As the face of warfare changes completely, Western governments must adapt to keep up, reevaluate what constitutes “defense,” and prioritize the importance of cybersecurity innovation. At the NATO Summit earlier this summer, the alliance took an essential first step towards building this modern defense landscape. It agreed to boost defense spending towards 5% of GDP and reiterated NATO members’ Article 5 commitments. 

As the U.S. pushes the UK and Europe towards self-reliance, the imperative for defense investment is clear. Defense innovation has moved from a fringe issue to an existential one, and the UK’s latest review was a clear sign that its importance is finally being properly acknowledged. But there is more to be done.

The evolution of warfare

Warfare is increasingly decentralized and technology-driven, marking the biggest change in conflict since the advent of flight. This decentralisation means that front lines and battlefields no longer exist in the same way, and conflict isn’t confined to physical, kinetic combat. Instead, cyber-attacks and sabotage have become standard elements of state conflict. 

Ukrainian officials report that Russian cyber-attacks have surged dramatically since the invasion, with roughly 70% more attacks in 2024 than the previous year. These are not indiscriminate attacks either; more than half targeted government systems, with a drastically increased share aimed at military command and control infrastructure. 

This threat exists beyond active warzones too. Critical national infrastructure is being targeted across Western nations by various cyber-criminal and hacktivist groups, as well as state actors. The tactics have transcended low-level website defacements and data theft too and now extend to more destructive attacks on systems such as energy grids, gas pipelines, and undersea cables. Given that an attack on servers or substations can be as devastating as an attack with shells and missiles, any effective defense strategy must now treat digital threats with the same level of severity as physical ones. 

AI and autonomy on the battlefield

Alongside this cyber warfare, there has also been a rapid advance of AI and autonomous systems on the battlefield. Drones and robotic platforms are increasingly controlled by AI, allowing them to reconnoitre, identify targets, and attack without direct human control. Both Russia and Ukraine have invested heavily in these capabilities, effectively ushering in a new era of partially autonomous fighting. This kind of ‘autonomy at the edge’, where human oversight is minimal once a system is unleashed, marks a qualitative shift in warfare. While it certainly raises difficult ethical and safety questions, militarily, it offers speed and surprise that traditional remote-controlled weapons simply cannot match.

Take Ukraine’s innovative use of drones for example. Its forces have repeatedly reached deep into Russian territory, using swarms of inexpensive drones instead of fighter jets or cruise missiles. In March, it launched its largest ever attack, sending 343 drones to the Moscow region, forcing the shutdown of all four of the Russian capital’s airports. In June, its ‘Spiderweb’ operation saw more than 100 drones deployed deep within Russian territory, striking airbases up to 4,500km away from the border.

The devastating power of these relatively inexpensive unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) is reshaping the tactics of warfare. The Spiderweb strikes have been described as a “low-cost precision strike operation”, demonstrating how a nation lacking heavy, long-range missiles can still inflict serious strategic losses. 

There is also a grim side to this revolution. Each of these inexpensive UAVs, and indeed any device connected to the internet, is a target for cyber warfare. This presents another opportunity to hack and disable or repurpose, instantly turning an asset into a vulnerability. 

The very strengths of autonomous weapons — that they are cheap, scalable, and effective — will also make them the tools of choice for rogue states or terrorist actors. Many existing defenses, like airport security checkpoints or traditional anti-aircraft systems, are ill-suited to this threat, forcing a rethink of protection strategies for public venues and critical infrastructure. 

A defense industry for the future

NATO recognizes that it is on the cusp of a watershed moment, and that it is in a race against time to adapt to an ever-evolving threat landscape. Military force is no longer solely defined by tank or troop numbers, but by technology, agility, and resilience. 

The UK, for example, has set up joint task forces between the military and industry to harden energy infrastructure and is investing in rapid restoration capabilities for communications networks. This blurring of what is ‘defense’ is important as the potential attack surface becomes both global and digital. We must now also consider resilience across the economy as part of our broader defense strategy. 

The age of decentralized and hybrid warfare demands a more agile and innovative Western response. Increasing military and defense budgets to include cyber and infrastructure protections is a good start. Doubling down on technological innovation and fostering closer government-industry collaboration would be an excellent next step.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

The European Commission has temporarily paused its investigation into Universal Music Group‘s proposed acquisition of Downtown Music Holdings.

Reuters reported on Thursday (September 4) that the EC has paused its inquiry ‘while awaiting requested information’.

UMG’s Virgin Music Group revealed in December that it had agreed to buy Downtown Music Holdings LLC in a $775 million deal.

Europe’s competition regulator announced in April that it was preparing to investigate the proposed acquisition and confirmed in July that it had opened an in-depth (Phase 2) inquiry, following an initial Phase 1 investigation.

The EC said in a press release in July that it had “preliminary concerns that the transaction may allow UMG to reduce competition in the wholesale market for the distribution of recorded music in the European Economic Area (EEA) by acquiring commercially sensitive data of its rival record labels”.

Reuters reports that the European Commission ‘stopped the clock’ in the investigation on Tuesday (September 2).

“The ‘clock’ in merger investigations can be suspended if the parties fail to provide, in a timely fashion, an important piece of information that the Commission has requested from them (for its competition assessment) within a prescribed deadline,” Reuters quotes a Commission spokesperson as saying.

The European Commission originally had until November 26 to make a final decision following its Phase II investigation into the deal, but according to the EC website, this date was recently extended by 10 working days, (until December 10).

Reuters reports that a new deadline will be set by the EC ‘once the investigation resumes’.

“We are confident that the Commission will recognize the benefits of the transaction for artists, labels, and independent music in Europe, and clear the transaction.”

Universal Music Group

“We look forward to continuing to work constructively with the Commission to convey the benefits this transaction will bring to the independent music community in Europe,” a UMG spokesperson told MBW on Thursday.

” This deal is about offering independent music makers access to world-class tools and support to help them succeed. We are confident that the Commission will recognize the benefits of the transaction for artists, labels, and independent music in Europe, and clear the transaction.”

According to the EC website, the deadline has been suspended under Article 11(3) of the EU Merger Regulation.

Article 11 of the EU Merger Regulation (Council Regulation 139/2004) deals with requests for information that the European Commission can make during merger investigations. The provision operates on two levels: simple requests under Article 11(2) and formal legal decisions under Article 11(3).

As the EC explains here, the formal decision must “state the legal basis and purpose of the request”, specify exactly what information is required, and establish a firm deadline for compliance.

It appears that Article 11 is not limited to requests of information from the parties involved in the deal.

According to Article 11(1), the EC has the power, “by simple request or by decision, [to] require the persons referred to in Article 3(1)(b), as well as undertakings and associations of undertakings, to provide all necessary information.”

In other words the legal framework empowers the EC to request information from any undertakings (other companies), associations of undertakings (industry groups and trade bodies), as well as the parties directly involved in the proposed deal.

When companies fail to respond adequately to an Article 11(3) decision, the Commission can “stop the clock” on its investigation timeline – precisely what has happened in the UMG-Downtown case.

This suspension mechanism serves dual purposes: it prevents companies from running down investigation deadlines through non-cooperation, while giving them additional time to compile complex information requests.

Once the investigation resumes, a new deadline is set, and the EC reaches its conclusion, it can clear the merger (with or without conditions) or prohibit it entirely if competition concerns cannot be adequately addressed.

According to the EC, “the opening of an in-depth inquiry does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation”.

As previously reported by MBW, the UMG-Downtown deal did not meet the EU’s standard turnover thresholds that would typically require notification to Brussels, but it did trigger notification requirements in both the Netherlands and Austria based on their respective national thresholds.

The EC decided to look into the deal because the Netherlands triggered a legal mechanism in EU competition law called Article 22. Austria subsequently joined the referral.

As we await news about new timelines in the investigation, the global music industry debate about the deal’s implications continues.

Yesterday (September 3), Downtown Music CEO Pieter van Rijn issued an open letter commenting on UMG’s proposed acquisition of his company.

Van Rijn addressed what he calls “whispering campaigns of misinformation that we have seen pervade the public debate” about the deal.

In July, Virgin Music Group’s bosses slammed what they called “juvenile and offensive falsehoods” spread by opponents of VMG’s planned Downtown acquisition.

Also in July, over 200 people signed a letter objecting to UMG’s proposed takeover of Downtown, including 20 employees from Beggars Group and Secretly Group companies.

On July 2, the European Composer & Songwriter Alliance (ECSA) issued an open letter to the European Commission on Wednesday (July 2) urging it to block the planned acquisition.

 Music Business Worldwide

A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser
extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your
connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.