NATO currently consists of 32 nations. 32 nations with different systems, different equipment, different suppliers and different ways of working. They do not all need the same solution. But they must be able to fight together.
For a small country like Denmark, I believe this makes integration a core military discipline. We need to be very good at it. In fact, I think our ambition should be to become NATO’s integration champion.
We need to practise making systems talk to each other
I spent more than ten years in the signals corps, and looking back, I remember exercises involving DEOS where we specifically practised connecting our communications systems with those of others.
Later, as IT and command-and-control (C2) systems became more prominent, I increasingly found that we could take part in the same exercise while working on parallel systems. The cooperation was there, but I did not experience the same degree of actual technical integration between the C2 systems.
Things may well be different today. NATO is already working systematically on interoperability, including through CWIX, where thousands of specialists from NATO and partner nations connect systems, test them and identify problems that only become apparent when different nations’ technologies meet.
I can only welcome that. Because it reinforces my point: It is not enough for systems to be capable of communicating in principle. We also need to practise making them do so.
Experience and trust are built together
Think of something as simple as a PC that is acting up. There could be any number of reasons. The skilled IT specialist is often the person who has seen the problem before and can quickly work out where to look.
Now imagine the same problem between two military C2 systems from different nations. Different equipment, configurations, procedures, security requirements and people. And this time, the problem may have to be solved under considerably greater time pressure. That experience only comes from doing it.
For me, interoperability is therefore about more than technical interfaces and NATO standards. It is just as much about people. Danish signals personnel need to know their German, Norwegian or Swedish counterparts. Not necessarily every individual personally, but their organisations, working methods, procedures and systems.
They need to have worked together to make the integration succeed. More importantly, they need to have experienced it failing and found the fault together. That builds technical experience, a common language and the trust that comes from actually solving problems together.
Danish C2 must work with our allies’ systems
I believe this is particularly important for Denmark. We are a small nation. In a larger conflict, Danish units must be able to operate as part of multinational formations and, in some cases, under a foreign command structure. In that situation, it is not enough for our C2 to work brilliantly at the national level.
Information must move quickly enough between systems to support operational needs. This could include situational pictures, reports and command-and-control information. It could also be something as fundamental as the positions of friendly forces. If a Danish unit is operating alongside an allied unit, I would very much want our neighbour to be able to see and correctly identify us in its C2 environment.
That is also why I believe interoperability should carry significant weight when we procure new systems. Not necessarily the greatest weight. The mission comes first. We must define the operational effect we need. Price, delivery time, maturity and a range of other factors clearly matter too.
But if two systems can fulfil the mission, it is difficult to overlook the value of one already being used by—or having a well-documented record of integration with—the allies we expect to operate closely alongside.
And here, I prefer practical experience to a box-ticking exercise in a requirements specification. Can the systems actually be integrated? What have other nations learned? What went wrong when they tried? And can we demonstrate it?
We could start in the Nordic region
But technology cannot do it alone. I would like to see much more systematic cooperation between the people responsible for making it all work.
Joint technical training programmes. Exchanges of officers and non-commissioned officers. Established relationships between signals units. And far more recurring exercises where C2 integration is not simply something put in place to enable the exercise, but is itself part of what is being practised.
We could start in the Nordic region. Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland face many of the same challenges. Why not train some of our technical specialists together? Why not build a strong Nordic professional community around military C2 and integration?
We already know how to send students on exchanges. Why should we not do the same far more systematically with our military personnel and technical specialists?
What about a recurring NATO month?
And it does not always have to mean moving an entire Danish headquarters to Germany or Norway. The beauty of IT is precisely that we can establish connections remotely.
As a purely illustrative idea, imagine a recurring “NATO month” where headquarters remain at their usual locations but connect their C2 environments with allied units and conduct joint staff exercises.
The headquarters practise multinational command and control. The signals personnel practise integration. And when something goes wrong, they practise troubleshooting together.
The exact model is not what matters. The ambition is. Because 32 nations do not need one technical solution. But their systems must be able to integrate, and their people must be able to make them work together.
For a small country like Denmark, this should be more than something we can do. It should be something we excel at. Denmark should be NATO’s integration champion.