Championing NATO's Digital Transformation
17:54 Share

You are listening to the War on the Rocks podcast on strategy, defense, and foreign affairs. My name is Ryan Evans. I'm the founder of War on the Rocks. This episode was recorded live on the sidelines of ITSIC, the major military simulations conference where we hosted a big party at the Capitol Grill. Our guest for this episode is Major General Dominique Luzot. He is a French general

who is currently at NATO, where he is the digital transformation champion and the special advisor to Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. My thanks to Major General Luzzo for participating in this very special episode, and I hope you enjoy the show.

Thank you so much for joining us for this episode. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. It's a pleasure being here with you and with you all. One of the exciting things about when I read your bio and was learning about you is you're the only person I know that has the word champion in your job description. Tell us what you champion at NATO and why it's so important.

Yeah, I like this word too. So actually, NATO saw that digital transformation was a strategic thing to do very recently. This was something which was decided by the chief head of state over a year ago in 23. And actually, digital things, of course, anyone is doing some digital programs, projects.

but it wasn't seen as something strategic. So NATO decided that they had to implement a digital transformation vision, which means that they had to look at the digital technologies and how these technologies could be leveraged in order to have a more efficient alliance. So by digital technologies, what do you mean? Cloud AI, data, big data, machine learning, all these buzzwords we all know from the civilian world.

But NATO hadn't used them so much and the idea was to see how they could be employed in order to better conduct operations. And it's why they created in summer 23, they created the position of a digital transformation champion. And here he is.

The idea of transforming NATO digitally, help me understand because NATO is of course a collection of more than 20 nations with independent militaries, independent policies. What is the distinction between digital transformation for all of these militaries and of NATO the alliance?

So NATO, 32 nations, so it's quite a complex world, complicated and complex. Many nations have already some digital assets, some of them are more or less advanced, and the idea is to be able to make all of these assets work together, so be interoperable and also bring some added value, so that's

globally the alliance can do more than individually each nation can do. One thing which is important for the Digital Transformation Champion is that actually there are things which can be done within NATO, I mean with the common funding, but most of the things are done by the nations. So the idea is to bring some convergence between all the different projects and programs.

And NATO, of course, acts by consensus, which is both one of its greatest strengths, but also one of its greatest difficulties, especially in a job like yours. So how are things balanced? So, for example, within the alliance, we have, let's call more digitally advanced militaries, maybe the United States, France. You led the digital service at the MOD, the French MOD, before you came to this job. And then you have others that are probably further behind on some of these issues through the lens of consensus.

How does this happen, especially when you're planning how NATO might actually fight as an alliance? Yeah, of course, some nations are more advanced on some topics, but some other nations are more advanced in other topics. So the idea is to see what everyone can bring and try to think the best mixture of all the different values, added values that everyone can bring.

You mentioned US, France. You have a lot of actually skills and expertise. Even if in all these digital issues, of course, the US with the hyperscalers have a lot of advance, the other European nations also have some things to bring. And this is what we try to do within NATO in order to have a global efficient alliance. What are some of the biggest issues? I know training is one of them. Let's talk about that. There's four streams, and I believe that's one of them.

Training is very important because actually what is important is first conceptualizes, then development. But if you are not able to use them efficiently during the operations, then it's not worth investing in all this. So training is a key thing. And what is important also is to be able to train with new technologies, not only train with something which is known by everyone, but be able to have what we try to call it audacious training.

So it's actually a continuum between innovation and already legacy systems, and you have to train with the legacy systems while you are able to train with also innovative solutions. So it's really the combination of all this which has to be done. And how does this work interface with the concepts of operations and interoperability when it's about how NATO will actually fight, all the way from the training side to that?

Interoperability is a key thing. We have systems provided by all the nations. They were developed with different timeframes, they were developed with different technologies. We have to be able to put them together. So interoperability is the first key challenge.

But actually we can overcome this interoperability challenge by training. And this is where actually we try to bring something at the global alliance level. It's through training, trying to not only train at the basic level, but train at a more operational or strategic level in order to be able to conduct operations all together.

We're obviously at ITSEC, which is very concerned with simulations, but we could do augmented reality and other important training tools. A lot of this is about what we would say in American English, reps and sets, so repetition. And that's often hard, even for advanced militaries to achieve, to spread them across these more advanced training technologies, their entire force, to get those people, including pilots, but also everyone, pilots to maintainers and everything in between, those repetitions with these advanced training technologies. How is NATO struggling with this?

There is something I would like to add here. When you understand training, you have to understand training throughout all the life cycles. So this means also wargaming initially in order to be able to train different decision makers at the strategic level. And then you have to train other people at the operative level. And at the tactical level, you will train either the infantry, the grunts or the pilot first.

But basically you have to be able to do this going down and up the different levels. And training is also something you have to do throughout the lifecycle of the system. Some of the systems, you might start training them while they are not fully developed. We are currently using more and more autonomous systems.

either land robots or UAVs, USVs, UVs, all these kinds of unmanned vehicles. And actually, some of them are not yet fully available or they develop or they evolve very quickly. So you have to train with some versions and you might be able to use a few months or a few or sometime later, you might use a new version. So the training also has to be very evaluative and this is also something very important, simulation training.

has a real added value in order to be able to do this. How are you and your staff looking at Ukraine as a testbed of concepts, ideas, lessons, specific to digital transformation? So it's very interesting to see how the Ukrainian forces are using the digital assets in order to find innovative ways to fight. So this is something we are looking at. Lessons learned are very important.

I mean, like every conflict or every war between quotes, this is where you find innovation and sometimes disruptive ways of doing things. Back in Afghanistan, I remember we used to joke, there's this difference between lessons identified and lessons learned. So how do we choose the lessons that are actually identified into something that is institutionally and organizationally different?

Yeah, it's more like lessons identified right now. But the idea is now to define a process in order to transform these lessons identified into lessons learned and to really to better understand also not only where innovation has brought value, but also how the adversary, how he reacted in front of these innovations, because actually it's

it's an ecosystem, so it's important to see it's like the sword and the shield. When you have a new innovation, it's very interesting also to look at how the adversary tries to overcome this innovation and brings himself a new innovation. And this is a continuous cycle. So identification of all these ways of new finding and trying then to take some time and have lessons learned in order to maybe to evolve our strategy or some of our maneuvers.

AI is, of course, not just the technology du jour, but maybe of the generation that we're living in, if not beyond. And of course, relates to everything from simulation to targeting. And I know this is a big focus of yours. We'd love to hear more about how you're thinking of that. AI is a buzzword. What we discussed before, I'm using now my chronological credibility. Thank you. So my experience, 30 years ago, I completed my first PhD on artificial intelligence. Wow.

How many years ago? 30 years ago. So we've been using artificial intelligence for many, many, many years. Of course, now we have new technologies, new ways, new computing power. We have generative AI, which was something we didn't have 20 or even 10 years ago. I mean, it started in 2012. But generative AI brings now new ways also of assisting all the different fighters, but also the decision makers.

Of course, we are very interested in AI within NATO. We are also emphasizing the ethical use of AI, and this is something which is very important for NATO. We can do anything we want, so ethics is really something which is of very high importance for all of us.

Something that I think people underestimate, and especially if you don't work on the issues, might not even think that much about. I used to not think much about this until a friend of mine in the Defense Department talked about the physical infrastructure of AI and how there's sort of this contest for GPUs going on between private industry and governments. And most of them are going to industry. And even our own Defense Department here is struggling to get enough compute power to

build its own systems, for example. How is NATO struggling with this issue? Of course, we are using the civilian GPUs. I think we are not developing our own GPUs, and I don't think it's the thing to do. The most important thing is to see how AI can transform or help transforming some of our processes and help us taking

better decisions, more rapid decisions, because actually when you are conducting a maneuver, what is important is to get into the loop of the adversary, into what is called the OODA loop, the observe, orient, decide and act loop. So it's not necessary to be as fast as possible. The idea is to be able to disrupt your adversary's way of taking decisions so that he's not able to follow his own course of action

And this is what we are trying to do with AI. So assisting all the different decision makers, you know, to have better situation assessment, seeing how we can change our process of taking decisions at the operative and strategic level. So NATO is not developing their own computers. This is what the civilian world does. This is what some of the nations do. But actually what we are focusing on is how to use AI in the most smartest way. This is something that was the subject of an article brought

broadly speaking, that we recently published by Jake Chapman. And of course, it relates to what Vatrea does as a service business model. And it seems like there's this interesting potential for the business model we see in software, which software is a service to migrate more into defense, not just including software, but it seems especially pertinent to AI. How do you think about this issue?

Yeah, I like what you said because it's everything as a service. It's software as a service, it's hardware as a service, it's AI as a service. Basically, it's also a trend in technology that we have to accompany. It's this trend we are trying also to take advantage of because it gives us more agility, more flexibility, and it's really something we have to work better and look

Look more into it. Before I ask my next question, who's going to be the champ out there that's going to get me another glass of red, huh? Thank you, my friend. Back to the member states. Different countries bring different strengths to the table as well. How has the addition of the comparatively more technologically advanced Nordic countries into NATO, Sweden, Finland...

changed your approach or augmented your approach or informed your approach to digital transformation? Well, actually, as I said before, each nation brings something. So they bring a new perspective. Currently, if you look at what happens in the geopolitical world, the Baltic countries bring their own experience of how to deal with an adversary which is not too far from their own frontiers, which is maybe not the case for the more southern countries.

So some of them bring experience, some of them bring technologies, some of them bring processes. It's trying to see to take the better thing of everyone. This is what we're trying to do. People understand that Estonia has embraced cybersecurity in a way that most countries, including the United States, simply have not. And I've heard some friends counter, well, that doesn't necessarily apply to exquisite capabilities.

the things that you might see the NSA do. But in a way, I think those things are actually less important than the whole of society and the whole of industry embracing cybersecurity, which is an important part of digital transformation. I heard a really, actually at ITSEC two years ago, a Navy official make this really important point in one of his panels where he said, taking care of just the government side of your cybersecurity problem is like cleaning half your pool. So where does cyber play into some of your efforts?

Digital and cyber are two sides of the same coin. You can't do cyber per se, and you can't do any digital without taking into account cybersecurity. What is interesting to see is that the new digital technologies bring also a new view on cybersecurity. We used to have a network-centric world where you compartmentalized all the different networks. Now we are using something which is more data-centric.

So cybersecurity has to be taken natively in within the data. So it's really also a change of mind between cybersecurity and digital technologies. Why did you join the military?

going back a few years? What I mean, I was interested in the military stuff. I graduated from a military scientific school. I had the opportunity to work for the military and to do some scientific work at the same time. It's why actually I chose the Armament Corps because I was able to be a military engineer on one side. I was also able to conduct some academic research on the other side, doing both togethers.

And I want to do something for my nation. So this is actually why I chose also the military career. And you said earlier your first PhD. Was there a second?

Yeah, actually, then I had the professor, what is called the habilitation thesis, which was also on robotics and AI. So I'm an AI guy. So in a way, the world finally caught up to your interests, in a way. Yeah, so everyone changes. And the technology is actually, it's a trend. And what is interesting is to see how the technologies change in the different years.

Something I like to ask, especially my general officer guests on the show, is who was your favorite boss you had, not counting any generals? My favorite boss? Well, when I was younger, I had a boss, Bruno. And what is interesting, he gave me autonomy. And this is, I think, very important in terms of management.

Actually, I had two bosses whose first name were Bruno. And they wanted me to do something. And they said, well, this is what you have to do. Now we leave you and you can do it. It's your choice. But you have to be there when we want the results at this date. And this is what I liked. Autonomy, trust. I think these are the two qualities which are very important for a boss. The best boss I ever had, a guy named Mike Jacobson.

He was my boss while I was in Afghanistan. Taught me a lesson that at the time I didn't always appreciate. That the most important thing you can do as a leader is enfranchise the people with real decision-making power and freedom beneath you to meet the mission. Best boss I ever had. So very similar lesson, it sounds like. What is a book, something else I'd like to ask my senior leader guests on the show, what is a book that had a big influence on you as a person? Well, I will not mention my own books. They are technical books. But you can purchase them. Yeah.

No, I like to read science fiction, actually. Really? Who's your favorite science fiction author? I like Frank Herbert, but of course, Dune and all the other novels he wrote. Basically, I've written a lot of science fiction, and it's something I like because it helps you dream, but at the same time, some of the things might be real, and sometimes you would like to implement them.

I like that phrase, "It helps you dream," because we are in the sidelines of a conference where innovation is critical, because we're really talking about technology. And when something helps you dream and think about something in the future differently, it's critically important.

Thank you for listening to this episode of the War on the Rocks podcast. Don't forget to check out our membership program at warontherocks.com slash membership, where you can become a platinum member with access to 10 podcasts, four newsletters, an app, the War Hall, and more. Again, warontherocks.com slash membership. Stay safe and stay healthy.