Panel VIIa, titled “Lessons Learned from Ukraine Relevant for Our Defense Industry: New Technologies and Asymmetric Approaches,” was moderated by Lieutenant General (ret.) Vasile Toader, Member of the Scientific Council of the New Strategy Center and former Romanian representative to NATO and the EU. The panel brought together Mr. Andrii Sirko-Galouchenko, UAV development expert and founder of the Ukrainian UAV Forum; Mr. Adrian Iacob, Executive Director of Lockheed Martin Romania; Mr. Werner Sauerwald, Head of Programs & Sales at Rheinmetall (Germany); and Mr. Costică Postolache, Deputy General Director of Interactive Romania.
In their interventions, the speakers emphasized that the Ukraine war had, in real time, transformed understanding of industrial mobilization, technological adaptation, and asymmetric innovation. They noted that the conflict revealed not only the speed at which unmanned systems evolve, but also the structural limitations of traditional defense industries—especially those constrained by long production cycles, rigid procurement processes, and insufficient integration with private-sector innovation ecosystems. The war demonstrated that agility and rapid prototyping, rather than legacy industrial capacity alone, became decisive factors in generating operational advantages on the battlefield.
The discussions also highlighted the ongoing technological race between adaptation and counter-adaptation. Ukraine’s iterative development of UAV platforms—from agricultural drones repurposed for night strikes to advanced first-person-view (FPV) systems and fiber-optic–guided drones—illustrated how innovation emerges under pressure and evolves through successive cycles of field testing. At the same time, Russia’s capacity to scale production by integrating private initiatives into state-supported industrial structures underscored the importance of flexible funding mechanisms, access to manufacturing infrastructure, and the ability to mass-produce functional systems rather than seek perfect high-end solutions. This dynamic, marked by rapid escalation on both sides, was presented as a central lesson for European industry: success depends not only on technological creativity, but also on the ability to support innovation with immediate industrial capacity.
Panelists argued that Europe’s defense sector must therefore reconfigure its approach to production, procurement, and cooperation. The war revealed capability gaps in areas such as short-range air defense, counter-UAV systems, and autonomous or semi-autonomous logistics platforms. Moreover, it exposed Europe’s overreliance on lengthy certification, testing, and ethical deliberation processes that slow down the deployment of emerging technologies such as AI-enabled targeting, autonomous surveillance, and automated demining systems. Speakers stressed that without faster decision-making and tighter public–private coordination, European states risk falling further behind actors that iterate technologies directly on the battlefield.
A recurring theme was the strategic imperative for deeper transatlantic and intra-European industrial cooperation. The panel underlined that American and European defense industries remain mutually dependent: Europe requires U.S. technologies and production capabilities, while the United States depends on Europe for supply-chain resilience, platforms, and regional manufacturing hubs. At the same time, the Ukrainian experience suggested that Europe’s own industrial base—automotive manufacturers, engineering firms, software companies—could play a far more significant role in defense production if adequately integrated, incentivized, and supported. This approach aligns with a broader move toward decentralized industrial networks capable of sustaining high-volume, rapidly adaptable manufacturing.
Finally, the speakers drew attention to the strategic horizon shaped by Ukraine’s ongoing resilience. The country’s capacity to innovate under extreme constraints, to absorb technological knowledge, and to operationalize solutions within days rather than years was presented as both an inspiration and a warning. Ukraine, they argued, buys Europe time through its resistance. Yet, European governments and industries must decide how to use that time—whether to reform procurement, accelerate industrial mobilization, and adopt a culture of rapid innovation, or to remain dependent on outdated structures ill-suited for contemporary warfare. The panel concluded that the future of European defense will depend on embracing asymmetric thinking, integrating emerging technologies at scale, and building a resilient industrial ecosystem capable of responding to crises with unprecedented speed and flexibility.
