IVA's President: Some thoughts on the Transatlantic Bond

Dear IVA Friends, 

The transatlantic rift of recent weeks reminds us of two things. First, how closely intertwined economics, geopolitics, technology, and security are – and how they can be pitted against each other. Second, how the world has changed in just one year. Prestigious awards such as the Nobel Prize are becoming commodities; long-standing alliances are being questioned; rules-based governance is being replaced by brute force; and trust in international relations is eroding.

Some believe the transatlantic link has been broken. I strongly disagree. Between people, the transatlantic bond is both deep and strong. The transatlantic community is socially and emotionally anchored in the lives of many people. Americans and Europeans are linked by family ties going back generations. We are also united by the United States' commitment to peace and defending our freedom in one of Europe's darkest periods during and after World War II. Many Americans and Europeans share a belief in democracy, the desire for a good life, and a commitment to working hard and doing the right thing.

The statements from the White House in recent weeks undermine trust, increase uncertainty, and create instability. This damages the economy, science, and security, including in Europe.

One sign of the strange world we live in today is that what unites the governments of the US, Russia, and China is a shared preference for a divided and fragmented Europe. That is why it is more important than ever that we now stand up for a united, strong, and secure Europe. I believe the recent dramatic events prove we in Europe can indeed come together and stand united. All EU countries stand behind Ukraine, Denmark, and Greenland, with the exception of Victor Orban's government in Hungary.

The realization among member states that we can no longer rely on American defense and technology, but need to take care of our own security, is as clear as it is welcome. We are witnessing a historic rearmament – not only in the Nordic countries but across the entire continent, including Germany.

IVA considers security and defense to be key issues for Sweden and Europe. That is why we held a seminar on defense research last week. History shows that when countries invest wisely in defense, it can have a strong positive impact on technological development, competitiveness, and economic prosperity. We saw this in the UK in the 1700s, in the US after World War II, and we have seen it in China, where civil-military fusion has long been purposefully promoted. The EU is now opening up to dual use in civil research – also in the next EU framework program for research and technology and through the European Innovation Council – to better exploit this potential.

So what do we mean by defense research? In my view, it consists of two types. First, the research conducted within the defense sector. Second, the much broader research that is relevant to our defense capabilities – across subjects, actors, and time horizons. The latter requires us to dare to look beyond the immediate. In Ukraine, we have seen how the pace of innovation is accelerating and how the gap between basic research and application is narrowing, not least driven by AI. In light of this, we must ask ourselves how meaningful it is to think in terms of technology readiness levels (TRLs) when the lines are blurring.

This also poses an inherent dilemma. In peacetime, there is often a lack of incentive to invest in research with direct defense relevance. When the situation becomes more serious, there is support for rapid investment – but with the risk of prioritizing today's threats at the expense of tomorrow's security and resilience. A long-term perspective requires sustained investment in basic research, institutions, and partnerships.

In academia, dual use often raises both concerns and ambiguities. The defense sector is naturally characterized by security thinking and hierarchy, which can clash with innovation's need for risk-taking, openness, and entrepreneurship.

My conclusion is that we must do two things simultaneously. We must accelerate the way research is applied to strengthen our defense capabilities now. And we must maintain a clear long-term perspective for tomorrow. There is no contradiction in this, but it will require different policy tools, time horizons, and funding. The present and the future will require change, the capacity to understand the reasoning of others, and a deeper relationship between academia and defense if we are to succeed in research and innovation that secures our freedom, prosperity, and preparedness.

We must work with the world we live in – without losing sight of the world we want.

Finally, I would like to recommend the IVA essays written as part of the Swedish Futures program – a vision for Sweden as a country of technology and innovation in 2035. The first was written by me together with Professor Mats Benner. Welcome to read it here, or listen to it in Swedish here.

Some thoughts from IVA´s President are published in Swedish in IVA's newsletter, and in English on IVA's LinkedIn.