NATO members are increasing defence spending and strengthening long-term capability planning in response to a shifting security landscape. The shift extends beyond procurement and is influencing how governments plan for industry, technology and research.

In Canada, the moment coincides with the release of the federal government’s Defence Industrial Strategy, which outlines plans to strengthen domestic defence production and innovation. For Canadian universities, it invites reflection on how academic research fits within national defence objectives and alliance commitments.

Queen’s researcher Stéfanie von Hlatky, Canada Research Chair in Gender, Security, and the Armed Forces, and Associate Vice-Principal (Research) at Queen’s University, recently travelled to NATO headquarters in Brussels and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium as part of a Kingston–Ottawa delegation that included representatives from Queen’s, the University of Ottawa, Carleton University, and the Royal Military College of Canada (RMC).

The Gazette spoke with Dr. von Hlatky about what the visit revealed about NATO’s priorities and how universities fit into this changing landscape.
 

As part of a delegation of Canada's leading university experts on military and defence strategies, what were the discussions with NATO focused on?

The purpose was to better understand how NATO’s current strategic adjustments will shape Canada’s research and innovation environment.

Visiting the Canadian mission to NATO and SHAPE provided important civilian and military perspectives on some of the most pressing challenges the alliance is facing. Those discussions also outlined funding mechanisms available to support defence-related research and innovation.

One important area is dual-use research, meaning work that has both civilian and security applications. Universities often contribute to foundational research in areas such as cybersecurity, advanced computing and sensing technologies, so understanding the broader strategic context is essential. Part of the goal was to bring that context back to our research centres and broader community so researchers can make informed decisions about how or whether to engage with emerging opportunities.
 

During your visit, what stood out to you about the issues NATO members are most focused on right now?

There is a strong emphasis on readiness and long-term capability planning.

Allies are thinking ahead about how to modernize infrastructure and maintain technological advantage. This is not short-term crisis management but a structural recalibration of priorities.

At the same time, some areas that Canada has championed at NATO and the UN have met more political contestation. Climate security and gender equality are two such examples. There is a balancing act in reconciling strategic interests with core values. In that environment, universities have a role in ensuring debates are grounded in research and evidence, particularly when issues become politically contested.
 

How does political uncertainty among major allies, particularly the United States, factor into how NATO thinks about continuity and long-term planning?

Political uncertainty creates leadership opportunities for European countries and Canada within NATO and other international organizations.

When there is unpredictability among major allies, others often step forward to reinforce continuity and a consistent policy approach. So far, we are seeing commitment to continuity signalled by sustained increases in defence spending.

How that new investment translates into research collaboration, industrial capacity, and long-term partnerships is an important question. Universities need to understand those dynamics and ensure their perspectives are included in those discussions. Along the Kingston–Ottawa corridor, we are weighing in with strong partners, including RMC, the University of Ottawa, and Carleton University.
 

How is Canada perceived within NATO right now? Where do you see Canada having the most room to shape conversations or outcomes within the alliance?

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos brought attention to Canada. At least in the short term, this has created greater room to manoeuvre on the diplomatic front, which can help the government’s efforts to diversify its economic partners.

More broadly, Canada’s influence often comes through coalition-building and contributions in areas where it has credibility and expertise. That includes domains such as Arctic security and emerging technologies, where technical knowledge carries weight in alliance discussions.
 

How does your background as a scholar of alliance politics, gender, and security shape the way you approach NATO?

It is important to understand how Canadian defence policy objectives fit into the broader NATO context.

My research focuses on how alliances manage coordination among members with different domestic pressures and political priorities. That includes how strategic interests and core values interact, and how institutions maintain cohesion under pressure.

Viewing NATO as both a military alliance and a political institution helps clarify where consensus is strong and where policy differences are becoming more pronounced.
 

Based on your research, what direction do you see alliance politics moving in over the next several years?

International organizations can show institutional resilience during moments of crisis or instability. Alliances adapt rather than disappear. Countries like Canada rely heavily on multilateral institutions to advance foreign policy goals and international commitments, and those channels remain central even as priorities evolve.
 

How has this recent visit shaped the way you think about alliance politics moving forward?

Defence literacy is critical in this moment. As a research community, we need to understand how our work intersects with national objectives and international commitments, and consider where universities fit within that landscape.

At Queen’s, that approach builds on existing strengths. The university has a tradition of advancing research in support of military and veteran health (Canadian Institute for Military Veteran Health Research), foreign and defence policy (Centre for International Defence Policy), cybersecurity (Queen's Centre for Security and Privacy), and innovation with potential security applications (Ingenuity Labs), while maintaining strong research security practices. Queen’s is also building bench strength in sovereign, secure supercomputing, which is key to the central tenets outlined in Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy.

This visit was about ensuring that universities are prepared to engage thoughtfully in discussions shaped by a more turbulent international environment and a sharper focus on Canadian sovereignty.
 

For Canadians trying to make sense of today’s global instability, what do you think is most important for them to understand about NATO’s role today?

An increase in defence spending of this scale must be accompanied by informed public debate about resource allocation and priorities.

As Canadian sovereignty and international commitments face sharper scrutiny by domestic publics, partners and allies, those conversations matter. Universities can help ensure such conversations remain grounded in research and evidence.