NATO’s Strategic Dependence on Batteries

Across NATO, the next generation of forces is being built around a decisive shift toward replacing fuel-based systems with electricity and high-performance batteries. From unmanned systems and smart munitions to mobile command posts and sensor networks, the Alliance’s deterrence posture is becoming electric. The move promises faster deployment, reduced noise signatures, and fewer supply convoys. Yet, beneath this technological progress lies a growing structural risk.

Every step toward electrification deepens NATO’s exposure to fragile supply chains and volatile critical-mineral markets. Batteries are now the linchpin of power projection, but also a potential weak point in it. The Alliance’s ability to fight, deter, and coordinate operations could hinge on materials mined or processed far from NATO’s control. As warfare becomes increasingly digital and electric, NATO faces a strategic challenge of a new kind: not how to innovate faster, but how to secure the energy backbone of its deterrence, and prevent the tools of modernisation from becoming instruments of dependency.

NATO’s modernisation effort is rapidly transforming how energy supports military power. Directed-energy weapons, autonomous vehicles and drone swarms all rely on compact and efficient energy storage. Electrification is becoming central to how NATO’s forces plan to operate in dispersed and contested environments, where fuel convoys increase risk and visible emissions expose positions. Batteries now support a wide range of systems from surveillance drones to mobile radar units and frontline communication networks.

This transition reflects a deeper structural shift. Oil once defined mobility, while the new measure of operational capacity is stored electrical energy. Electrified platforms offer quieter movement and precise, on-demand power, yet this progress requires technologies built on complex supply chains that are controlled by only a few producers. Processing facilities for key materials are also concentrated in limited locations, which increases the risk of disruption.

Meanwhile, global battery demand has doubled every few years, costs have fallen significantly, and energy density has increased many times over. These gains, first made in consumer electronics and later in electric vehicles and heavy transport, now support defence innovation as well. For NATO, falling costs and rising performance make electrification possible at scale, although the speed of this expansion increases dependence on fragile supply chains.

Shortages of lithium, graphite or nickel could slow the production of essential military systems. These risks extend beyond mining because refining, the production of anode and cathode materials, and battery recycling are dominated by a small group of facilities. This creates single points of failure that could be exploited through economic pressure, cyber interference or targeted physical disruption.

A recent development captures both the opportunity and the risk behind this shift. Three Canadian firms, Energy Plug Technologies, Malahat Battery Technology and Quantum eMotion, have partnered to create highly secure energy storage systems for defence and critical infrastructure. Their work focuses on improving the digital protection of battery networks that power remote bases and mobile units, which is important because these systems are becoming core to military operations. The initiative shows how quickly energy storage is merging with cybersecurity and why protecting the power systems that support NATO missions is becoming as critical as improving their performance.

For NATO, such projects reveal a technological horizon in which energy networks become both secure and intelligent. They also highlight the growing links between energy technology, digital security, and defence readiness. A weakness in any part of this chain, whether in code, hardware or supply, can affect the entire system.

NATO’s deterrence increasingly depends on the reliability of energy storage networks. Batteries support vehicles, weapons, command platforms, logistics software and remote sensors. Weaknesses in these systems can create far-reaching disruptions. Prolonged shortages could delay production of autonomous systems, limit training that relies on electric platforms, or complicate cooperation between forces that use batteries with different chemistries or voltage requirements. Even small reductions in battery performance can influence readiness and endurance.

Moreover, readiness and deterrence rely on reliable access to power. When the availability of power becomes uncertain, the credibility of military response becomes uncertain as well. Concentrated production makes this challenge more serious. Europe and North America are expanding battery manufacturing, but most upstream and midstream processing remains heavily clustered in a few locations. The majority of anode and cathode materials, especially graphite and refined lithium, still come from a limited group of countries such as China, South Korea, Japan and Australia. In any geopolitical crisis that disrupts trade flows, triggers sanctions, or raises shipping risks, these supply routes could tighten quickly and delay production across the Alliance.

Unlike petroleum, which NATO prepared for with strategic reserves during the Cold War, no similar system exists for lithium, nickel or graphite. The lack of reserves or diversified refining capacity exposes the Alliance to a potential battery blockade, meaning a sudden restriction in material supply that disrupts production.

Additionally, industrial resilience is becoming an important part of deterrence. Military power depends not only on advanced platforms but also on secure access to the materials that make them possible. Battery production follows a self-reinforcing cycle in which higher production leads to lower costs and better performance. This benefits countries that scale production quickly and challenges those that lag behind. NATO’s task is to strengthen this base without creating new long-term dependencies.

Accordingly, the Alliance has started to adapt. For instance, the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), links civilian research with military needs and supports early-stage projects in energy storage, advanced materials, and cybersecurity. NATO’s Rapid Adoption Action Plan helps members integrate proven technologies more quickly by simplifying testing and procurement. The Energy Security Centre of Excellence in Lithuania has also expanded its work from fuel logistics to renewable generation, battery storage, and infrastructure protection.
These efforts show growing awareness, although adoption continues to move faster than institutional adaptation. Many forces are acquiring electric or hybrid systems before they have the maintenance, recycling or charging networks required to support them.

The electrification of warfare introduces vulnerabilities that are as significant as the advantages it brings. Batteries rely on digital systems that manage charging, temperature and performance, which means interference can spread from the digital layer into physical military capability. Modern hybrid warfare blurs physical and digital threats, and a breach in a fleet’s energy management system or a shipment of faulty battery cells could disable key units without direct combat. As reliance on connected energy systems increases, it becomes essential to identify weaknesses in supply, recycling or production early enough to prevent wider disruption.

These risks have prompted efforts to secure the next generation of military energy systems. The partnership between Energy Plug, Malahat and Quantum eMotion aims to improve hardware-level protection by integrating advanced encryption into energy storage units. Their work reflects the growing connection between energy systems, data networks and military command. When these systems are tightly linked, disruptions in one layer can affect the rest.

NATO’s decision to place climate and energy resilience at the centre of its Strategic Concept shows an understanding of this shift. Energy security has become a military concern. As militaries move from fuel to high-density batteries, older risks may return in new forms, and cyber intrusions or semiconductor shortages could replace the dangers once posed by fuel convoys.

The battery transition is therefore both an opportunity and a warning. It offers a way to increase operational independence, but only if the surrounding energy systems are secure and resilient. NATO must build an energy ecosystem that can absorb shocks rather than amplify them.

In this sense, batteries are reshaping the foundations of military power. Effective and secure energy storage is becoming central to NATO’s deterrence posture and will increasingly underpin mobility, surveillance, communication and logistics. This shift also brings a new strategic challenge and the Alliance must ensure that advances in electrification do not create new vulnerabilities.

The coming decade will show whether NATO can strengthen its forces without increasing its dependencies. Partnerships such as the Energy Plug, Malahat and Quantum eMotion collaboration demonstrate how technological progress, security and sovereignty can reinforce one another. They also show that resilience requires active investment; it cannot be transferred to others.

Building a stable and diversified energy base is now as important as developing advanced weapons. Secure supply chains, reliable manufacturing capacity, effective recycling and strong digital protection form the new front line of collective defence. Future deterrence may rely as much on the stability of energy systems as on the strength of armour, and controlling the power that drives defence will shape the strength of the deterrence it supports.

DIANA . 2025. “DIANA | Challenges.” Nato.int. 2025. https://www.diana.nato.int/challenges.html.

Hasan, M.M., R. Haque, M.I. Jahirul, M.G. Rasul, I.M.R. Fattah, N.M.S. Hassan, and M. Mofijur. 2025. “Advancing Energy Storage: The Future Trajectory of Lithium-Ion Battery Technologies.” Journal of Energy Storage 120 (June): 116511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2025.116511.

IEA. 2025. “The Battery Industry Has Entered a New Phase – Analysis – IEA.” IEA. March 5, 2025. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-battery-industry-has-entered-a-new-phase.

NATO. 2025. “Summary of NATO’s Rapid Adoption Action Plan.” NATO. June 25, 2025. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236539.htm.

Newsfile. 2025. “Energy Plug and Malahat Battery Technology Announce Strategic Alliance with Quantum EMotion on Energy and Defence, Including NATO-Aligned Initiative.” Yahoo Finance. October 14, 2025. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/energy-plug-malahat-battery-technology-131500375.html.

Solomon, Matt. 2024. “The Rise of Batteries in Six Charts and Not Too Many Numbers.” RMI. January 25, 2024. https://rmi.org/the-rise-of-batteries-in-six-charts-and-not-too-many-numbers/.

Trakimavicius, Lukas . 2025. “Wanted: More Batteries for Defence.” Rusi.org. October 15, 2025. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/wanted-more-batteries-defence.

Walter, Daan, Kingsmill Bond, Sam Butler-Sloss, Laurens Speelman, Yuki Numata, and Will Atkinson. 2023. “X-Change: Batteries.” Rmi.org. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/12/xchange_batteries_the_battery_domino_effect.pdf