NATO–EU Strategic Priority: Information Superiority & Counter-Hybrid Operations
Information superiority and counter-hybrid operations have emerged as decisive components of contemporary defence and security strategy within the Euro-Atlantic space. In recent years, adversaries have intensified the use of non-conventional tools to undermine democratic institutions, manipulate public opinion, and disrupt critical infrastructure. These activities include disinformation campaigns, cyber intrusions, covert influence operations, and hybrid interference designed to blur the distinction between peace and conflict. The strategic use of digital platforms, artificial intelligence, satellite services, and open-source intelligence has accelerated the operational tempo and complexity of such threats. Within this context, NATO and the European Union have progressively recognised that information dominance is not merely a support function but a core enabler of deterrence, defence, and operational cohesion. The ability to collect, fuse, protect, and exploit information at scale—while neutralising hostile narratives and hybrid disruptions—has become central to maintaining strategic autonomy and decision-making superiority. The current security environment, shaped by technological diffusion, strategic competition, and the persistent grey-zone activities of state and non-state actors, has placed information operations at the heart of both strategic planning and tactical execution. Consequently, countering hybrid threats and achieving information superiority now demand integrated political attention, military capabilities, civilian resilience, and long-term industrial and regulatory adaptation.
This report reconstructs the strategic priority of “Information Superiority and Counter-Hybrid Operations” through a detailed, six-part analytical framework that traces the full institutional and operational logic underpinning the concept. It begins with a contextual analysis of the political and strategic rationale, examining the drivers that led NATO, the EU, and allied states to elevate this domain to a core priority within the broader defence and deterrence architecture. The second section translates this strategic intent into operational design, assessing how the priority is reflected in regional defence plans, joint doctrines, and multidomain operational configurations. The third part identifies the tactical and capability requirements emerging from these operational settings, focusing on sensing, situational awareness, force protection, and resilience. The fourth section examines how the priority is implemented through administrative and regulatory instruments, including procurement frameworks, industrial strategies, and cross-border cooperation tools. The fifth section analyses the structural bottlenecks and strategic dependencies that constrain implementation, from technological fragmentation to supply chain vulnerabilities. Finally, the sixth section outlines the implications for industrial actors, research institutions, and investment ecosystems, clarifying how this priority reshapes the opportunity space across defence, technology, and capital sectors. This structured approach ensures coherence between political objectives, operational integration, and industrial capacity-building.
Strategic Rationale and Political Context
NATO and EU leaders increasingly portray information control as integral to modern deterrence and defence. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and its concurrent disinformation campaigns have underscored the strategic importance of dominating the information domain[1][2]. NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept explicitly labels Russia “the most significant and direct threat” to the Alliance and notes that adversaries employ conventional, cyber and hybrid means – including disinformation – against NATO and partners[1]. The NATO Secretary-General’s 2024 “approach to counter information threats” similarly warns that “hybrid threats” from state actors seek to “exploit the openness of our societies” to interfere in democratic processes[2][3]. EU institutions echo this analysis: the 2022 Strategic Compass calls out foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) as part of Russia’s hybrid campaign to “mislead, destabilize and divide” democratic societies[4][5]. Indeed, the EU Council urged measures to counter FIMI when it adopted conclusions in July 2022, noting that such disinformation campaigns aim at “destabilizing democratic societies” and threaten national security[4][6].
Allied defence documents from 2022–25 elevate information superiority and hybrid defense to a strategic priority. The UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review, for example, emphasizes countering “information interference, disinformation and propaganda” as essential to national cohesion[7]. Bilateral agreements – such as the UK–Poland bilateral treaty – explicitly commit to “tackle disinformation and hybrid military threats” on NATO’s eastern flank[8]. NATO summit communiqués and declarations underscore that resilience against hybrid subversion is a core pillar of deterrence. At the 2024 Washington Summit, NATO leaders pledged to “continue to develop our capacity to analyse and counter disinformation” as part of strengthening alliance resilience[9]. The same declaration explicitly links Russian “hybrid campaigns” (including disinformation) to the Ukraine war and commits Allies to “further measures to counter Russian hybrid threats”[10]. NATO’s notion of deterrence now blends hard forces with societal resilience: its guidance defines civil preparedness and national resilience – including information resilience – as “an essential basis for credible deterrence and defence”[11][12].
The main strategic effect sought is to ensure that NATO/EU and allied democracies can maintain a decisive informational advantage over adversaries, thereby preserving alliance unity and public trust. By “calling out” hostile narratives and inoculating societies against them, Allies aim to bolster the credibility of collective defence (deterring aggression by raising its political and informational cost) and to prevent strategic surprise in the so-called gray zone[1][2]. Politically, this priority is driven by the post-2022 security shock of war in Europe, combined with recognition that emerging technologies (AI, deepfakes) could dramatically amplify disinformation[3][13]. It also reflects shifts such as China’s growing hybrid influence campaigns and targeting of the Pacific. While much focus is on Russia’s Eastern aggression, NATO and the EU explicitly note threats emanating elsewhere: for example, NATO plans to intensify engagement on information threats in the Western Balkans, Mediterranean and Indo-Pacific[14]. The issue is treated as urgent (near-term) but with enduring relevance: strategic documents anticipate a long-term contest of narratives and cyber-enabled influence, necessitating sustained focus into the 2030s.
Operational Dimension and Multidomain Architecture
This strategic priority translates into new mission sets across NATO and EU operations. At the Alliance level, joint doctrines have formally integrated information-related tasks. NATO’s Allied Joint Doctrine for Information Operations (AJP-10.1) states that information operations are applicable in “peace, crisis and conflict” and are aimed at “analyz[ing], plan[ning]… information activities to create desired effects on the will, understanding and capability of adversaries”[15][16]. In practice, NATO has established permanent structures and procedures for intelligence fusion and strategic communication. For example, NATO’s Joint ISR (JISR) programme creates an all-domain “common operational picture” of land, air, maritime, space and cyber domains for decision-makers[17][18], shifting Allies from a “need-to-know” to a “responsibility to share” posture for intelligence[17][19]. New Alliance bodies have been stood up: NATO’s Joint Intelligence and Security Division (JISD) now hosts a dedicated hybrid threat analysis branch to give leaders enhanced situational awareness[20]. NATO has also adopted “hybrid support teams” (CHST) to provide direct assistance to Allies facing hybrid campaigns[21], and a strategic communications committee (Committee for Public Diplomacy) and Rapid Response Group (NRRG) at HQ to coordinate messaging[22][14]. Exercises have begun to stress these capabilities: for instance, NATO’s major training “Nighthawk21” included a focus on non-kinetic and Special Forces operations in gray-zone scenarios[23][24].
The priority is reflected in NATO regional planning. On the Eastern flank, defence plans and posture reviews explicitly include countering hybrid tactics (cyber attacks, propaganda) alongside kinetic defence. In the Baltic region, for example, NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence units and command structures work with national stratcom and cyber units to ensure rapid intel sharing and disinformation countermeasures during crises. Across NATO, common C2 and logistics concepts are evolving: a key goal is persistent ISR coverage (via drones, satellites, sensors) and cloud-enabled C4ISR networks that allow real-time data fusion. For instance, NATO’s forthcoming Common Operational Picture (COP) system (NCOP 2) is designed to “capture, aggregate and correlate” data from land, air and naval sensors into a single comprehensive battlespace image[25]. Communications architecture is being upgraded: Allies are fielding hardened, multi-path networks (satellite links like NATO SATCOM, mesh radios, secure mobile apps) so that field commanders and Special Operations Forces (SOF) maintain connectivity even under jamming or cyber attack. In peacetime and crises alike, NATO emphasizes whole-of-government exercises: civil resilience (energy grids, telecom, media) is rehearsed alongside military manoeuvres, since hybrid operations span civilian domains.
The EU parallels these efforts through CSDP and interagency mechanisms. The 2022 Strategic Compass directed the creation of an EU “Hybrid Toolbox” and rapid response teams to coordinate civilian and military instruments against hybrid attacks[26][4]. The EU Hybrid Fusion Cell (within EU Military Staff) collects intelligence on hostile information activities, sharing it with national agencies and NATO[27][28]. Member states’ counter-hybrid units work together via that toolbox and through EU bodies such as the Civil Protection Mechanism. EU and NATO cooperation is institutionalized in multiple fora: they coordinate on strategic communication (joint fact-checking, shared messaging), situational awareness (the EU Rapid Alert System on disinformation feeds NATO daily[29]), and hybrid crisis planning. On the operational level, several PESCO projects address related needs: for example, the Cyber Rapid Response Teams project enhances readiness of EU cyber contingents that could plug into NATO or EU missions, while initiatives like the Strategic Communication Centre of Excellence (NATO) and a nascent EU StratCom effort ensure doctrine exchange. Allied doctrines now explicitly treat hybrid scenarios as a standing contingency. NATO’s operations planning (the Strategic Commands) include cyberspace and information targets in nearly every scenario. In concrete terms, global mission sets incorporate these priorities: protecting Baltic elections, maintaining influence against Russian narratives in the Balkans, countering Chinese influence in Africa and Asia, and defending EU southeastern and northern flanks against sabotage or false-flag propaganda.
In short, “information superiority” is approached as a cross-domain mandate. Allies are not only training cyber and communications units but also culture and language specialists, media and data analysts, and SOF skilled in non-kinetic influence. For example, NATO established a multi-national Special Operations Component Command (SOCC) to better integrate SOF in deterrence missions[30]. Both NATO (Composite and Regional SOF commands) and EU member states are embedding stratcom and influence campaigns into brigade-sized exercises. Force posture now often includes dedicated intelligence-fusion and public-affairs staff at even the brigade level. Logistics concepts likewise evolve: NATO’s mobility corridors are being designed with resilience of comms and media in mind (e.g. redundancy of info lines if infrastructure is attacked). In sum, NATO/EU structures now deliberately interweave the information environment into every operational domain[31][20].
Figure: The EU’s 2022 Space Strategy illustrates diverse threats to space assets (kinetic anti-satellite weapons, electronic and cyber attacks, debris, nuclear effects)[32], underscoring the need for resilient space-based C4ISR and communications.
Tactical and Capability Requirements
The operational needs translate into concrete capability families and performance parameters. One key family is sensing and ISR: a mesh of air, ground and space sensors, networks and data fusion tools. Tactical UAS/drones and sensors (DFM-TC-INF8-01) are in high demand. Allies seek a spectrum of drones – from small quadcopters for infantry intelligence to high-end MALE drones for strategic surveillance. Required parameters include long endurance (to provide persistent coverage), all-weather multi-spectral sensing (EO/IR and radio frequency), secure real-time datalinks (even in denied environments), and AI-enabled onboard processing. For example, NATO’s ISR vision implies drones that can autonomously detect and track targets of interest, linking seamlessly into the Joint COP. EU analyses note a large shortfall: currently “EU militaries lack the arsenals of armed drones and electronic countermeasures possessed by Russia and Ukraine”[33]. Most European militaries have only a few high-end MALE UAVs and very few expendable swarms[33]. This drives demand for domestic drone production (Eurodrone, light drones) and counter-drone systems. Indeed, the European Defence Fund (EDF) has earmarked substantial R&D funds (hundreds of millions EUR) for both drone development and anti-drone tech[34].
The common operating picture (COP) and C4ISR systems (DFM-TC-INF8-02) are another critical family. This encompasses the digital backbone and software of situational awareness: secure communications networks (satellite, LTE, tactical radio), cloud or edge servers to aggregate data, and command-and-control interfaces for commanders and operators. Key requirements include ultra-high data rates (for video/RADAR feeds), low latency (for real-time updates), seamless interoperability (across NATO/EU systems), and robust encryption. The system must span all domains (land forces’ tactical networks, naval and air C2, space link data, and cyber sensors). The NATO NCOP program is a good example: it aims to “capture, aggregate and correlate information from land, air, and naval units… into a single comprehensive picture, ensuring each entity has a shared view of forces’ locations, actions and intentions”[25]. Interoperability standards (NATO STANAGs, coalition data links, common messaging protocols) are therefore crucial. Survivability and redundancy are also important: COP terminals and data links are hardened against jamming, and backup systems (e.g. alternative relays, high-altitude platforms) are planned. Emerging technologies like space-based cloud (e.g. EU’s IRIS² or Secure Connectivity programmes) and 5G/6G networks are being leveraged to meet these needs.
Strategic communications, disinformation monitoring and cognitive resilience form another capability cluster. Here, requirements include advanced data analytics, machine learning algorithms, and professional strategic communication tools. Allies need social-media monitoring platforms that can process huge volumes of online content, detect fake narratives or deepfakes in near-real-time, and attribute campaigns to likely actors. AI/ML research is a priority: algorithms must rapidly analyze text, video and network patterns for propaganda indicators. Functional performance: reaction time in hours or less for major events; coverage of major languages and social platforms; traceability of content sources; and the ability to generate tailored counter-messaging. Interoperability is key, since strategic comms teams from multiple countries must pool information. Platforms for public broadcasting (e.g. NATO’s StratCom channels, EU external media) need secure, resilient infrastructure. NATO’s plan to build an “Information Environment Assessment” system that ingests open-source data (social media, news, sensors) uses exactly these capabilities[35].
Closely related are media literacy and societal resilience tools (DFM-TC-INF8-03). These include educational programs, curricula and public apps to teach citizens critical thinking. Performance is measured more qualitatively: percentage of population with basic disinfo awareness, trust in institutions, etc. Technologies include interactive e-learning platforms, fact-checker networks, and “browser extensions” or mobile apps that flag potential misinformation. Crucially, these tools must be adaptable to different cultures and media environments. The European Commission’s initiatives (e.g. funding media literacy projects through Erasmus+ or Creative Europe) signal growing resource flows into this space[13].
Finally, Special Operations Forces for grey-zone scenarios (DFM-TC-INF8-04) are a tactical priority. SOF units will be equipped to operate covertly in contested information environments. Capabilities include secure, undetectable communications equipment, deep intelligence networks among civilian populations, and non-lethal “influence” systems (e.g. cyber espionage tools, surveillance drones). Requirements include rapid insertion (24–48h deployability), interoperability across national SOF teams, and interoperability with intelligence services. Projects like NATO’s Composite and Regional SOF Component Commands (C-SOCC, R-SOCC) demonstrate the drive to multinationally integrate SOF capability[30][36].
Across all these families, key enabling technologies are emphasized. NATO and EU identify AI and big-data analytics (DFM-TECH-AI), advanced autonomous systems and robotics (DFM-TECH-AUTO), cyber-defense and encryption (DFM-TECH-CYBER), space (DFM-TECH-SPACE) for satcom and ISR, high-performance sensors (DFM-TECH-SENS) including RF and EO/IR, and robust command, control and edge computing infrastructure (DFM-TECH-C4I). For example, NATO is investing in AI-based natural language processing to flag deepfakes[3] and in quantum-resistant crypto for secure comms. Demand thus spans platforms (UAVs, satellites, secure radios), subsystems (AI chips, sensors, E/O cameras), and services (data fusion software, cloud hosting, counter-disinformation content creation). Analysts note gaps: besides the drone shortfall above, Europe lags in large-scale cyber-intelligence capacity. One study warns that Europe currently depends on U.S.-dominated cyber-threat databases and collaborations, meaning a cut-off from U.S. intelligence-sharing would “leave Europe facing the same threats blind”[37][38]. Similarly, Europe lacks its own globally dominant social-media platforms or analytic tools (most are U.S. or Chinese), leaving a capability gap in information dominance. These identified shortfalls are now targeted by the EDF and national R&D: for instance, the NATO Innovation Fund and DIANA accelerator are specifically directed at startups in AI, cybersecurity and advanced comms[39][40].
Administrative, Regulatory and Industrial Implementation
Implementation of this priority is driven through a web of policies and funding programs at NATO, EU and national levels. At the EU level, the European Defence Fund (EDF) and its predecessors have prioritized projects relevant to information dominance. For example, several EDF calls since 2022 have explicitly funded StratCom and counter-hybrid initiatives, supporting R&T in AI-based disinformation detection, open-source intelligence tools and resilient communications. The broader EDF and EDIDP (precursor) have fostered a small number of collaborative projects on secure network design, UAV development, and cyber exercises. The 2024 EDF Work Programme (still public concept) explicitly includes calls for “situational awareness and ISR” and for “strategic communications and cognitive resilience” lines of research.
Another tool is the proposed European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP), which will follow the current EDIDP/ASAP funding. As the EU Commission notes, EDIP (€1.5 billion for 2025–27) aims to “ensure the availability of defense products” and strengthen the EU defense industrial base[41][42]. In practice, EDIP will require projects to support critical capabilities – likely including secure communications hardware, surveillance systems and encryption – and impose EU-centric criteria (e.g. originating member-state production). The CHIP (“Chips Act”) policy is relevant too: it provides incentives (subsidies, guidance) to expand European semiconductor fabrication[43]. This is key because advanced ISR and AI systems all depend on high-end chips, and these have been historically sourced from outside Europe.
In the EU’s multilateral defence mechanisms, PESCO projects and CAPEX leverage capability packages. Notable examples include the Cyber Rapid Response Teams (CRRT) project (boosting national cyber contingents), and a planned Strategic Communication unit (still in concept phase). The EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) also fosters joint R&T: projects on joint intelligence fusion have been proposed within EDA/PESCO frameworks. Meanwhile, EU EDIP/EDF criterion such as “EU ownership” or “reciprocity” push member companies to develop relevant technologies (e.g. funding is steered to consortia including SMEs with niche expertise, or to localization of data infrastructure). Export controls (EU Dual-Use Regulation, Wassenaar controls) are also adjusted to limit adversarial access to relevant tech (stricter export of encryption or sensor technology).
At the NATO level, capability implementation uses its own instruments. NATO does not procure directly, but creates “Capability Packages” and Cooperative Programs. The Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence and StratCom COE (accredited by NATO) run research and courses on these themes. New initiatives like NATO’s Rapid Reaction Group and its hybrid support concept help coordinate member-state assistance (e.g. intelligence-sharing agreements, joint R&D budgets for info warfare tools). Importantly, NATO’s DIANA (Defence Innovation Accelerator) network and the associated €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund are explicitly tailored to foster exactly the EDTs needed (AI, autonomous systems, info operations). DIANA now has some 200+ test centers in Europe where startups can validate info-tech prototypes, and its first €130 million tranche is already invested in SME projects[39][40].
Nationally, governments deploy classic procurement and industrial measures. For example, NATO member states are enhancing national StratCom centres and resilience agencies. The UK’s Home Office and strategic comm agencies have ramped up outreach grants to counter Russian media. Financing mechanisms include venture and innovation funds: for instance, the European Innovation Council (EIC) has started explicitly seeking dual-use projects (AI, cyber), and national development banks (e.g. Germany’s BMVg Innovation Fund) have new lines for emerging defense tech. On the regulatory side, many countries are adapting privacy and telecom rules to enable faster information sharing in crises. The EU’s NIS2 Directive (2022) and the proposed AI Act will shape the environment by requiring social media platforms to implement disinformation detection features (e.g. the 2022 Code of Practice obliges platforms to promote media-literacy tools[44]). Standardization efforts (via NATO STANAGs and CEN/CENELEC) are prioritizing secure comms and data formats for intel fusion. In sum, a combination of earmarked R&D funding (EDF, DIANA), procurement waivers (crisis legislation enabling rapid telecom upgrades), and industrial policy (ADF grants for tech firms) is being used to steer the defense–tech industry toward the info-dominance priority.
Structural Bottlenecks and Strategic Dependencies
Despite these initiatives, several structural bottlenecks constrain progress. A primary industry bottleneck is limited EU/T NATO industrial capacity in key tech. For example, Europe has virtually no indigenous mass-production of ISR drones; global UAV production is dominated by a few non-EU companies (one Chinese firm supplies ~80% of small drones)[34]. Similarly, Europe remains dependent on US/Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing for advanced chips. As noted, dependency on US cyber infrastructure is acute: NATO partners rely on American-managed threat-intel feeds and vulnerability databases[37][38]. If strained political relations were to cut off these sources, European defenses would face an “intelligence blind spot”[37]. There is also a gap in data infrastructure: most AI/ML processing for intelligence in NATO currently happens on US-controlled cloud platforms or US-developed algorithms, limiting sovereign control. Producing domestic alternatives is hampered by long development times.
Technology and know-how gaps are another bottleneck. The high-end algorithms needed for disinformation detection or deep surveillance require scarce expertise (AI specialists, data scientists, linguists for open-source intel). Academic research on information warfare is uneven across Europe: only a handful of universities offer dedicated programs in strategic communications or cognitive security. In the information domain specifically, national privacy laws (e.g. GDPR) can impede rapid sharing of data between agencies across borders. Classified data exchange is further complicated by lack of integrated legal frameworks; for instance, evidence-sharing between EU and NATO partners must navigate different standards.
Regulatory and permitting barriers also slow deployment. Procurement rules are often designed for conventional defense; acquiring hundreds of small drones or deploying new network infrastructure (5G base stations for military use) can get entangled in civilian regulatory processes. Export-control regimes (covering encryption or advanced sensors) can even restrict allies’ own cross-border transfers during multinational projects if not pre-approved. These rules have been relaxed in part by emergency measures (NATO Special Partnership), but lack of long-term harmonization remains an obstacle.
Financial constraints are significant as well. Information superiority is often a “cat-and-mouse” endeavor requiring sustained investment, but public budgets are stretched by high-cost hardware procurement (tanks, jets) and by economic pressures. Many Allies underinvest in soft capabilities: for example, media literacy campaigns and research labs often rely on modest civil budgets, so scaling them military-style is challenging. There is also dependency on private funding for start-ups – without robust venture capital, many EU deep-tech firms either fail or are acquired by foreign entities. The balance of public vs. private funding thus constrains how fast new solutions (like next-gen NLP tools) move from R&D to fielding.
Societal and political factors are also bottlenecks. Public resistance to perceived “information control” can make open debate on counter-disinformation politically contentious in democracies. Populist pressures have in some states slowed legislation on media platforms. On the other side, citizens’ mistrust of official narratives reduces the effectiveness of even well-intentioned strategic communication. These sociopolitical dynamics are hard to “fix” through technology alone. Furthermore, reliance on critical infrastructure controlled by non-allied actors creates dependencies: for instance, many European communications satellites are US-owned (e.g. used for secure satcom terminals), and social media platforms (Facebook, X, TikTok) are governed abroad. These external chokepoints mean that even with domestic networks, Allies remain partially exposed to foreign policies – a vulnerability NATO’s space and tech strategies aim to address by bolstering European-owned capabilities[32]【100†】.
In combination, these bottlenecks affect readiness and resilience. For example, if secure comms systems rely on foreign parts, they may be unsustainable under sanctions; if national teams lack enough AI expertise, counter-disinfo analysis will be slow; if budgets require hard choices, information-domain programs risk cuts. The strategic dependency on non-allied tech suppliers (from Chinese drones to US cloud services) is explicitly noted as a risk: NATO and the EU are now working on “mitigations” such as stockpiling critical components and developing joint R&D so that an embargo would only create manageable delays. Nevertheless, segments like semiconductors and specialized software remain highly exposed – so the risk profile of the priority is considered high unless these dependencies are addressed.
Implications for Companies, Technologies, Research and Capital
This priority reshapes opportunity for four sets of actors. Political/Institutional authorities (governments, EU agencies, NATO HQ) will become major customers and regulators in the info domain. They will channel funding (EDF grants, NATO innovation procurement) toward sectors like AI analytics, secure networks, EO/IR sensors, and strategic communications services. Agencies may establish new departments (for instance, a national StratCom office) or elevate cyber/info units within defence ministries. Institutional demand will favor companies capable of delivering end-to-end solutions (e.g. combining hardware and software for ISR networks) and sets of standards.
Industrial enterprises will adapt and specialize. Large primes (like Airbus, Thales, BAE, Leonardo) will likely lead on integrated systems: satellites, Manned-Unmanned Teaming platforms, secure C2. They may expand into “information warfare” software: for instance, Thales is already working on AI-based intelligence systems. Mid-sized European arms and tech firms (MBDA, Saab, HENSOLDT) could become central for niche tech like electronic warfare jamming, high-speed IR sensors or cryptographic equipment. Specialized SMEs and deep-tech startups will be particularly important for innovative subfields: e.g. companies developing deepfake detectors, cognitive-behavior modeling, or drone-traffic management. The DIANA network and NATO Innovation Fund explicitly target SMEs in DFM-TECH-AI, DFM-TECH-AUTO and DFM-TECH-EW sectors, so defense-oriented startups in these clusters stand to benefit[39][40]. Platform integrators and data firms (including cloud providers and cyber security firms) will be needed to build the COP infrastructure and AI pipelines; U.S. firms currently dominate here, giving EU companies an opportunity to capture market share if incentivized.
Research organizations – universities and institutes – will see new centers of gravity. Labs specializing in AI, cybersecurity, signal processing, cognitive science, and media studies will be directly relevant. Examples include NATO-accredited research centers like the StratCom COE (Riga) and Hybrid COE (Helsinki), European university consortia working on Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) and social media analysis, and national institutes (Fraunhofer, IET, INRIA) scaling up projects on info warfare and resilience. Public research infrastructures (national supercomputing, satellite ground stations) will also be harnessed for this priority. EU frameworks (Horizon Europe) may fund large research projects on counter-disinformation networks or “human factors in conflict” – indeed, multidisciplinary consortia (bringing together computer scientists, psychologists, political scientists) are likely. Technology transfer offices at universities will be important to spin out startups from lab prototypes (e.g. an NLP tool developed at a university lab could spin out into a defence contractor).
Capital providers must mobilize significant resources in support. Sovereign wealth funds and national innovation banks (e.g. France’s Bpifrance, Germany’s KfW) will be key for financing larger projects and scale-ups. EU instruments like the EIB/EIF might earmark credit lines for dual-use tech firms (the EIC has signaled interest in semi-mature defence startups). The newly launched €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund is a purpose-built source of VC-like capital for the priority; alongside it, national Defence Innovation Funds (as established by some Allies) will co-invest. Private defence-focused VCs and corporate venture arms (e.g. Airbus Ventures, BAE’s investment fund) will likely increase deals in machine learning and autonomous systems companies. EIC and Digital Europe funding may be tapped (as in the NGI TrustChain program, which granted €1.8M to 15 misinformation-combatting startups[45]). Meanwhile, traditional equity and debt markets might see a new subset of “deep tech” investors targeting disruptive security solutions (for example, blockchain identity platforms for disinfo credibility).
Over the next decade, interaction among these actors will deepen Europe’s strategic autonomy. In the near term (0–2 years), incumbents (large defence firms, established agencies) will dominate implementation using classical procurement and grants. In the mid-term (3–5 years), we expect a flowering of startups incubated via DIANA/EIC, with specialized SMEs entering prime-led projects. Joint ventures and consortia (e.g. pan-European drone firms) may form under EDF co-funding. Long-term, successful convergence of these efforts could establish integrated EU–NATO supply chains for info tech, shrinking the current reliance on non-allied sources. Politically, this ecosystem will reinforce deterrence by ensuring Allies can co-develop and co-procure the necessary tools. Industrially, it means new clusters in AI platforms, cognitive resilience tech, and space-enabled communications. Academically, it will mature fields like “security informatics” and “strategic communications research”. In capital markets, the prioritization will spur growth of dedicated defence-tech funds. All told, the shift will likely improve European and allied capability to project both military and narrative power, though it will require sustained policy coordination to translate investments into hardened strategic autonomy.
[1] Setting the record straight | NATO Topic
[2] [3] [14] [22] [35] NATO’s approach to counter information threats | NATO Official text
[4] [6] Foreign information manipulation and interference: Council approves conclusions stepping up EU’s engagement and ability to respond - Consilium
https://pism.pl/publications/tracing-the-development-of-eu-capabilities-to-counter-hybrid-threats
[7] [8] [12] Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad
[9] [10] Washington Summit Declaration | NATO Media advisory
[11] Resilience, civil preparedness and Article 3 | NATO Topic
[13] [44] Media literacy | Shaping Europe’s digital future
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/media-literacy
[15] [16] [31] Allied Joint Publication 10.1, Allied Joint Doctrine for Information Operations
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/650c03bf52e73c000d9425bb/AJP_10_1_Info_Ops_UK_web.pdf
[17] [18] [19] Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance | NATO Topic
[20] [21] [23] [24] Countering hybrid threats | NATO Topic
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/countering-hybrid-threats
[25] Thales selected by NATO to deploy NCOP operational situational awareness system | Thales Group
[26] A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence | EEAS
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/strategic-compass-security-and-defence-1_en
[29] defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu
[30] [36] Multinational capability cooperation | NATO Topic
https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/multinational-capability-cooperation
[32] EU Space Strategy for Security and Defence - Defence Industry and Space
https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/eu-space-strategy-security-and-defence_en
[33] [34] Minding the drone gap: Drone warfare and the EU | European Union Institute for Security Studies
https://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/briefs/minding-drone-gap-drone-warfare-and-eu
[37] [38] Europe’s Cybersecurity Depends on the United States - Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/europes-cybersecurity-depends-on-the-united-states
[39] [40] Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) | NATO Topic
[41] [42] EDIP is a Regulation proposed by the Commission to start implementing concrete measures identified in EDIS.
https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-industry/edip-dedicated-programme-defence_en
[43] European Chips Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-chips-act
[45] These are the 15 startups combating online misinformation that have been granted €1.8 million by the EC | EU-Startups