DOCTRINAL CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN NATO,

USA AND EU STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURES AND THE IMPACT

ON THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Gheorghe BOARU, Ph.D^

(Academy of Romanian Scientists, 3 Ilfov, 050044, Bucharest, Romania,

email: secretariat@aosr.ro)

Abstract: This study analyzes the transformations of the security

environment generated by technological convergence and the emergence of new

operational paradigms. It is argued that the integration of emerging technologies

into extended C4ISR architectures leads to the redefinition of the decision-making

cycle and the emergence of decision-making superiority as a determinant of

military power.

The paper concludes that the future of defense will be defined by the ability

of states and organizations to integrate technological convergence into a coherent

security ecosystem, oriented towards decisional superiority, societal resilience and

cognitive control, thus configuring a new strategic paradigm in which knowledge

becomes the main resource of power.

Keywords: emerging technologies, multi-domain operations, doctrinal

correlation, decision cycle, cognitive domain.

DOI

10.56082/annalsarscimilit.2026.2.93

INTRODUCTION

The 21st century is characterized by an unprecedented acceleration

of technological progress, which is profoundly influencing the nature of

armed conflicts and the architecture of global security. Digital

transformation, the development of artificial intelligence, the emergence of

quantum technologies and the expansion of cyberspace are driving a

paradigm shift: from military superiority based on force to superiority based

on information and knowledge.¹.

This evolution leads to the expansion of the battlefield into non-

traditional domains, especially in the information and cognitive space. In

this context, state and non-state actors adapt their strategies to exploit the

vulnerabilities of complex interconnected systems.².

Starting from the concepts developed within NATO regarding

Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) and the emergence of cognitive

warfare, a structural transformation can be observed in the way



Entitled member of the Academy of Romanian Scientists, entitled member of the

Academy of National Security Sciences, email: boarugheorghe@yahoo.com.

¹Alvin Toffler, War and Anti-War, New York: Little, Brown, 1993, pp. 35–40.

²Joseph S. Nye, The Future of Power, New York: PublicAffairs, 2011, pp. 113–120.

93

DOCTRINAL CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN NATO, USA AND EU

STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURES AND THE IMPACT ON THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE

contemporary military operations are conceived and executed. MDO

represents a major doctrinal evolution, defined as the integrated

orchestration of military and non-military actions in all domains – land, air,

maritime, cyber, space and information – with the aim of generating

convergent effects “at the speed of relevance”.

This approach implies a fundamental paradigm shift: from

sequential operations, focused on distinct domains, to simultaneous,

interconnected and synchronized operations, in which advantage is no

longer determined solely by the mass of force, but by the ability to

integrate information and rapidly generate strategic effects. In this context,

digital transformation becomes an essential catalyst, with NATO evolving

towards a data-centric model, capable of collecting, sharing and

exploiting data from all operational domains.

In parallel, the development of the concept of cognitive warfare

extends the battlefield to the human dimension, where perceptions,

behaviors and decision-making processes become direct targets of strategic

actions. Cognitive warfare is defined as the set of activities aimed at

influencing or degrading individual and collective cognition in order to

obtain operational advantage. In this logic, "the human mind becomes the

battlefield", and operational success depends on the ability to shape

perceived reality, not just physical reality.

1. TECHNOLOGICAL CONVERGENCE AND IMPACT ON

THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE

Technological convergence represents the integration and synergistic

interaction of multiple technological fields, especially nano-, bio-, info- and

cogno-technologies (NBIC)³. This convergence generates multiplier effects,

accelerating innovation and radically transforming military capabilities.

1.1. Emerging technologies:

• artificial intelligence and machine learning;

• quantum computing;

• biotechnology;

• autonomous systems;

• space technologies.

1.2. Strategic effects:

• increasing operational speed;

• decision automation;

• reducing dependence on the human factor;

3

Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, Converging Technologies for Improving

Human Performance, NSF, 2002, pp. 13–25.

94

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Gheorghe BOARU, Ph.D

• emergence of systemic vulnerabilities ⁴.

2. MULTI-DOMAINE OPERATIONS

Doctrinal correlation: NATO Allied Command Transformation –

NATO Warfighting Capstone Concept (NWCC) (2023); NATO – Strategic

Concept (2022).

Multi-domain operations represent a major doctrinal evolution,

characterized by the integration of actions in all domains of operation: land,

air, maritime, cyber, space and information⁵.

2.1. Main features:

• real-time synchronization;

• interoperability;

• integration of multiple actors.

2.2. Implications:

• increased complexity;

• need for information superiority ⁶.

3. EXTENDED C4ISR AND DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Doctrinal correlation: U.S. Department of Defense – CJADC2

Implementation Guidance (2024); DoD – Data, Analytics, and AI Adoption

Strategy (2023); NATO – Data Exploitation Framework Policy (2023).

C4ISR architectures are evolving towards extended models that

integrate artificial intelligence and advanced data processing technologies ⁷.

3.1. Components:

• command & control;

• communications;

• computers;

• intelligence;

• surveillance;

• reconnaissance.

3.2. Extensions:

• AI and advanced analytics;

⁴Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2016,

pp. 7–15.

5

NATO Allied Command Transformation, Multi-Domain Operations Concept, 2023, pp.

10-18; NATO Allied Command Transformation, Multi-Domain Operations Concept, 2020,

pp. 5-9.

6

David S. Alberts, John J. Garstka, and Frederick P. Stein, Network Centric Warfare,

CCRP, 1999, pp. 88–95.

7

DoD – Data, Analytics, and AI Adoption Strategy, 2023, pp. 7–15; David S. Alberts and

Richard E. Hayes, Power to the Edge, CCRP, 2003, pp. 45–60.

95

DOCTRINAL CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN NATO, USA AND EU

STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURES AND THE IMPACT ON THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE

• cloud and edge computing;

• quantum technologies ⁸.

4. REDEFINING THE DECISION-MAKING CYCLE

Doctrinal correlation: RAND Corporation – Accelerating Decision

Advantage in Multi-Domain Operations (2022); NATO – Emerging and

Disruptive Technologies Strategy Update (2024).

The OODA (Observe–Orient–Decide–Act) model is redefined in the

context of technological convergence⁹.

4.1. Transformations:

• automation of the observation stage;

• augmentation of the orientation stage;

• acceleration of the decision.

4.2. Augmented OODA:

• integration of AI;

• distributed decision;

• interconnected loop ¹⁰.

5. COGNITIVE DOMAIN

Doctrinal correlation: NATO – Countering Cognitive Warfare

(2021, operationally used in 2022–2024); NATO Innovation Hub –

Cognitive Warfare.

The cognitive domain becomes a central space of modern conflict¹¹.

5.1. Characteristics:

• influencing perceptions;

• information manipulation;

• psychological operations.

5.2. Impact:

• degrading the adversary's decision-making process;

• creating uncertainty ¹².

⁸Elsa B. Kania and John K. Costello, Quantum Hegemony?, CSIS, 2017, pp. 12–18.

9

RAND Corporation – Accelerating Decision Advantage in Multi-Domain Operations,

2022, pp. 22–30; John Boyd, “A Discourse on Winning and Losing”, unpublished briefing,

1987, pp. 3–10.

¹⁰Paul Scharre, Army of None, New York: W.W. Norton, 2018, pp. 121–135.

11

Bernard Claverie and François du Cluzel, Cognitive Warfare, NATO Innovation Hub,

2020, pp. 4–9.

¹²NATO, Countering Cognitive Warfare, 2021, pp. 6–12.

96

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Gheorghe BOARU, Ph.D

6.

STRATEGIC

ADVANTAGE:

DECISION-MAKING

SUPERIORITY

Doctrinal correlation: U.S. National Defense Strategy (2022);

RAND (2022); CSIS – AI and the Future of Warfare (2024).

Decisional superiority is the ability to make decisions faster and

more effectively than the adversary¹³.

6.1. Driving factors:

• data access;

• processing capacity;

• information integration.

6.2. Results:

• higher operational tempo;

• convergent effects ¹⁴.

7. VULNERABILITIES AND RISKS

• technology addiction;

• cyber attacks;

• ethical issues ¹⁵.

8. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

Doctrinal correlation: European Union – Strategic Compass

(2022); UK MoD – Defence Command Paper Refresh (2023); NATO

Strategic Concept (2022).

• doctrinal adaptation;

• investment in research;

• education and resilience¹⁶;

• doctrinal adaptation;

• investment in research;

• education and resilience ¹⁷.

Following the analysis of the main concepts presented above, I

present a comparative synoptic table (NATO vs USA vs EU) for the key

concepts:

MDO,

C4ISR/CJADC2,

Cognitive

Warfare,

Decision

Superiority.

13

DoD – Data, Analytics, and AI Adoption Strategy, 2022, pp. 5–12; Martin C. Libicki,

Conquest in Cyberspace, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 45–52.

¹⁴Frank Hoffman, “Hybrid Warfare,” Joint Force Quarterly, 2007, pp. 14–20.

15

Luciano Floridi et al., “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society,”

Minds and Machines,2018, pp. 689–707.

¹⁶European Union – Strategic Compass, 2022, pp. 8–20.

¹⁷RAND Corporation, The Future of Warfare in 2030, 2019, pp. 22–30.

97

DOCTRINAL CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN NATO, USA AND EU

STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURES AND THE IMPACT ON THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE

Comparative synopsis table (NATO vs USA vs EU)¹⁸

European Union

Concept

NATO

USA

(EU)

Conceptually adopted

within the NATO

Central doctrinal

concept US Army /

Joint Force. MDO

= integration of

simultaneous

It does not have a

unified MDO

doctrine. The

Warfighting Capstone

Concept (NWCC)

and adapted through

MDO/All-Domain

Operations alignment

between land-sea-air-

space-cyber domains.

Emphasis on allied

interoperability and

multi-domain

approach is

fragmented: PESCO +

Strategic Compass

promotes the

integration of multi-

domain capabilities,

but without a unified

operational concept

equivalent to

MDO (Multi-

Domain

Operations)

effects in all

domains (land, air,

sea, cyber, space,

cognitive).

Offensive vision:

"penetrate, dis-

integrate, exploit,

re-compete".

integration in

collective operations.

NATO/US.

The US is directly

developing

NATO is developing

Federated Mission

Networking (FMN)

and the NATO

CJADC2

(Combined Joint

All-Domain

Command and

Control) – a

unified network of

sensors–decision

makers–effectors.

Integrating AI,

cloud, edge

EU is developing CDI

(Common Defence

Intelligence) and EU

C2/MPCC initiatives,

but without fully

integrated CJADC2

architecture.

Emphasis on digital

sovereignty and

limited

interoperability.

Digital

C4ISR / CJADC2

Transformation / C2

Integration concept.

CJADC2 is tailored

as allied

interoperability, not

as a single system.

computing for real-

time decision

making.

NATO officially

recognizes the

The USA integrates

into the concept of

Information

The EU approaches

through the strategy

to combat

disinformation

(EEAS StratCom)

and the Digital

Services Act.

Defensive-normative

focus (information

resilience).

cognitive domain as

part of the hybrid

competition (e.g.

NATO Innovation

Hub). Emphasis on

the "human domain",

informational

Advantage /

Cognitive Domain

Operations (US

Army, USMC).

Includes PSYOP,

MISO, AI-driven

influence

Cognitive

Warfare

influence and societal

resilience.

operations.

NATO defines it as a

result of information the US Joint Force

superiority and

alliance

interoperability. It

Central concept in

The EU pursues

"strategic autonomy

in decision-making",

but is limited by the

intergovernmental

Decision

Superiority

doctrine:

"decision

advantage /

18

Own conceptual synthesis based on NATO (NWCC), US (CJADC2) and EU (Strategic

Compass) doctrinal documents.

98

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Gheorghe BOARU, Ph.D

depends on allied

consensus and data

sharing between

states.

decision

dominance" –

accelerating the

OODA cycle

through AI,

process. Decision-

making is slower,

based on political

consensus.

distributed sensors

and decisional

autonomy.

As a comparative essence, the following synthesis is evident:

• The US is a conceptual and technological leader: it dominates

the integration of CJADC2 + MDO + cognitive operations into a unified

ecosystem;

• NATO has a collective interoperability architecture, not a single

system; role as a "framework integrator";

• The EU is an emerging actor in the field of defense, with a focus

on regulation, resilience and limited strategic autonomy, but without full

operational integration.

The comparative analysis reveals that, despite institutional and

doctrinal differences, NATO, the US and the EU are evolving towards a

common model of warfare based on data integration, cognitive dominance

and decisional superiority. The table summarizes this convergence, while

highlighting the differences in emphasis: the US privileges the technological

dimension, NATO the interoperability dimension, and the EU the political-

strategic dimension.

This complementarity can form the basis of an integrated Euro-

Atlantic security architecture¹⁹.

9. CONCLUSIONS

This study analyzes the profound transformations of the security

environment in the 21st century, generated by technological convergence

and the emergence of new operational and doctrinal paradigms. In the

context of the acceleration of the development of emerging technologies –

artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnologies and autonomous

systems – a strategic mutation is highlighted from the traditional paradigm

of military superiority based on kinetic force towards a model centered on

informational and cognitive dominance.

¹⁹European Union, A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence, pp. 23–30.

99

DOCTRINAL CONVERGENCES AND DIVERGENCES IN NATO, USA AND EU

STRATEGIC ARCHITECTURES AND THE IMPACT ON THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE

Starting from the concepts developed within NATO regarding multi-

domain operations and cognitive warfare, the paper argues that the

integration of technologies in advanced architectures of the extended C4ISR

type (C4ISR+AI+Quantum) leads to the redefinition of the decision-making

cycle and its significant compression, in the logic of the OODA Loop

model. Thus, the strategic advantage is transferred to actors capable of

efficiently managing massive volumes of data and transforming information

into relevant operational knowledge in real time.

The study also explores the emergence of the cognitive domain as a

new space of confrontation, where perceptions, trust and social cohesion

become direct targets of hostile actions. In this regard, the role of

information warfare, psychological operations and artificial intelligence-

based technologies in shaping individual and collective behavior is

highlighted.

Methodologically, the research uses conceptual and comparative

analysis of specialized literature, including relevant contributions from think

tanks such as RAND Corporation and CSIS, as well as recent case studies

that illustrate the practical application of technological convergence in

contemporary conflicts.

We can conclude that the future of defense will be defined by the

ability to integrate technologies and transform information into operational

knowledge. Decisional superiority becomes the central element of military

power.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ALBERTS D. S., GARSTKA J., STEIN F., Network Centric Warfare.

CCRP, 1999;

ALBERTS D. S., HAYES R., Power to the Edge, CCRP, 2003;

BOYD J., “A Discourse on Winning and Losing”, Unpublished briefing,

1987;

CLAVERIE B., du Cluzel F., Cognitive Warfare, NATO Innovation Hub,

2020;

FLORIDI L. et al., “AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI

Society,” Mind and Machines (2018);

HOFFMAN F., “Hybrid Warfare,” Joint Force Quarterly (2007);

KANIA E. B., COSTELLO J.K., Quantum Hegemony? CSIS, 2017;

LIBICKI M. C., Conquest in Cyberspace, Cambridge University Press,

2007;

NYE J.S., The Future of Power, New York: PublicAffairs, 2011;

100

Brigadier-general (ret) Professor Gheorghe BOARU, Ph.D

ROCO M., BAINBRIDGE W.S., Converging Technologies for Improvin

Human Performance. NSF, 2002;

SCHARRE P., Army of None. New York: W.W. Norton, 2018;

SCHWAB K., The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic

Forum, 2016;

TOFFLER A., War and Anti-War, New York: Little, Brown, 1993;

RAND Corporation, The Future of Warfare in 2030 (2019);

NATO Allied Command Transformation, Multi-Domain Operations

Concept (2020);

NATO Allied Command Transformation, Multi-Domain Operations

Concept (2023);

NATO, Countering Cognitive Warfare (2021);

101