On 29 September, I attended “The Transatlantic Outlook: Competitiveness, Security and Strategic Resilience” at the Microsoft AI Innovation Hub in Brussels. Convened by Microsoft and the College of Europe Chair of Transatlantic Trade and Economy, the event brought together policymakers, business leaders, academics and experts to consider some of the priorities shaping the future of transatlantic cooperation.
At first sight, the programme ranged across distinct policy areas: competitiveness and industrial policy; AI diffusion and technological sovereignty; long-term support for Ukraine, deterrence, hybrid warfare and defence industrial policy; as well as the political outlook ahead of the US midterm elections.
Yet this breadth was precisely what made the discussion relevant to Black Sea Futures, hence this article. These were not simply adjacent conversations, but, taken together, they showed that the transatlantic relationship is being reshaped by forces operating across sectors and policy domains, as well as that resilience cannot be built within any one of them alone.
Resilience across systems
Competitiveness increasingly affects whether critical technologies can be developed and scaled, whether supply chains can withstand disruption and whether sufficient industrial capacity will be available when circumstances change. Technology choices shape cyber security, critical infrastructure, defence capabilities and the dependencies embedded in all three. Political change, meanwhile, influences which commitments, investments and partnerships can be sustained over time. None of these dynamics stops at the boundary of a single policy field.
The discussion with NATO Deputy Secretary General Radmila Šekerinska reinforced this point. She addressed the effects of emerging technologies on defence industries and militaries, NATO’s development of long-term strategic partnerships with technology stakeholders, and the importance of complementary NATO-EU work on cyber defence and digital resilience. NATO’s account of the discussion captured this emphasis on cooperation across governments, international organisations and the technology sector.
Resilience, in this sense, is not the sum of several policy silos made individually stronger. It also depends on the ability to understand interdependencies, anticipate how disruption may travel across systems and coordinate action across institutional and sectoral boundaries.
Why does this matter for the wider Black Sea region?
The wider Black Sea region is understandably viewed through the urgency of Russia’s war against Ukraine, maritime insecurity and intensifying hybrid threats. That lens is indispensable, but it becomes incomplete, however, if security developments are considered separately from the other forces reshaping the region.
The region’s longer-term trajectory is being influenced simultaneously by energy production and dependencies, ports and transport corridors, critical maritime and digital infrastructure, defence and industrial capacity, external investment and trade, technological change, and not least the durability of political partnerships.
A port investment, for example, is never solely a transport matter. It could affect commercial connectivity, military mobility, energy flows, critical raw materials supply chains, local development and exposure to external leverage. New technologies could strengthen maritime surveillance while creating new dependencies related to data, components, maintenance or control. A political shift in the United States or Europe could alter funding, regulatory alignment or the commitments underpinning regional security.
These relationships can be missed when individual policy files are examined in isolation. From a Black Sea Futures perspective, the question is therefore not only what is changing in each domain, but how these changes may interact over time and where new possibilities may emerge.
What does this mean for Black Sea Futures?
The event also demonstrated once again the value of cross-sector exchange in general. It brought public institutions, international organisations, business and academia into the same conversation. No single institution or professional community holds the complete picture.
This closely reflects the logic behind the Black Sea Futures approach: Map · Convene · Explore · Share. Map the interdependencies shaping the wider region. Convene perspectives that do not always meet in sustained discussion. Explore how present changes could develop through foresight and foresight-informed analysis. Share the implications for longer-term strategic choices.
This does not mean making every policy question larger or more abstract. It means examining decisions in relation to the systems they affect and the possible futures they may help create.
The main takeaway from Brussels through this policy debate was therefore not about a single forecast about the transatlantic relationship, but instead it provided a reminder of how that relationship increasingly needs to be understood. The same applies to the wider Black Sea region: in a nutshell, resilience will not be built in separate policy compartments. It will depend on whether governments, institutions, industry and knowledge communities can recognise the intersections early enough, and translate them into choices that strengthen preparedness and preserve room for action.