New Zealand), and Col. John Mills (U.S. Ret., currently Deputy Assistant Secretary, Cyberspace & Digital Policy, State Department). The panel’s rhythm oscillated between tactical realism and strategic alarm, with recurring themes of disinformation, deterrence, and alliance recalibration.
Poland’s Forward Posture
BrigGen Strozyk framed Poland’s strategic lens through the long arc of the Ukraine war, “it started for us in 2014.” With current Polish defense spending elevated to 4.7% of GDP, Poland is operationalizing strategic autonomy while deepening NATO and bilateral ties. Strozyk emphasized the elevation of disinformation as a primary threat vector, noting that robust information-sharing across political, military, and industrial domains has become a cornerstone of allied resilience. He projected that Russia’s posture will remain unchanged over the next 5–10 years but expressed confidence in NATO’s strengthening trajectory and U.S. partnership continuity.
Poland, he noted, is “going out of the box” to preempt adversaries rather than merely react, leveraging AI to counter Russian disinformation and accelerate strategic tempo.
Deterrence, Ambiguity, and Escalation Readiness
RADM Studeman issued a stark warning: “We are at war,” referring to both information and kinetic engagement. He challenged the notion of deterrence as a static posture, urging allies to identify what is actually being deterred. Studeman underscored the danger of fragmented signals across government, arguing that misalignment breeds vulnerability. “Adversaries are probing to see if strength is met with strength,” he said, pointing to Russia and China’s opportunism amid perceived U.S. ambiguity.
He questioned whether a true “coalition of the willing” exists, a coalition capable of political and military escalation when needed. Without improved statecraft, Studeman warned, China’s vision-driven initiatives will isolate the U.S.: “We are handing them a win. We will find ourselves in a very lonely place and we will need friends.”
Mills vs. Studeman: Transactionalism and Bureaucratic Trust
John Mills advanced a transactional critique of U.S. strategy, arguing that the export of jobs weakened national resilience. “We want trade, not aid,” he said, praising President Trump’s economic assertiveness and calling for NATO members to meet a 5% GDP defense threshold. Mills portrayed bureaucracy as a “shadow government,” citing India’s punishment for buying sanctioned oil as a failure of enforcement discipline.
Studeman countered sharply: “Good American civil servants are part of the bureaucracy, not the deep state. We depend on our public servants. We shouldn’t view them as the enemy.” His defense of institutional integrity drew applause, signaling a divide between economic instrumentalism and relational statecraft.
AI, Information Security, and Strategic Tempo
AI emerged as both a tactical asset and a strategic vulnerability. Mills claimed U.S. dominance in chip manufacturing, while Studeman raised concerns about trust in shared information: “The U.S. has shown itself at times unable to secure shared information.” He noted how AI could offer “cybersecurity in a box” to allies allowing them to focus on other equally important issues.
MajGen Howard called for accelerated information sharing, introducing the CPR framework: Culture, Policy, and Risk, as a lens for reform. Strozyk echoed the urgency, noting Poland’s proactive use of AI to counter disinformation and outpace adversaries.
Social Media, Alliance Fragility, and Strategic Urgency
Howard’s remark, “Nations are losing U.S. support on a social media post” accurately captured the fragility of alliance optics in the digital age. He questioned whether the West has time to recalibrate within a 24-month window, reminding the audience, “Why Five Eyes and NATO exist.” Highlighting the strength of alliances and their purpose amid shifting global dynamics.
Studeman reinforced this theme, noting that while lower echelons of alliances continue to function, strategic misalignment at the top weakens deterrence and emboldens adversaries.
