The UK must help drive NATO unity to secure the alliance’s digital and industrial edge

European defence spending has recently risen to an all-time high of $2.63 trillion, according to the latest Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Yet Europe faces a difficult tension in balancing its investment in cutting-edge digital technologies and traditional industrial power. Modern warfare cannot treat digital tools as optional add-ons, and military edge increasingly depends on data, networks, and technologies.

However, NATO’s drive toward digital transformation mustn’t overlook the realities of the battlefield. Technology may change how forces fight –but it does not eliminate the need for industrial muscle.

If NATO doesn’t get this right, it risks baking in structural weakness. Digital sophistication without having the stockpiles to match creates forces that are technologically advanced, but operationally fragile.

And the reverse is just as problematic: industrial expansion without, for example, digitally-enabled logistics creates inefficiencies and waste, and hands adversaries the technological upper hand.

So how can NATO balance competing digital and industrial priorities? Beyond increased spending, one of the best ways to achieve this is by targeting even greater unity across its member base.

NATO is not a unitary actor but a coalition of national priorities, budgets and strategies. Divergence is inevitable, but misalignment is costly, particularly when having to ramp up software and hardware at speed.

As a priority, this means aligning how members scale capabilities. Recent IISS analysis shows that allies’ efforts are sometimes uncoordinated, resulting in incompatible digital systems and disparate approaches to areas like cloud infrastructure, which undermines interoperability.

Shared frameworks and standards would help close these gaps, while clearer visibility into which nations can lead in which areas – and where shortfalls persist – would avoid duplication and strengthen collective defence.

For example, countries advanced in electronic warfare, heavy logistics, or cyber defence could take lead roles in those domains, while others could contribute in ways that play to their strengths.

That would enable some states to focus on specific but vital roles – from counter-disinformation to critical infrastructure protection – without having to match the biggest allied forces across every area.

Similarly, more coordinated, agile procurement would add real value. Many members’ procurement strategies err on the side of caution, constrained by political cycles and long‑term uncertainties.

States often pursue similar capabilities on different timelines, with lengthy procurement processes that can hinder innovation. What would help is a unified industrial strategy and shared framework for force development – one that shifts procurement away from just inventory toward intellectual capacity and adaptable manufacturing.

This would also give industry the predictability needed to expand production.

Despite challenges, there are grounds for confidence. In recent years, the Alliance has demonstrated its capacity to adapt at speed. Defence spending trajectories have shifted upward, previously immovable procurement decisions have accelerated, and multinational initiatives on production, stockpiling and interoperability have gained momentum.

What matters now is converting this into greater cooperation, clarity, and predictable demand for industry. Deterrence today rests on technological superiority, sustained combat power and a digitally integrated industrial base that demonstrates delivery at pace.

NATO’s challenge is ultimately one of alignment: connecting its digital and industrial strengths through shared priorities and unity across its members.

This article was first published in LBC.