IVA's President: some thoughts on dual use

Dear IVA friends,

Europe is ramping up its defense investments. This is, of course, a response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the radically altered geopolitical stance of the White House. Europe can no longer rely on the United States to guarantee its security. This week, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer presented a new “UK Strategic Defense Review,” outlining a faster rearmament than previously announced. The defense package includes six new weapons factories, submarines, and long-range weapons—as well as significant investments in advanced technological development.

I’ve also observed a profound shift in attitudes toward the defense sector among policymakers, thought leaders, pension fund managers, and the general public. One manifestation of this shift is that pension funds have revised their investment policies and sustainability guidelines, enabling them to invest directly in pure defense companies. This is a timely development. In the current context, Europe must mobilize significant resources to strengthen its defense capabilities—including supporting an innovative and competitive defense industry.

Sweden, too, plans to increase its defense spending from one percent of GDP to as much as 3.5 percent within a few years. Germany has taken the historic step of borrowing to finance its military buildup. As someone born and raised in Germany, I am acutely aware of the significance of this political decision. I believe many Germans, like myself, have mixed feelings about it—given our history—but at the same time, it is absolutely necessary. Europe must be able to defend itself and its citizens. This is about assuming responsibility. Without broad public support, European governments could not have taken these steps. But that support exists —and it matters.

It is no longer a given that countries outside the EU will look first and foremost to the United States for strategic defense procurement. New data from Asia shows that South Korea and Japan are increasingly turning to European defense industries. This is a show of strength—Europe has robust and innovative defense sectors. But it also reflects the changing geopolitical order, where the role of the U.S. is becoming increasingly uncertain.

The shift we are witnessing is not only about increased funding and investment, but also about a deeper understanding of the defense sector’s role in driving technological advancement. This is something we, as an academy of engineering sciences, welcome. Defense policy has played a crucial role in the current technological and innovative strength of both the U.S. and China. To fully benefit from the increased investments in the defense sector, policymakers need to adopt a new perspective on innovation and work to dismantle the barriers between civilian and military innovation systems. Here, we can draw inspiration from the U.S. “Defense Innovation Unit,” whose mission is precisely to bridge the gap between civil and military innovation.

We also need to review our ability to navigate complex regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like export controls and cybersecurity. Perhaps the time has come for a European and national dual-use strategy that aligns defense, industrial, and research policies in overlapping areas?

Some of our universities have begun working to break down silos between academic disciplines and promote collaboration between researchers in civilian and military fields. But more needs to be done. Research funding systems must be reviewed to support and encourage dual-use projects, while considering ethical concerns. Here, collaboration between academia and industry is absolutely essential. One example where this works very well is Linköping University. These and other successful examples in Sweden should be encouraged and strengthened.

Dual-use and defense innovation are no longer a technical niche—they are a strategic key to Sweden’s security, capacity for innovation, and competitiveness. Sweden also has a proud tradition of leveraging defense technology development to strengthen civilian industries—particularly in the development of fighter aircraft, which has contributed to a strong position in the civil aviation industry and the emergence of computer technology in the 1970s and 1980s.

This fall, IVA is planning a high-level seminar on the topic, with participants from government, the defense industry, and academia. I hope you’ll join us in the continued, constructive dialogue—stay connected through our channels for the latest updates and invitations.