Authors: Bojan Stojkovski and Bogdan Iordache

NATO’s Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) is emerging as a key initiative to connect commercial innovation with defense needs. Launched in 2023, its goal is to support the development of dual-use technologies that can strengthen NATO’s security efforts and provide new opportunities for startups to engage with defense ecosystems.

In its first year, DIANA’s inaugural accelerator programme, launched in January 2024, welcomed 44 companies. For its second cohort in 2025, over 70 startups were selected, each focused on developing technologies to address critical security challenges in areas such as energy, surveillance, data security, human health, and infrastructure.

In an interview with Underline Ventures, Adrian Dan, DIANA’s former commercial lead, explains the role that the accelerator plays in helping build the Alliance’s defense industry and growing ecosystem. For the past two years, Dan has been working closely with DIANA’s leadership to shape its engagement with startups, aiming to make it one of the most impactful innovation accelerators for dual-use technologies. 

His experience as a startup founder raising capital, ministerial advisor, and serving on boards in fields such as AI, energy, space, defense, and cybersecurity has given him a unique perspective.

Underline Ventures: Can you walk us through your journey from founding a startup to your current role at NATO and DIANA?

Adrian Dan: I founded my startup in 2017, called STRIX, which was a data gathering system to help CPGs and supermarkets optimize operations. Later, I began advising the Romanian government, which eventually led me into the NATO context, where I’ve been involved for four years now.

It started with the NATO Innovation Fund, where I was part of the LP working group representing Romania. I did that for about a year and a half, while also advising our minister back home. Then I joined NATO HQ for a year, working on innovation more broadly as a diplomat. About two years ago, I started working for NATO’s DIANA. 

When NATO started exploring innovation nearly four years ago, no one expected things to move as quickly as they did. The NATO Innovation Fund and DIANA became two of the fastest-moving initiatives in NATO’s history. Normally, standing up a new NATO agency—like DIANA—is a years-long process. But in this case, the nations recognized the urgency of integrating innovation into the defense ecosystem. And it wasn’t just about traditional defense tech, but it was a broader shift.

These days, “defense tech” is becoming a trendy term, but NATO has been doing defense tech for decades. For example, we have two other agencies: one is the NSPA, the procurement agency, which has long handled major capability programs, including ISR platforms, Reaper drones, AWACS, and missile defense systems. That’s traditional, pure defense tech.

DIANA’s mission was to bring in commercial innovation and dual-use technologies. That represented a big mindset shift—moving beyond just military solutions to also include sectors critical to societal resilience. The concept of “dual-use” itself is debated, but in this case, it means broadening our idea of what contributes to defense, thinking about societal resilience, not just warfare. That’s the role of defense: to keep society secure, not just to prepare for war. Wars are often the result of insecurity. Ideally, we prevent them through strength and preparedness.

That’s also aligned with the mission of the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit, which is further along—they’re in their 3.0 phase now. Their motto is: build technology to deter wars, and if you have to fight, make sure you can win. That resonates with our mission at DIANA as well.

We moved fast. DIANA became fully operational in just under two years. We’ve already accelerated our first cohort—44 companies in Stage 1 last year, and 10 in Stage 2. Now, we’re working with our second cohort: 75 companies.

We have three offices: the HQ in London, a regional hub also in London, a regional office in Tallinn, and a new North American office being opened in Halifax, Canada. All three are now fully operational. We’re actively engaging with startups, there’s huge interest from industry and investors, and we see this as a major opportunity to be transformative.

UV: What are the key criteria you consider when selecting companies or innovators to work with?

AD:  Since we’re a dual-use accelerator, for us, this means that the businesses we work with don’t necessarily need to be defense-first or commercial-first (as in civilian-first), but they must have strong potential for commercial sales. We don’t have a lot of funding—unlike the EU or the EIC—so we don’t hand out large paychecks. Our checks are relatively small: €100K in the first stage and €300K in the second. These aren’t grants either—we’re paying companies to participate in our program. That’s our approach: we’re essentially buying some of their time.

This is a key difference from what the EU does. Our main goal is to attract private investment. We may say a company is promising, but we want it to be validated by private VCs. That’s why commercial potential is a major factor in our selection process.

That said, in the first stage of the program, we don’t take a Y Combinator-style approach where it’s purely about commercial metrics like market size or business viability. We focus primarily on technology. Is the technology interesting, and can it bring value? If yes, then we look at commercial viability—does it have market potential? If so, the company moves into the program.

Of course, our criteria are more complex, but that’s the core idea. We run a thorough three-stage screening process, which is publicly available on our website. Once accepted, the first phase has a classic accelerator structure: we help companies learn how to build their business, but also how to operate as a dual-use business and how to work with defense. That’s a big part of the curriculum in Phase 1.

Then, based on their commercial potential, we shift more focus to that in Phase 2. It’s a gradual approach: start with a strong technical product, and end with a solid business that understands dual-use and how to navigate the defense space. 

UV: What types of deep tech innovations are you most excited about in the DIANA accelerator, and how do you see them transforming both the defense and commercial sectors?

AD: Our work is grounded in NATO’s Emerging and Disruptive Technologies—these are agreed-upon technology areas endorsed by all member nations. They’re listed on the NATO website—there are nine of them—but they’re quite broad, including areas like autonomy, quantum, and biotechnology. To make them actionable, we need to launch narrower challenges, so we can identify and engage relevant companies.

To do that, we have a process for gathering input. For example, even today, there’s a workshop happening with our challenge team, where they’re bringing together industry experts and end users—defense and security professionals—to better understand their needs. This helps us refine our focus areas.

We talk to end users, engage with industry, and conduct our tech scouting. NATO also has a body called the Science and Technology Organization (STO), which does long-term horizon scanning, up to 30 years out, across various technologies. They produce incredibly useful reports. So a lot of effort goes into figuring out not only which technologies are the most innovative, but also which are most relevant to end users.

Each year, NATO nations provide feedback on which technology areas they find most critical. We use that input to select a few areas to focus on. In addition to verticals, we also consider horizontal technologies like AI and space. When we refer to space as a horizontal domain, we mean that it cuts across many applications—for example, AI in space, or edge computing in space.

We’re trying to balance technological relevance, end-user need, and commercial potential. AI is definitely one of our horizontal themes. Sustainability is another, because we can’t rely on outdated production methods. For instance, in autonomy, we might look at sustainable autonomy solutions.

Space was also one of our horizontal themes this year. Among the most relevant verticals for NATO are sensing and surveillance—any technology that improves detection or data gathering. Human performance and enhancement, particularly non-invasive biotechnologies, is another key area, supporting both societal and military resilience.

Energy resilience is a major focus, too, because without energy, there’s no resilience and no warfighting capability. Finally, this year, we added critical infrastructure and supply chain security to our list of priorities.

UV: Might be early as DIANA only had 2 startup cohorts so far, but what kind of impact did you have on the current cohorts? How do you support the startups involved in the accelerator?

AD: From a capability standpoint, NATO countries—and NATO itself—are trying to reduce procurement timeframes and move faster. But even for existing capabilities, we’re still looking at years; nothing happens overnight. For DIANA, we have to balance a few things. 

One is supporting startups with strategic disruption potential—technologies that could be groundbreaking. If you look at areas like quantum or advanced processing, these could change the world, and that’s part of our mandate. But we also have a responsibility—and this ties into some of your other questions—to create impact now. 

There are ongoing crises like Ukraine and other global challenges. So we’re also looking at how we can address those more immediate needs. For us, it’s about balancing short-term, iterative innovation with the long-term potential of truly disruptive technologies—those that could have an impact over the next three to five years. 

There are energy resilience solutions that are highly tactical—they could be used on the battlefield tomorrow, if needed. But I think everyone is starting to realize how interconnected everything is. Energy, security, and information sharing are all linked to core military capabilities. So, much of our work involves convincing both companies and end users—those allocating the budgets—of the value in building this broader ecosystem. 

UV: How can founders navigate the path to major defense contracts, and what is the relationship between NATO DIANA and the NATO Support and Procurement Agency?

AD: NATO can do its procurement, but the NATO budget itself, as an organization, is very small compared to individual nations. It’s maybe not even 1% of what nations are spending. So, if you look at it from a total addressable market (TAM) perspective, NATO itself is not a major buyer. However, it does have a significant influence because, within NATO, allies coordinate on what they plan to invest in individually. NATO acts as a coordinating forum, which is why it’s important to engage with NATO bodies—this gives exposure to national-level buyers.

That said, we now have an internal framework within DIANA. It’s specifically for prototyping and goes up to Technology Readiness Level 7 (TRL 7). If one or more nations want to test or prototype technologies developed through DIANA, they can acquire prototypes and direct testing and validation directly through DIANA without going through another procurement cycle. This framework is active now—we’ve started working on initial ideas—but it requires a request from nations. So, for example, if the Baltics, or Bulgaria and Romania, want to buy or test a capability, they can browse our cohort of technologies and go through this streamlined process. It’s simpler than national procurement but only covers prototyping.

This mechanism is called the Rapid Adoption Service. It’s a service DIANA provides for countries, allowing prototyping up to TRL 7 based on national requests. If nations want to go beyond TRL 7 and procure end products, they would work with NSPA or NCIA (or their local authorities in some cases. We have an ongoing dialogue and legal framework with NSPA and NCIA, though much of it is still in development, and not all details are public yet.

We understand that procurement is a big topic of interest. Alongside this, we’re also working on building a network of national innovation units to help countries become better buyers and share best practices.

As for acting as an intermediary between startups and major industry players like Lockheed Martin, we can’t do that. We don’t have a mandate to operate like a private sector entity and must follow strict competition rules, similar to government entities. We can’t give preferential treatment to any large prime contractor. 

However, industry representatives are always welcome at our events, where they can meet startups. We act as a convener—if they want to engage afterward, that’s up to them. But we won’t participate in or facilitate those deals directly. We serve nations and act only based on their direction. It may be the case that, through the Rapid Adoption Service or projects run by our partner agencies like NSPA or NCIA, a consortium including a mix of existing and new DIANA suppliers works together on solutions and capabilities.

UV: How has the war in Ukraine reshaped NATO DIANA’s priorities, particularly in terms of values?

AD: On the DIANA side, I would say we’ve been looking at the evolution of the situation. Our challenge team, which consists of technical experts, has been closely monitoring developments. 

We even supported the Ukraine innovation hackathon with NATO HQ recently, which was a public event. We’re working to understand the lessons from the war and how we can help NATO based on those lessons. Other efforts are happening within NATO to look at lessons learned and how the warfighting doctrine is changing, but that’s not directly within my area.

From a DIANA perspective, we’re particularly focused on resilience. We’ve seen that many of Ukraine’s requests for support are related to energy, cybersecurity, and other non-warfighting needs. This has reinforced that our model of building full societal resilience is the right approach. Some of our companies are already active, testing and providing solutions in Ukraine, though that is more of an individual line of work rather than directly tied to DIANA. We’re carefully analyzing the lessons learned and using that knowledge to strengthen the Alliance.

UV: How has the battleground influenced the adoption of new technologies, and did DIANA face any pressure to fast-track certain innovations in defense technology as a result?

AD: I would say that NATO is an international organization, so decisions always require agreement from all the nations, not just one. There’s an increased interest in areas like ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and autonomy. That said, DIANA’s role is to identify where we can add the most value. 

There are already many strong companies in autonomy, especially in UAVs, which are developing rapidly. For us, the focus is on areas where we can have the biggest impact. For instance, we’ve been particularly interested in the underwater domain. Based on the strategic direction we receive from allies, there are priorities we need to address. 

One of those is underwater sensing, particularly in the Baltic Sea, which is a contested environment. This is just one example of how we adapt to evolving priorities, even if they aren’t directly linked to Ukraine but are still critical to the Alliance’s needs.

UV: Recently, there have been many announcements regarding investments in European defense tech. Where does DIANA see the next breakthrough coming from in this space?

AD: A week or two ago, there was an interesting report with graphs showing which technology areas are being developed mostly in Europe versus the US or the rest of the world. I would say there’s a lot of work being done around quantum, not just quantum computing, but also quantum navigation, quantum sensing, and even quantum encryption. I think there’s a lot of potential in this space for Europe. 

There’s also potential in the semiconductor sector, particularly in the deep tech space. For example, one of our companies in Italy is doing great work with photonics as a substrate for computing. On the deep tech side, Europe has a lot of knowledge. However, balancing out innovation is important—take autonomy, for instance. 

While we’re doing well, maritime autonomy is an area where we don’t yet have an interesting startup offering end-to-end solutions. It’s crucial to understand the market’s needs first—maritime autonomy is a good example—and match that with the existing knowledge base to identify where Europe can excel.

UV: How do you see the growing role of European countries in driving innovation within the NATO Alliance, particularly concerning its biggest ally, the US?

AD: We’re not seeing any change in the US position, especially regarding innovation or NATO. The US is one of our main stakeholders and extremely supportive, being one of the most innovative countries in the world. For the Alliance, it’s important to maintain this relationship. 

There’s a lot of interest from the US side in European companies wanting to develop in the US, and vice versa, with US companies wanting to be active in Europe. From a startup business perspective, it’s still very promising, and people are eager to work with each other. DIANA fully supports this, and we, of course, want to keep the US as a trusted and important ally.

Thus, I think that DIANA can become one of the main players in the dual-use defense tech space. With a footprint in 32 countries, DIANA bridges the transatlantic relationship. Moving forward, I believe we can have a huge impact by changing mindsets, speeding up procurement, building talent and knowledge bases, and encouraging allies to develop their ecosystems. We’re already seeing this happen. 

Over the last two years, with DIANA and the NATO Innovation Fund taking shape, we’ve seen significant interest from individual nations to develop their ecosystems and invest in dual-use technologies. The model is working. We wanted to show how things could be done successfully, and if we all work together, we’ll create a market that benefits VCs, startups, and governments. That’s the core mission of DIANA: to shape this space and make it valuable for everyone.

UV: What’s your view on Eastern European startup ecosystem evolution, especially in light of the war at their doorstep?

AD: I’m Romanian, and while I spent time in Romania, I’ve also lived in many other countries and regions. Two weeks ago, I was in Austin at SXSW, attending side programming events focused on defense tech. There, I met many startups and founders, and what stood out to me was the energy and mindset in comparison to Romania, Eastern Europe, or even Europe in general. The people I met were so eager, saying, “We’re starting a company tomorrow,” “We’re launching in three months,” or “In six months, we’ll do this.” The pace and energy were remarkable.

I believe it’s a shift in mindset and culture. If we want to have a high impact and be competitive, we need to do things differently. It’s changing, but we could achieve the same things in terms of talent and knowledge. The difference lies in the energy and having a good ecosystem with investors around you. That energy motivates you to get up, start building, and innovate.

I’m not placing blame; it’s just about recognizing the difference. There needs to be a cultural and mindset shift in Eastern Europe regarding how we build companies and approach the ecosystem. It’s not just about startup founders but also governments, investors, and the entire community. We need more VC investments, private equity involvement, and capital flowing into the system. Only then will people respond to that momentum.

Some countries in Eastern Europe are doing better at this. For example, Estonia and Bulgaria are more active in the VC and investment space than Romania, which is great for them. If we could raise the overall level and learn from each other, we could improve the entire ecosystem. This would motivate founders and improve outcomes for DIANA-supported companies.

A lot of our companies in Eastern Europe are hardware-focused. But because the industrial ecosystem fell apart after the communist era, companies don’t have the same access to resources for building hardware as those in places like Austin or other industrial hubs. While it’s not impossible, it’s more complicated. We’re seeing more enterprise and software solutions coming out of Eastern Europe, but hardware development requires more effort without a mature industrial base.

So, to be more successful with DIANA, the ecosystem needs to mature, which will lead to better companies. Even within small communities, focusing on technical risk and encouraging advanced technical solutions is an easy win in the short term. As a VC or advisor, encourage startups to take the technical risks rather than going for the safe, easier option that might sell faster. The enterprise market is shrinking, and the new, growing market is hardware and dual-use tech. But to succeed, companies need to have product-market fit.

Regarding talent, I think it’s fantastic. Eastern Europeans are performing excellently in startups across Europe and the US. The challenge, however, is getting them to take the risk of setting up their own companies, especially in complex fields like quantum or robotics. There’s a fear of failure because they don’t feel supported in their ecosystems, and as a result, they hesitate to take that leap.