Photo by Marina Militare
In today’s fast-evolving security environment, NATO finds itself at a critical crossroads. Rapid technological advances and shifting geopolitics mean that while adversaries swiftly deploy disruptive technologies, test NATO’s deterrence, and reshape the global landscape, the Alliance remains hampered by slow, cumbersome processes for developing and delivering vital capabilities. NATO cannot afford to be reactive. The choice is stark: Will NATO develop, acquire, and deliver common-funded capabilities at the speed of operational need? Or will it remain mired in bureaucracy while adversaries surge ahead?
As NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation Admiral Pierre Vandier warned in an interview with Politico in November, NATO must “take more risks, spend more, be faster, and cut bureaucracy.” Important equipment ranging from frigates and armored personnel carriers to ammunition are often delayed or stuck in bureaucratic limbo.
Making these changes will not be easy. Despite past reform efforts, NATO’s common-funded capability development and delivery remains slow, fragmented, and risk-averse. Procedural compliance is often prioritized over effectiveness, and consensus-driven decision-making delays urgent operational needs.
But without urgent reform, NATO risks eroding its credibility and failing to provide warfighters with the tools they need, when they need them. NATO must increase efficiency, maintain its technological edge, improve interoperability, and ensure its forces can fight as a cohesive Alliance.
The case for urgent reform
NATO’s capability development process is structurally misaligned with its operational needs. Here are four ways to reform the capability development and delivery process.
1. Prioritize speed and outcomes over process
NATO’s risk-averse, process-driven culture leads to excessive delays. Capabilities stall not due to technical challenges but because of bureaucratic approvals, redundant reviews, and slow decision-making. Even urgent capability needs must clear multiple layers of approval, leading to delays measured in years instead of months.
These delays hinder NATO’s ability to field critical technologies, such as artificial intelligence-enabled decision support, cyber defense tools, and space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance—capabilities that adversaries are deploying at speed. By the time NATO makes a decision, the operational environment has often already shifted, making some investments obsolete before they are even employed.
NATO must replace its risk-averse, process-driven culture with one that rewards speed, effectiveness, and operational impact. Governance should focus on timely decision-making, with clear, enforceable timelines for capability approvals. NATO should also streamline redundant reviews and adopt commercial-sector best practices, such as rapid prototyping and iterative fielding.
2. Establish a single accountable authority
NATO’s Common-Funded Capability Development (CFCD) process is fragmented across multiple organizations. Therefore, no single entity is accountable for delivering capabilities from concept to fielding. This diffusion of responsibility creates inefficiencies and capability gaps that weaken NATO’s deterrence.
Although Allied Command Transformation’s deputy chief of staff for capability development (DCOS CD) informally coordinates efforts across NATO Headquarters and procurement agencies, the absence of authority to set deadlines, assign priorities, or enforce accountability hampers progress.
Recognizing this challenge, the DCOS CD has begun to strengthen the Capability Management Authority and refine the Strategic Portfolio Review to improve prioritization and coordination. These are positive steps, but they remain dependent on consensus-based decision-making and lack the enforcement mechanisms to accelerate delivery.
One solution is to establish a senior leader—such as an assistant secretary general for acquisition and capability delivery (ASG ACD)—to oversee CFCD execution. Supported by a directorate drawn from existing expertise, this leader would have the power to set priorities, enforce timelines, resolve disputes, and ensure capability gaps are closed on time. Such a role would institutionalize ongoing efforts, ensuring prioritization, sequencing, and execution occur under the necessary accountable and empowered authority to drive results.
3. Align capability development with national force planning
NATO’s CFCD process and the NATO Defense Planning Process (NDPP) operate separately despite being inextricably linked. CFCD funds shared capabilities, while the NDPP ensures nations develop forces that meet collective requirements. When these processes are not aligned, capability gaps and interoperability challenges emerge.
The modernization of NATO’s Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) highlights this misalignment. For nearly a decade, NATO debated whether to sustain, replace, or transition away from AWACS. The Alliance Future Surveillance and Control initiative, launched in 2017, remained a study rather than a structured procurement effort. Meanwhile, CFCD decision-making lacked urgency, leaving allies uncertain about their role in NATO’s future surveillance and control capability. If CFCD investments do not align with NDPP-generated national capabilities, NATO risks funding systems that are incomplete or unable to integrate into broader force structures. The result? Delays, misaligned capabilities, and an Alliance less prepared to fight as a unified force.
To address this, NATO should institutionalize a formal mechanism to synchronize CFCD and NDPP decision-making. The Alliance has recently taken promising steps, such as reestablishing linkages through the introduction of ‘collective targets’ in the next version of NATO’s political guidance document, which is currently in development and slated for approval in 2027. However, deeper and more sustained alignment is necessary to prevent delays and ensure NATO’s investments integrate seamlessly with national force development.
4. Reform industry engagement and procurement agility
NATO’s rigid procurement processes prevent it from rapidly integrating cutting-edge technologies in artificial intelligence, cyber, and space. While adversaries exploit emerging capabilities, NATO remains bound by slow, inflexible acquisition rules.
To overcome these barriers, NATO must overhaul its approach to industry engagement and procurement. The pending Industry Engagement Strategy for Space is a step in the right direction, potentially bringing commercial space capabilities and technology to the Alliance, but further action is required. NATO should establish fast-track acquisition pathways, modeled on successful national defense programs, to accelerate the procurement of emerging technologies. Additionally, NATO Security Investment Program funding mechanisms must become more flexible, allowing for adaptive, needs-driven investments that keep pace with evolving threats.
NATO must act now
The urgency of reform cannot be overstated. NATO’s capability development system is not keeping pace with modern warfare. If the Alliance does not act decisively, its deterrence credibility and warfighting effectiveness will erode while adversaries accelerate their technological and military capabilities.
Reforming decision-making, empowering dedicated leadership, aligning CFCD with NDPP, and modernizing procurement are strategic imperatives. NATO’s ability to deter, respond, and prevail depends on fielding capabilities at the speed of operational need.
NATO must act now to remain ready, relevant, and dominant in the battle space of tomorrow. Incremental change is no longer an option.
By David J. Julazadeh. Lieutenant General (Ret.) David J. Julazadeh is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He most recently served at NATO’s Allied Command Transformation as the deputy chief of staff, capability development. Article and pictures first time published on the Atlantic Council web page. Prepared for publication by volunteers from the Res Publica - The Center for Civil Resistance.
