De NAVO
Redefining Strength at West Point
Reflections from the United States' oldest military academy
Erin Sullivan is a Senior Consultant at &FLUENCE, a consultancy in The Hague focused on negotiations and dialogue. She is also a PhD Candidate at Leiden University.
From 26-28 October 2025 Erin Sullivan and her colleague Maarten van Rossum visited the United States Military Academy at West Point. This article is a reflection of their visit.
On the ridge overlooking the Hudson River sits the United States Military Academy at West Point, America’s oldest military post. A place steeped in history that has shaped many American leaders who have gone on to define the nation, including Ulysses Grant, Robert Lee, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and Norman Schwarzkopf, to name a few. For more than two centuries, the Academy has trained the officers the United States relies on in its most critical moments.
But these days, something different is happening at West Point. Officers training here are inheriting a world unlike the ones their predecessors experienced. Modern warfare has shifted beyond traditional battlefields, and into a realm where drones, cyber operations, and AI collide with social fractures, cultural tensions, and fragile alliances (among other factors). This environment demands not only competencies in weapons or tactics, but in human behavior and tenuous political environments.
A new frontier of warfare
The recent publication of the 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS) is a case in point. Beyond outlining strategic priorities, the NSS also functions as a negotiation tool for President Trump to press Europe to define its own, future defense position. For U.S. generals, this might translate into a new mandate: one that reshapes how they engage with European allies, and in turn, how military leadership itself is defined.
West Point is responding to this reality. It upholds its esteemed traditions, but it is also reshaping how the United States prepares its future officers and commanders for the new frontier of modern warfare. They are doing this by preparing officers for the reality that decisive moments in future conflicts may not only occur in combat, but in the engagements that prevent escalation, stabilize partnerships, or navigate competing interests under pressure. An institution we should keep our eyes on (if you haven’t already).
During our time at the Academy, we had the opportunity to witness this firsthand through the West Point Negotiation Project (WPNP). What we saw underscored a simple point: negotiation and battlefield skills are not mutually exclusive. They are interdependent. The WPNP is affirming today’s officers should develop both.
Scenario-based exercises
The WPNP is the Army’s center for teaching interest-based, collaborative problem-solving and negotiation skills to prepare officers for the interpersonal demands that come with military operations. Founded in 2009, the program emerged in response to a gap many military personnel experienced during deployment: despite exceptional tactical training, they often felt ill-equipped to build sound relationships or steer the complex interactions that often determined a mission’s long-term success.
One officer we met recalled how, during his deployment to Afghanistan, there was often a disconnect between operational expertise and the (sensitive) relational skills required to work effectively with civilians, local or international partners and even adversaries. Since then, the WPNP has grown into a year-round program and now trains cadets through scenario-based exercises. This approach gives them a structured, shared language for the negotiations they will inevitably face. Be that across cultures and borders, or within their own teams and command structures.
From situational awareness to situational understanding
As part of our work with the cadets, we introduced what we call a “diplomatic lens” to negotiation strategy. This involves bridging a negotiation and diplomatic skillset to capture evolving dynamics that directly and indirectly impact decision-making, and underscore relational discretion and adaptability.
The military excels at clarity and decisiveness; diplomacy thrives on ambiguity and perspective-taking. Modern conflict requires military leaders who can move fluently between the two. Our aim was therefore not about softening military acumen but complementing it.
We did this by encouraging cadets to recognize the shift between situational awareness, (i.e. knowing what is happening) to situational understanding, (i.e. grasping why it’s happening and how others perceive it). This pivot requires listening, shared understanding and risk management, as well as a strong multidimensional grasp of stakeholders who don’t always appear on any battlefield diagram.
To practice this, we ran a simulation in which teams had to craft a crisis strategy that required internal negotiations among a team of directors with competing priorities, and messy stakeholder dynamics. It was a negotiation designed not as a technical exercise or one focused on drills, but as a leadership one focused on dialogue.
Beyond a combat perspective
It was interesting to see how the cadets approached the assignment. They worked to bridge their traditional military approach with one that requires negotiation and diplomatic judgment. This included approaching engagement options and contingency planning with the rigor they know well, but with a broader strategic view of how different stakeholders and decisions fit together. For instance, considering how their mission required a series of discussions across a network of stakeholders, the trade-offs that might follow, and the consequences that extended beyond a purely combat perspective.
What did this show? That not all confrontations unfold on the battlefield, and even when they do, negotiation and problem-solving often sit at the center of how officers carry out their tasks, engage outward, and dictate next steps.
When negotiation holds a unit together
Another key takeaway from the workshop was the importance of negotiations within and between their organization to ensure a sound mandate. Officers, after all, negotiate constantly: with their teams or with commanders balancing resources and responsibilities. These are negotiations that also have important stakes: team cohesion, trust, morale, or clarity of mission.
Negotiation in this sense, becomes a multiplier of leadership. It is what keeps a unit aligned when conditions shift and what turns orders from abstract directives into joint understanding. Even more, it’s creating a common language and institutionalized approach to how these teams work together: a problem-solving dialect of some sorts.
A model for modern leadership
When we left West Point, one more observation lingered: their commitment to negotiation represents a broader rethinking of leadership in our modern world.
Leadership today, whether in armed forces, diplomacy, business, or public service is no longer defined solely by the ability to manage or command. It is defined by the ability to shift modes: to listen and to be responsive, to act and to reflect, to build and maintain relationships. All require a new way of thinking about our roles in our organizations, and perhaps more importantly, between us and our stakeholders. Unsurprisingly, this comes with numerous challenges and trade-offs of how it can be realized. It is why negotiation sits precisely at these intersections.
West Point’s leadership understands this. They are teaching a new generation of officers that their careers will not be defined solely by operational precision or technical mastery. They will be defined by how well they can operate, mentally, strategically, relationally, in a world where politics and force are no longer parallel tracks but braided strands. This became strikingly clear the moment we began working with the cadets, and remained that way until we said our goodbyes to the cohort.
Action and understanding
As the global landscape continues its uneasy tilt, from Washington’s political turbulence to Europe’s security anxieties, the ability to negotiate thoughtfully may be one of the few dependable anchors left. Especially in light of the US new National Security Strategy, and what it could potentially mean for the deployment of U.S. troops and equipment worldwide, it is of great importance to keep communication and negotiation channels open. And so it feels fitting that one of the most recognized military academies in the world is reminding us that strength is found in the capacity to engage constructively. That real power is not only in action but in understanding. That negotiations are messy, imperfect, and human remains one of the most vital instruments we have as a collective.
Photo’s: United States Military Academy
Erin Sullivan is a Senior Consultant at &FLUENCE, a consultancy in The Hague focused on negotiations and dialogue. She is also a PhD Candidate at Leiden University.
From 26-28 October 2025 Erin Sullivan and her colleague Maarten van Rossum visited the United States Military Academy at West Point. This article is a reflection of their visit.
On the ridge overlooking the Hudson River sits the United States Military Academy at West Point, America’s oldest military post. A place steeped in history that has shaped many American leaders who have gone on to define the nation, including Ulysses Grant, Robert Lee, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and Norman Schwarzkopf, to name a few. For more than two centuries, the Academy has trained the officers the United States relies on in its most critical moments.
But these days, something different is happening at West Point. Officers training here are inheriting a world unlike the ones their predecessors experienced. Modern warfare has shifted beyond traditional battlefields, and into a realm where drones, cyber operations, and AI collide with social fractures, cultural tensions, and fragile alliances (among other factors). This environment demands not only competencies in weapons or tactics, but in human behavior and tenuous political environments.
A new frontier of warfare
The recent publication of the 2025 United States National Security Strategy (NSS) is a case in point. Beyond outlining strategic priorities, the NSS also functions as a negotiation tool for President Trump to press Europe to define its own, future defense position. For U.S. generals, this might translate into a new mandate: one that reshapes how they engage with European allies, and in turn, how military leadership itself is defined.
West Point is responding to this reality. It upholds its esteemed traditions, but it is also reshaping how the United States prepares its future officers and commanders for the new frontier of modern warfare. They are doing this by preparing officers for the reality that decisive moments in future conflicts may not only occur in combat, but in the engagements that prevent escalation, stabilize partnerships, or navigate competing interests under pressure. An institution we should keep our eyes on (if you haven’t already).
During our time at the Academy, we had the opportunity to witness this firsthand through the West Point Negotiation Project (WPNP). What we saw underscored a simple point: negotiation and battlefield skills are not mutually exclusive. They are interdependent. The WPNP is affirming today’s officers should develop both.
Scenario-based exercises
The WPNP is the Army’s center for teaching interest-based, collaborative problem-solving and negotiation skills to prepare officers for the interpersonal demands that come with military operations. Founded in 2009, the program emerged in response to a gap many military personnel experienced during deployment: despite exceptional tactical training, they often felt ill-equipped to build sound relationships or steer the complex interactions that often determined a mission’s long-term success.
One officer we met recalled how, during his deployment to Afghanistan, there was often a disconnect between operational expertise and the (sensitive) relational skills required to work effectively with civilians, local or international partners and even adversaries. Since then, the WPNP has grown into a year-round program and now trains cadets through scenario-based exercises. This approach gives them a structured, shared language for the negotiations they will inevitably face. Be that across cultures and borders, or within their own teams and command structures.
From situational awareness to situational understanding
As part of our work with the cadets, we introduced what we call a “diplomatic lens” to negotiation strategy. This involves bridging a negotiation and diplomatic skillset to capture evolving dynamics that directly and indirectly impact decision-making, and underscore relational discretion and adaptability.
The military excels at clarity and decisiveness; diplomacy thrives on ambiguity and perspective-taking. Modern conflict requires military leaders who can move fluently between the two. Our aim was therefore not about softening military acumen but complementing it.
We did this by encouraging cadets to recognize the shift between situational awareness, (i.e. knowing what is happening) to situational understanding, (i.e. grasping why it’s happening and how others perceive it). This pivot requires listening, shared understanding and risk management, as well as a strong multidimensional grasp of stakeholders who don’t always appear on any battlefield diagram.
To practice this, we ran a simulation in which teams had to craft a crisis strategy that required internal negotiations among a team of directors with competing priorities, and messy stakeholder dynamics. It was a negotiation designed not as a technical exercise or one focused on drills, but as a leadership one focused on dialogue.
Beyond a combat perspective
It was interesting to see how the cadets approached the assignment. They worked to bridge their traditional military approach with one that requires negotiation and diplomatic judgment. This included approaching engagement options and contingency planning with the rigor they know well, but with a broader strategic view of how different stakeholders and decisions fit together. For instance, considering how their mission required a series of discussions across a network of stakeholders, the trade-offs that might follow, and the consequences that extended beyond a purely combat perspective.
What did this show? That not all confrontations unfold on the battlefield, and even when they do, negotiation and problem-solving often sit at the center of how officers carry out their tasks, engage outward, and dictate next steps.
When negotiation holds a unit together
Another key takeaway from the workshop was the importance of negotiations within and between their organization to ensure a sound mandate. Officers, after all, negotiate constantly: with their teams or with commanders balancing resources and responsibilities. These are negotiations that also have important stakes: team cohesion, trust, morale, or clarity of mission.
Negotiation in this sense, becomes a multiplier of leadership. It is what keeps a unit aligned when conditions shift and what turns orders from abstract directives into joint understanding. Even more, it’s creating a common language and institutionalized approach to how these teams work together: a problem-solving dialect of some sorts.
A model for modern leadership
When we left West Point, one more observation lingered: their commitment to negotiation represents a broader rethinking of leadership in our modern world.
Leadership today, whether in armed forces, diplomacy, business, or public service is no longer defined solely by the ability to manage or command. It is defined by the ability to shift modes: to listen and to be responsive, to act and to reflect, to build and maintain relationships. All require a new way of thinking about our roles in our organizations, and perhaps more importantly, between us and our stakeholders. Unsurprisingly, this comes with numerous challenges and trade-offs of how it can be realized. It is why negotiation sits precisely at these intersections.
West Point’s leadership understands this. They are teaching a new generation of officers that their careers will not be defined solely by operational precision or technical mastery. They will be defined by how well they can operate, mentally, strategically, relationally, in a world where politics and force are no longer parallel tracks but braided strands. This became strikingly clear the moment we began working with the cadets, and remained that way until we said our goodbyes to the cohort.
Action and understanding
As the global landscape continues its uneasy tilt, from Washington’s political turbulence to Europe’s security anxieties, the ability to negotiate thoughtfully may be one of the few dependable anchors left. Especially in light of the US new National Security Strategy, and what it could potentially mean for the deployment of U.S. troops and equipment worldwide, it is of great importance to keep communication and negotiation channels open. And so it feels fitting that one of the most recognized military academies in the world is reminding us that strength is found in the capacity to engage constructively. That real power is not only in action but in understanding. That negotiations are messy, imperfect, and human remains one of the most vital instruments we have as a collective.
Photo’s: United States Military Academy