Atlantic Council 12-4-25: A Master Class in Evasion... (Patreon)

I'd already signed up for General Aurelio Colagrande's speaking engagement at the Atlantic Council prior to the announcement of Trump's Thanksgiving deadline for his most recent Ukraine peace deal. Suddenly, it seemed like the stars were lining up. Colagrande had an impressive enough title --"Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Transformation." I gather that NATO's Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is geared towards strategic thinking and harmonizing the command structure among the partner nations. Surely an event focused on preparing NATO for the "challenges of tomorrow" from the Number Two guy in ACT would produce some juicy quotes in the aftermath of the last week's events.

I should have known better.

The deadline came and went, with the US opting to further destabilize Ukraine by ensnaring Zelensky's top aide in a corruption probe. It still seemed like the possibility for a lively discussion was there. Instead, General Colagrande showed that he had a promising political career ahead of him. In a rambling, nearly one hour engagement, he made it through without really saying much of anything.

Simply visiting the Atlantic Council is rather James Bond-ish. They have key cards for the elevators, so the staff have to grant you access. They're very stern about getting off on the right floor and typically they have someone accompany me. Often times, the speakers and other VIPs are escorted up in separate elevators. Or at least I've overheard younger staffers grousing about having to take separate lifts. Often times the VIPs --both the speakers and those in the audience --relocate to more exclusive rooms that the profane (i.e. me and the interns/junior staffers) are barred from. Today, we were required to remain seated in the room while General Colagrande and his entourage arrived and departed --presumably in separate elevators to boot.

When the general said "We cannot afford to remain reactive," my heart fluttered. Was he getting ready to bring the hammer down on the US peace plan?

Hardly.

Instead, he lurched into a discussion of "strategic foresight analysis" (SFA), a topic that is inherently far more interesting than how Colagrande presented it. This is data driven predictive modeling with a new label. NATO is busy crunching a variety of social, geopolitical, economic, and other such data so as to make predictions about the future activities of adversaries. The US Military has been building up such capabilities since at least Project Camelot.

This newfangled SFA approach located five possible crisis NATO would have to confront in the near future. Among the usual suspects such as climate change and "geo-economic competition" was the likelihood that right wing populists movements in Europe would continue to strengthen. That was number two with a bullet. Given the current "challenges" NATO faces, I would not be surprised if it had moved up to the top spot.

Per General Colagrande, NATO ACT saw four possible outcomes: cooperation, collusion (a Cold War type scenario), Competition (apparently what we're currently in), and conflict. Ominously, he specifically defined the last one as "grid war." I would have loved to hear more on that one, but it was not to be. The general instead opted to bring his keynote remarks to a close by insisting that "foresight is stronger when it is collective."

From there, we were on to a Q and A session moderated by the Wall Street Journal's White House correspondent, Meridith McGraw. Bless her heart, she really tried to get something substantial out of the general. First, she asked him about the recent alleged Russian drone incursions into NATO airspace. McGraw was gentle initially, questioning what it had done for policy. Finally, she pointedly asked if the rules of engagement had changed.

Colagrande proceeded to babble on in broken English about changes needing to be understood and integrated, before concluding that NATO had to shape the future so that it could "fight where we want to fight." McGraw kept pressing and Colagrande kept insisting that changes had to be "understood." He did finally concede that the drone incursions were probably deliberate. It was McGraw's only real win.

Next, she broached space. The general is an Air Force man, so it must have seemed like a safe topic. He mused that it would become a major domain and contested before concluding that space "is not a peaceful environment anymore." He than emphasized that NATO had to become a true alliance so that it could dominate all domains.

Next up, it was the audience's turn. A self-described Ukrainian journalist asked the general what conditions her country had to meet in order to join NATO. Colagrande dismissed her by saying that it was a "political question" for policymakers.

The highlight for me came when the woman next to me asked a question. She was from the Australian embassy and wanted to know about further integration of Indo-Pacific partners into NATO. Predictably, Colagrande starting talking about how they "need to all speak the same language." What made the question so great is that I was filmed sitting next to woman for the online audience. The crowd was supposed to be "esteemed and distinguished," so I can only imagine what they thought of me with my hair down.

The one semi-interesting response anyone got out of Colagrande related to AI. When asked how NATO was integrating it, he mentioned the Ukraine was was using AI. This was interwoven with comments about the rapidly changing battlefield in Ukraine and the near weekly shift in tactics both sides employed. I couldn't help but wonder if this was a hint at the experimentation NATO and Russia are currently engaged with the military application of AI. Given that the war is already widely considered to be a laboratory for the future of war, it stands to reason AI would be beta tested. What more ideal conditions could there be than employing it against a major rival in a real war?

As you may have guessed, Colagrande didn't elaborate on how AI was being used in Ukraine. Instead, he spoke of what a great job NATO was doing in the logistics of the Ukrainian war, and the need for faster supply chains in the future. For the big finale, he again emphasized how NATO had to achieved cohesion. He was then ushered out by his handlers while the audience remained sequestered.

The whole spectacle lasted nearly an hour and General Colagrande managed to say absolutely nothing of any substance the entire time. I was not the only one in the audience who thought so. If Colagrande was auditioning for a civilian role in NATO after he retires, it was masterful. That he knows to punt on any type of "political question" (especially in this environment) shows an understanding of realpolitik.

On my way out, I shared the elevator with two other attendees, both of whom were as bemused by Colagrande's evasiveness as I was. After having a good laugh, one suggested Colagrande's ambiguity reflected the current status of NATO. His repetition of "understanding" and "cohesion" in relation to the alliance could be viewed as much as wishful, even magical, thinking. Given the current geopolitical reality, perhaps trying to will understanding and cohesion into being with empty words and phrases is the best the European partners can manage at this point.