Play hard problems. Rank your strategic judgment.

Mid-November 2026. A US decision to remove roughly 30,000 personnel from Europe over 24 months forces NATO to redesign its Force Model before Russia may regain the ability to conduct a limited Baltic operation. As DSACEUR, you hold the pen on SHAPE's sourcing plan: what Europe fields first, where it is based, what remains dependent on Washington, and which risks ministers must knowingly carry.

Early March 2027. Forty drones crossed into Estonia overnight; two civilians are dead, a company in unmarked vehicles stood on the Estonian bank of the Narva river at dawn and was gone by first light, and Moscow calls it a border exercise and a navigation error. Estonia has invoked Article 4. London is already moving its battlegroup toward Narva, SACEUR is asking for more than his authorities allow, and Washington wants calm before the ceasefire talks resume in nine days. As NATO Secretary General you chair the North Atlantic Council: you command nothing and decide nothing alone, and in 72 hours the alliance either produces one credible response or escalates in pieces.

Following Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — enabled by U.S. intelligence and forward basing, a fact Tehran has declared constitutes co-belligerence — the IRGC Navy has mined the Strait of Hormuz and is running drone and fast-attack harassment against commercial tankers. Roughly 20 percent of the world's daily oil supply is trapped; crude has doubled in nine days. Gulf partners demand action while hedging toward Beijing. The President faces a core contradiction: the military options that could reopen the Strait soonest carry the highest risk of the broader regional war he campaigned against; the diplomatic options that limit escalation risk may cede initiative and accelerate Gulf partners' drift toward China. You are the National Security Advisor. You own the inter-agency process and the President's decision memo.