Authors: Elena Vrabie and Bogdan Iordache

How can Europe secure dualtech dominance and deliver commercial success while strengthening defense and resilience? This question arises along with geopolitical shifts, and an answer lies in riding the deep tech waves the continent is experiencing.  

“I can be convinced about a piece of technology, and then the next day, I realize it is no longer relevant and start to let go of the thesis,” says Trisha Saxena, a Senior Associate at NATO’s Innovation Fund (NIF) based in London.

NIF is a €1 billion deep-tech vehicle on a mission to achieve commercial success while enhancing the defense, security, and resilience of the Alliance. The fund is backed by 24 NATO member countries, including EU and non-EU nations such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Turkey, and Iceland. It collaborates closely with EU institutions, like the European Investment Fund (EIF), to enhance its impact since dual-use innovation in defense tech refers to technologies that have both military (e.g., surveillance, cybersecurity) and civilian applications (e.g., health, logistics).

Trisha has a technical background in physics and experience in the financial industry, where she learned the fundamentals of investing and how to drive growth within companies. She focuses on the scientific aspects of deep tech and expands her view to assess how the technology fits into the world. 

In this interview with Underline Ventures, Trisha Saxena discusses the intersection of venture capital, defense technology, dual-use innovation, and European geopolitical trends. She promotes systematic thinking about evaluating hype risks and highlights that startups are not siloed; many can tackle multi-domain challenges. 

Underline Ventures: NIF has a unique dual mission – generating strong returns while strengthening Allied defense capabilities. How do you balance commercial viability with strategic impact when assessing an investment?

Trisha Saxena: The most strategically impactful companies are only going to exist if they’re also commercially successful. We look for longevity in our investments: deep tech that is going to change the Alliance, defense, and national security over the coming decades. 

UV: With NIF’s focus on nine emerging and disruptive technologies, how do you see these domains intersecting to shape the future of defense and security? Are there any investment themes you find particularly exciting right now?

TS: The emerging disruptive technologies we look at are AI, autonomy, quantum biotech, hypersonics, space, materials, manufacturing, energy, and next-generation communication. All of these technologies have been identified as critical to the Alliance’s security in the coming decades by NATO. 

These guide what we look at, but not necessarily as buckets for investment. It can cut across many themes, and we look at the cross-sector synergies. 

I can give you examples from our portfolio: space and materials is Space Forge. This is a company that manufactures high-quality semiconductors in space. Another is Aquark Technologies, a company that sits at the intersection of quantum and communications. We have ARX Robotics, which produces underground unmanned ground vehicles in Germany. One deep tech investment can’t be purely in one sector.

UV: Is there a vertical that stands out to you currently?

TS: I have been getting interested in the materials and manufacturing sectors. I am looking at companies developing specialty chemicals and additive manufacturing. I have also been into water security as a thesis. 

I’m speaking to companies that are looking at PFAS contamination or desalination, completely on the other end of the space from defense, but still relevant to security and resilience: these are pressing problems in the Alliance.

I am motivated by things like climate change, but it is so broad you can’t possibly address everything. Water is one of the most pressing problems because it is not just about access to fresh water. It feeds into data centers, agriculture, and industrial processes. It’s everywhere in life. And once you realize the scale of that, then you get how big of a problem that is. I am trying to understand how we can address it.

UV: Among the emerging and disruptive technologies you’re tracking, are there specific areas where you believe Europe holds a distinct competitive advantage?

TS: We have seen areas such as minerals, novel materials, and manufacturing ramping up in Europe, but also AI, space – where European sovereignty is quite a big topic – and communications. We need to ensure our supply chains are resilient. All these areas are getting a lot of focus and funding.

UV: What level of technical readiness or proof of concept does NIF typically expect before considering an investment?

TS: We invest in the early stages, not the ideation stage, so we look for some form of a prototype, some early proof that it works – lab demonstrations or in the field.

And some early indications of commercial interest and traction. We’re not looking for 10M in revenue off the bat, but an indication that they’re working with the right players in that specific industry to commercialize it.

UV: When assessing founders in deep tech and dual-use spaces, what intangible traits—like mindset or resilience—signal long-term success to you?

TS: The first thing I look for is a personal experience of the problem they’re solving, rather than “I heard about this problem, and I want to go and find a solution”. Then comes a level of technical knowledge and ability in that sector. It’s less relevant because you always have a team. 

The founders should have a relentless drive to succeed regardless of what’s happening in the world. Things change daily, and we’re looking for someone who’s able to be agile in that environment and adapt based on the demand that they’re seeing. 

It is a mix of technical and business-minded individuals. I used to think it was difficult to find, but I have been pleasantly surprised that the founders I have spoken to in Europe tend to have that mindset, a balanced approach.

UV: Beyond capital, how does NIF support its portfolio companies—particularly in helping them navigate government relationships, public-private partnerships, or NATO channels?

TS: Part of our unique approach is connecting our portfolio companies to the right end users within governments and defense organizations. We’re building a network to be able to make the most impactful connections as needs arise.

We have a dedicated adoption team working on this full-time to identify the most impactful introductions we can make, whether that’s a direct commercial contract if the company’s ready, or if it’s more of an R&D engagement. 

We do that through industry connections or directly through our LPs – who can be representatives of Ministries of Defense (MODs) or Innovation departments within governments to help us drive adoption in those countries, in both government and private industry.

UV: Does it go the other way as well?

TS: It goes both ways. So we also lean on our LPs to tell us what their biggest problems are today and what capabilities they are looking for. We would then be able to speak to specific startups if one of our LPS is already working with them, and they think other countries should have access to them.

We might look at that startup as a potential investment, or they might present us with a general problem statement and say, “We need this capability, where can we find it?” If it’s in our portfolio, that’s perfect. If not, then it gives us a bit of direction on where to look next. 

UV: Is there a concrete example of this type of direction?

TS: The easiest way is to demonstrate through our portfolio investments. For example, ARX Robotics – which produces unmanned ground vehicles, and iCOMAT – which has a novel approach to materials manufacturing, already know which customers they want to address within our countries. We can help make these connections straight away.

Then, we have long-term approaches, companies like Space Forge and Isar Aerospace, that are working on hugely critical capabilities. We need to have access to launch in Europe; that’s a non-negotiable. It might not be something that a Ministry of Defence (MoD) is looking for today, but it might be in five years. And that’s coming directly from the LPs. 

UV: Do you also work with defense tech primes from Europe?

TS: Yes. We have good geographic coverage because of where our team is based, in the UK, the Netherlands, and Poland. We also have a strong presence in countries such as Germany through many of our portfolio companies. We also actively engage with the startup and VC ecosystem by visiting the nations that are backing us across the Alliance to meet with key players within this space. 

For example, I was out in the Czech Republic a few months ago, and I’m planning to be in Latvia in a few months, meeting with startups out there. We’re hoping to come back to Romania at some point as well. 

Different countries tend to develop different technologies depending on the problems manifesting in each geography. In water resilience, for example, it’s the southern European countries. Spain, Greece, and Italy are the ones that need this technology because of drought and hot weather. The exciting thing about this fund is that we’re looking across the board and backing technologies that can boost the defense, security, and resilience of countries across the Alliance.

UV: There’s been a growing wave of interest in defense tech from traditionally commercial VCs. What shifts—geopolitical or technological—do you think are driving this trend? And where is NIF positioned differently?

TS: My answer would be different yesterday, and it would be different tomorrow. It’s difficult to pinpoint one thing, but in general, in Europe, people are concerned about sovereignty in everything from supply chains to the battlefield and making sure we have access to critical technologies within Europe and not relying on traditional sources for that. 

If we remain long-term focused as deep tech investors, then we know we’re going to find the relevant technology, regardless of what’s happening in the world.

UV: Given the renewed interest from venture capital and the current state of the broader market, how would you assess the level of investment in defense tech and dual-use technologies? Are these sectors underfunded, overheated, or poised to attract even more capital soon?

TS: I see it as a positive thing that more generalist investors are getting interested in dual use and deep tech because although there are dedicated pots of money for deep tech, the NIF being one of them, we’re never going to be enough. More interest is better than less. 

But you then have the usual issues that other sectors have seen when they become overhyped – valuations get higher. Still, I would rather have too much interest than no interest here.

UV: Looking ahead, what’s one under-the-radar trend or technology you believe will be critical to NATO’s resilience in the next years but isn’t getting enough attention yet?

TS: If I had to pinpoint one, it would have to do with resilient communication. I’ve chosen a broad term because it covers everything from space to GPS to communications security. Everyone’s focused on things that are on the ground, that are on Earth, that we can feel and touch, and therefore they’re tangible, and we know about them. 

But there’s a whole area of resilience we need in communications, in the space domain that the people aren’t focused on today, and that’s going to become obvious in the next few years.