The EU member states’ armed forces are not yet able to move quickly across the EU, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) concluded in a recent report.
In their report, the auditors found that the EU’s latest action plan on military mobility has seen mixed progress due to design weaknesses and implementation obstacle. The goal of moving military staff, equipment, and supplies swiftly and seamlessly within and beyond the EU – at short notice and on a large scale – has not yet been achieved.
The report was published amid growing security concerns in the EU related to the need to increase funding to its military spending and uncertainty about the Trump administration’s military support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s military aggression.
In their meeting with Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelenskyy on Friday at the Munich Security Conference, EU leaders expressed strong support for Ukraine. The following day, US Vice-President JD Vance shocked the EU with a speech where he questioned the shared democratic values of the transatlantic relationship and did not mention Russia’s aggression as a threat to Europe.
In a statement before the Munich conference, the European Commission said that it views President Trump's proposed "reciprocal” tariff policy as a step in the wrong direction.
The American Vice President met also the Commission President and High Representative Kaja Kallas on 11 February in Paris. After that meeting Kallas sounded positive and twitted that they had a good meeting.
“We discussed working on key issues: Russia’s war against Ukraine, strengthening European defence and China’s actions. As our adversaries are coordinating their actions, we must do the same.” Vance's speech in Munich came like a cold shower. A Commission spokesperson confirmed on Friday that the Mid-East conflict and Trump’s controversial ‘real estate’ plan for Gaza was not even discussed.
EU leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas meeting US Vice-President JD Vance, 11 February, Credit: X. Can the EU trust the Trump administration?
Shortcomings in EU’s Action plan
The findings on military mobility are not surprising. As previously reported, the inaugural trip of the night train from Brussels to Venice did not make it all the way to Italy due to technical issues and border bureaucracy.
The EU’s military mobility policy has changed as warfare has returned to the European continent. For the first time, its 2021–2027 budget set aside a dedicated amount with a total of €1.7 billion for military and civilian dual-use transport infrastructure projects. However, demand far exceeded supply, meaning that there was no money left in the pot by the end of 2023.
The focus of the audit was the 2022 EU’s Action Plan 2.0, which consists of four main pillars: multimodal corridors and logistical hubs, regulatory measures, resilience and preparedness, and partnerships. The EU funded 95 projects in 21 member states. The European Parliament has partial oversight over military mobility in the EU.
“Military mobility is crucial to making the EU’s defence capability credible, and there is clearly a need for speed. But it is still not in the fast lane due to bottlenecks along the way,” said Marek Opioła, the Polish ECA Member in charge of the report.
Although the funds need to be well targeted in order to have an impact, sufficient account was not taken of geopolitical and military factors when deciding which dual-use infrastructure projects to finance. Furthermore, projects were selected on a piecemeal basis, not always in the most strategic locations, and without considering the broader picture.
“The key message of our audit is that military mobility in the EU is not yet in the fast lane,” said Tony Murphy, ECA’s President, when presenting the report. “This is because its implementation is still facing significant challenges.”
Military mobility is about ensuring swift and seamless movement of military personnel, material, and assets within and beyond the EU, he explained. “We are talking about troops, tanks, ammunition, and supplies. The EU is a relatively new stakeholder in the area. Member states, together with NATO, play the lead role when it comes to collective territorial defence.”
Organising military movements may face significant delays for different reasons, such as red tape. For example, tanks from one EU country cannot move through another if they are heavier than road traffic regulations allow. Under normal circumstances, an EU country currently requires 45 days’ notification of cross-border movement authorisations.
A particularly striking example occurred under the third call for projects in the action plan. A project to construct the last part of one of the most strategic roads in the EU was not selected for EU funding even though the other three parts of the same road had been selected under the previous calls.
In its sample of 24 projects, ECA found that the majority were on-going and some had not reported any progress at all. What are the reasons for the delays? Did you also look at cost issues?
“Infrastructure projects often experience delays for a variety of reasons,” ECA member Marek Opioła told The Brussels Times. “Among others, projects might require other infrastructure to be closed before they can start. As regards the costs, because the projects were still ongoing at the time of the audit, we focused on the assumptions taken to determine the budget of the projects.”
The launch of the last call started before an analysis of the priority infrastructure gaps was finalized. Was that acceptable?
“We do not consider it positive that the Commission started carrying out the gap analysis only after all the funds had been allocated for the 2021-2027 three military mobility calls. This hampered targeting of the funding at the most urgent priorities.”
Currently, there is no single point of contact at EU level for military mobility. It was difficult not only for the auditors, but also for Members States to find out who does what and whom to contact in that respect.
“Our report concludes that the governance arrangements for military mobility in the EU are complex, with many stakeholders including the EEAS and the EU Military Staff (EUMS),” the audit team replied. “We recommend streamlining coordination between the EU, member states and other stakeholders for instance by appointing a single point of contact."
In their replies, the European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) welcomed the audit report but admitted that military mobility is a relatively new policy field. The room for manoeuvre by EU institutions is limited by the Treaty’s constraints on defence policy.
They agreed with ECA that the audit should be an opportunity to make further progress in the area of military mobility and accepted the audit recommendations that could serve as guidance for the drafting of the next Action Plan on Military Mobility.
M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times
