EU military logistics: The bitter lesson from Ukraine – Why Europe's security depends on roads and railways

45-day wait for a tank: How bureaucracy sabotages Europe's defense

Europe faces a security policy challenge that often fades into the background amidst heated debates about new weapons systems and troop strengths: military logistics. What good are the most modern battle tanks and the best-trained brigades if, in a crisis, they are stuck in traffic for weeks due to dilapidated bridges, a lack of rail networks, or absurdly long bureaucratic approval processes? While intelligence agencies and military experts increasingly warn of a growing threat from Russia, and the window of opportunity for countermeasures is rapidly shrinking, troop transport within the EU still resembles a bureaucratic obstacle course. A thorough analysis of the current situation dramatically illustrates why Europe's strategic Achilles' heel lies not directly on the front lines, but on our highways, at civilian transport hubs, and in government offices – and how an unprecedented, multi-billion-euro action plan is now intended to avert the looming logistical fiasco at the last minute.

When tanks capitulate to paperwork and bridges break under the weight of reality

The true litmus test of European sovereignty lies not in the number of battle tanks or fighter jets, but in the banal yet existential question of whether a 60-ton tank can even be moved from west to east in time. Brigadier Stefan Lampl, Director of Military Logistics at the EU Military Staff since September 2024 and previously Commandant of the Austrian Army Logistics School, has pointed out unequivocally that Europe's roads and bridges are simply not designed for transporting heavy military equipment. In doing so, he touches upon the core of a structural deficit that undermines Europe's entire security architecture. The diagnosis is painful: Fragmented national systems, a paralyzing dependence on NATO transport capacities, a lack of infrastructure for heavy military goods, and bureaucratic approval processes that are more reminiscent of managing a community garden than organizing a credible defense are severely hindering the development of independent logistical capabilities within the EU.

This analysis illuminates the multifaceted dimensions of this failure, classifies the political reactions, and assesses why military logistics has become the decisive measure of European capability.

Europe's logistical failure: How dilapidated bridges and bureaucratic labyrinths are eroding its defense capabilities

A sober assessment of European military logistics reveals a picture that leaves even well-meaning optimists scrambling for explanation. In its special report published in early 2025, the European Court of Auditors unequivocally stated that the armed forces of EU member states remain unable to move quickly across the Union. The goal of transporting military personnel, equipment, and supplies swiftly and smoothly within and across EU borders has not been achieved. The report's wording is diplomatic; the reality behind it is far from it.

The problem begins with physical infrastructure. The European Commission has identified around 500 priority infrastructure projects that urgently need repair or new construction, including bridges, tunnels, railway lines, roads, and ports. Most European roads are designed for a maximum load of 40 tons, but modern main battle tanks like the Leopard 2 or the Leclerc weigh between 55 and 70 tons. What appears in the abstract world of planning as a technical challenge has grotesque consequences in practice: An unnamed EU member state refused passage to a tank convoy because the vehicles exceeded local weight restrictions. Kaja Kallas, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, put it succinctly: If a bridge can't support a 60-ton tank, we have a problem; if a runway is too short for a cargo plane, we can't supply our troops.

The vulnerability is particularly stark at critical points in European geography. Between the Polish town of Suwałki and the Lithuanian border lies a land corridor only about 65 kilometers wide, the so-called Suwałki Gap. This narrow strip between the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad in the west and Belarus in the east forms the only land connection between the Baltic NATO states and the rest of the alliance. Military experts warn that Russian and Belarusian troops could seal off this corridor within 30 to 60 hours, before NATO could mobilize and redeploy its own forces. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania would then be effectively isolated, accessible only via the Baltic Sea or by air, although Russian missile sites in Kaliningrad could also threaten these routes. The fact that only a single main road connects Poland and Lithuania, and that the railways have different track gauges, dramatically exacerbates the dilemma.

However, the connectivity problems are not limited to the eastern flank. EU Transport Commissioner Apostolos Tzitzikostas has admitted that it currently takes weeks, if not months, to move troops and heavy equipment from Western Europe to the EU's eastern border. This stands in stark contrast to what credible deterrence requires: a response time of hours or a few days.

Bureaucracy as a security risk: When 45 days' notice makes the enemy faster than your own troops

As serious as the physical infrastructure deficiencies are, the accompanying bureaucratic superstructure is equally appalling. Under normal circumstances, an EU member state currently requires a lead time of 45 days for the approval of cross-border military transports. This deadline is not a bureaucratic oversight, but rather reflects the historically ingrained attitude that military logistics in Europe is a national matter, with each country primarily looking out for its own interests.

The fragmented jurisdiction is evident in concrete figures: Relocating a German armored brigade from Bavaria to Lithuania requires up to 17 separate permits, three of which must be issued by Czech authorities. Each of these permits is governed by national regulations that are neither harmonized nor coordinated. Added to this are EU regulations concerning working hours, customs rules, and environmental requirements, which, while valid in a civilian context, can pose an existential threat in a military emergency. Paradoxically, the EU, which has declared the free movement of goods one of its cornerstones, is unable to guarantee the free movement of its own defense assets.

The European Court of Auditors also criticized the European Commission for failing to conduct a thorough needs assessment when drafting the Action Plan 2.0 for military mobility in November 2022, thus making a reliable estimate of the necessary funding impossible from the outset. The action plan was developed under the time pressure of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and clearly bears the flaws of this hasty development. The EU's total budget for military mobility for the period 2021 to 2027 amounted to only €1.7 billion, and this entire budget has already been allocated. The original plan had envisaged significantly higher funds, but member states reduced the proposed amount by 75 percent.

The Ukraine war as a lesson: Why resilience determines victory and defeat

The war in Ukraine has brutally demonstrated the crucial role of logistics in modern conflicts. It served as a stark reality check for European defense policy, which for decades had treated logistics as a secondary administrative function. The spectacular Russian logistical failures of the first weeks of the war in February and March 2022, when tank columns were stranded en route to Kyiv due to a lack of fuel, ammunition, and food, showed that even a numerically superior army can be doomed to failure without functioning supply chains.

The Russian armed forces traditionally rely on a centralized push logistics system, fundamentally different from the Western just-in-time approach. This system, which delivers supplies to troops according to a predetermined schedule rather than responding to specific needs, has proven disastrously inflexible in a dynamic combat environment. Analyses show that, due to its limited supply of transport vehicles, the Russian army is logistically barely capable of sustaining operations over a distance of more than 150 kilometers from its supply bases. To achieve a range of 300 kilometers, Russia would need to double the number of its trucks per support brigade to 400, which is currently considered unrealistic.

But the lessons of the war in Ukraine extend far beyond the analysis of Russian mistakes. NATO has recognized that the Ukrainian experience provides fundamental insights for its own logistics doctrine. In November and December 2025, the first joint NATO-Ukraine conference on logistics lessons was held in Mainz, with approximately 175 representatives from NATO command structures and allied nations participating. The conference identified seven key dimensions of modern military logistics: the resilience of supply and distribution systems, the identification and strengthening of logistical vulnerabilities, the adaptability of doctrines to real combat situations, the role of information as a force multiplier, investments in personnel training, innovation in maintenance and repair, and the development of domestic defense industry capabilities.

The Ukrainian experience vividly demonstrates that logistics can no longer be viewed as a rear-end service function, but must be considered a fully integrated element of combat power. The ability to maintain supply chains under the constant pressure of enemy attacks, to circumvent damaged infrastructure in real time, and to find creative solutions to supply problems has proven decisive in warfare. NATO Brigadier General Witold Bartoszek, Deputy Commander of the NATO Security Assistance and Training Initiative for Ukraine, emphasized that logistics, often overlooked in peacetime, has now become a crucial factor in modern warfare.

For Europe, this means that its sustained capability—the ability to wage a high-intensity conflict over an extended period—depends significantly on logistical resilience. The stockpiles of European armies, already considerably depleted by deliveries to Ukraine, underscore this point. Since 2022, the EU and its member states have together provided more than €60 billion in cumulative military aid to Ukraine, a large portion of which came directly from European stockpiles.

Dependence on NATO: Europe's self-inflicted strategic immaturity

The question of strategic autonomy in military logistics is inextricably linked to the relationship with NATO, and this relationship is characterized by a profound asymmetry. The only NATO element responsible for deployment planning in Europe is the Joint Support and Enabling Command (JSEC) in Ulm, a staff of just 26 officers, which has been funded from the NATO budget since the beginning of 2025. The JSEC plans troop deployments according to NATO scenarios to all edges of the alliance's territory and reports directly to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).

Due to its central geographical location, Germany plays a key role as a logistics hub, transit country, and rear operations center. Trains, waterways, and logistics centers form the backbone of European transport and supply infrastructure, and their dual-use nature—that is, their simultaneous civilian and military use—gives this sector particular security policy significance. In the event of a crisis or an alliance conflict, troops and equipment would have to be deployed to NATO's eastern flank as quickly as possible. Any disruption to these systems immediately weakens the operational capability of Germany and its partners.

But the principle has always been: logistics is a national matter; everyone has to look out for themselves. This attitude has led to the EU producing ambitious strategy papers but lacking independent transport capacities even remotely comparable to those of the US. In a geopolitical environment where US security guarantees can no longer be taken for granted, dependence on American air and sea transport capabilities poses an existential risk. The 2025 Munich Security Conference marked the moment when this realization entered the broader European security debate.

The EU-run NetLogHubs project, operating under the PESCO framework and aiming to establish a network of logistics hubs in Europe, represents one approach to reducing this dependency. However, progress is uneven. The 2025 PESCO progress report notes that approximately half of the current 74 PESCO projects have reached the implementation phase, but some require greater effort to overcome obstacles or should potentially be discontinued. While military mobility is being strengthened within the PESCO framework, these projects alone cannot compensate for the structural deficiencies.

Political counter-offensive: The path to a military Schengen Area and the 800 billion question

European policymakers have responded to the growing pressure with a series of ambitious initiatives that, taken together, represent a paradigm shift. In November 2025, the European Commission and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy presented the Military Mobility Package, considered a milestone on the path to a so-called military Schengen Area. For the first time, the package contains binding EU-wide rules for harmonizing military mobility and stipulates a maximum processing time of three days for transit permits in peacetime and six hours in times of crisis.

At its core is the European Military Mobility Enhanced Response System, or EMERS, an emergency mechanism that, once activated by the Council, grants military convoys priority passage, automatically issues permits, and temporarily suspends restrictions such as driving time regulations or environmental requirements. Both a Member State and the Commission can request activation, with the Council having to decide within 48 hours. The package also includes a solidarity pool through which Member States can book railcars, aircraft, and heavy transport vehicles at short notice, as well as a digital information system for military mobility.

The European Parliament supported this approach with a resolution of 17 December 2025, in which MEPs called for the removal of internal borders for the movement of troops and military equipment, as well as the modernization of railways, roads, tunnels, and bridges. Parliamentarians advocated following NATO's example and ensuring that rapid reaction forces can cross EU internal borders within three days in peacetime and within 24 hours in a crisis.

On the financing side, there is the ReArm-Europe plan, presented in March 2025, which aims to mobilize no less than €800 billion in additional defense investment by the end of the decade. This plan rests on five pillars: the SAFE loan instrument with €150 billion in concessional loans for joint defense procurement; the activation of the national escape clause of the Stability and Growth Pact, which allows member states to increase their defense spending without risking an excessive deficit procedure; the reallocation of regional development funds; an expanded role for the European Investment Bank; and the mobilization of private capital. If member states were to increase their defense spending by an average of 1.5 percent of GDP, this could create a budgetary leeway of almost €650 billion over four years.

For military mobility in the narrower sense, around €17.5 billion is earmarked in the next EU budget period (2028-2034), a tenfold increase compared to previous funding. The Commission has estimated that around €100 billion would be needed to address all identified infrastructure bottlenecks. The gap between this need and the pledged funds remains substantial. European defense budgets are projected to reach €381 billion in 2025, equivalent to approximately 2.1 percent of EU GDP. Procurement spending is expected to rise from around €32 billion in 2024 to approximately €100 billion by 2029.

Hub for Security and Defense - Image: Xpert.Digital

The Security and Defence Hub offers expert advice and up-to-date information to effectively support companies and organizations in strengthening their role in European security and defence policy. Working closely with the SME Connect Defence Working Group, it particularly promotes small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that wish to further develop their innovative capacity and competitiveness in the defence sector. As a central point of contact, the Hub thus creates a crucial bridge between SMEs and European defence strategy.

Related to this:

• The SME Connect Defence Working Group – Strengthening SMEs in European Defence

Cyber ​​threats and hybrid warfare: The invisible front of military logistics

The physical and bureaucratic weaknesses of European military logistics are exacerbated by another dimension whose significance is often underestimated: its vulnerability to cyberattacks and hybrid warfare. The dual-use nature of the transport infrastructure, serving both civilian and military purposes, makes it a prime target for hybrid attacks. The German Council on Foreign Relations has pointed out that Germany acts as a central hub for military logistics within Europe, and any disruption to its transport and supply systems immediately weakens the operational capability of the entire alliance.

The threat landscape is by no means abstract. According to the ENISA Threat Landscape Report, nearly 4,900 verified security incidents were recorded in the EU between July 2024 and June 2025. Experts predict an increase in autonomous, AI-driven cyberattacks in 2026, which could target critical infrastructure without human intervention. The ProtectEU strategy for internal security, adopted in April 2025, places a strong emphasis on cybersecurity and integrates it as a central pillar. In June 2025, the Council of the EU adopted an updated cybersecurity crisis management blueprint, which for the first time brings together standardized processes and common tools under the umbrella of ENISA and the CSIRTs network.

For military logistics, this presents a twofold challenge: On the one hand, digital systems for managing supply chains, tracking shipments in real time, and coordinating multinational troop movements must be robustly secured against attacks. On the other hand, Russia is already actively using hybrid methods, which Lieutenant General Alexander Sollfrank has termed non-linear warfare, to sow uncertainty, create fear, cause damage, conduct espionage, and test NATO's reaction speed. This methodology deliberately targets the civil-military interface, where European logistics is most vulnerable.

The mobility package presented in November 2025 addresses this dimension by introducing a new resilience toolbox for protecting strategic infrastructure, explicitly including cybersecurity and energy security. Targeted investments are intended to strengthen resilience in both peacetime and crisis situations. Whether these measures will be sufficient to keep pace with the dynamic threat landscape remains an open question.

Artificial intelligence and autonomous systems: Between technological promise and regulatory constraints

The role of artificial intelligence and autonomous systems in military logistics is perhaps the area where Europe's strategic future will be most decisive. The European Defence Agency, through its Hub for European Defence Innovation, has launched an innovation and operational experimentation campaign for autonomous systems in cross-domain logistics, testing and further developing the use of unmanned aerial and ground vehicles for logistical operations. The campaign covers a spectrum from low-cost unmanned aerial systems to heavy vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and autonomous ground vehicles, aiming to improve the efficiency and safety of logistical operations through innovative technologies.

AI offers transformative potential for military logistics. Dynamic route optimization can reduce fuel consumption and empty runs, predictive maintenance changes spare parts inventory profiles and reduces unexpected breakdowns, and automated handling in distribution centers accelerates pallet throughput. For the German Armed Forces, renowned defense companies are working on the Uranos project, a digital command post in which AI analyzes data from drones, radars, cameras, satellites, and other reconnaissance sources, thus enabling the surveillance of large areas with minimal personnel.

However, Europe is partly hindering itself when it comes to the military use of AI. While the EU AI Regulation, which came into force in August 2024, establishes a risk-based control system with formal exemptions for military applications, the boundaries are blurred by the use of dual-use technologies. Systems that can be used for both military and civilian purposes quickly fall under the regulation's strict high-risk regime, forcing companies to consider potential civilian applications from the outset. Critics from the defense industry warn that the regulation stifles innovation and restricts access to crucial technologies. The German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr), which relies on AI systems for its mission and combat readiness—including facial recognition, speech and topography analysis, and movement profiling—feel hampered by unclear regulations.

At the same time, the EU will have no choice but to build technological sovereignty in this area if it wants to reduce its dependence on non-European suppliers. The debate held at the AI ​​summit in Paris in early 2025 highlighted that a major obstacle to increased EU cooperation in military AI is access to data, as arms manufacturers and armed forces are naturally reluctant to release sensitive datasets. However, the sharing of trusted data and uniform rules is essential for the interoperability of the 32 NATO allies.

Russia's time bomb: Why the window for logistical preparation is rapidly closing

The urgency of reorganizing European military logistics is brought into sharp focus by the threat assessments of Western intelligence agencies and military leaders. BND President Bruno Kahl warned the Bundestag's Parliamentary Control Committee that Russian armed forces would likely be capable of launching an attack on NATO by the end of this decade at the latest. He added that the Kremlin considers Germany an adversary. Lieutenant General Sollfrank, head of the Bundeswehr's operational command, went even further, stating that, based on Russia's current capabilities, it could already attack NATO territory on a smaller scale. With further rearmament, a large-scale attack would be conceivable by 2029.

EU foreign policy chief Kallas warned of a Russian attack in three to five years, and analyses from various intelligence agencies, evaluated by a research team from WDR, NDR, and SZ, show that Russia is preparing for a large-scale conventional war by 2030. Russia plans to increase its troop strength to 1.5 million soldiers, and despite massive losses in the war against Ukraine, it is continuing its strategic direction, pursued for almost 20 years, of changing the security architecture in Europe.

If these assessments are even remotely accurate, Europe has a window of opportunity of at best three to five years to address its logistical shortcomings. The planned measures—the Mobility Package aims to create an EU-wide mobility area by 2027, the new rules could enter into force no earlier than mid-2026, and major infrastructure investments are only planned for the 2028-2034 budget period—are thus part of a worrying race against Russia's arms buildup. Annual military mobility exercises are not planned until 2026. The question arises: will Europe be fast enough?.

Defense industry bottlenecks: When money alone doesn't build tanks

Even if the political and regulatory framework is set correctly, Europe is encountering another fundamental limit: the production capacity of its defense industry. The European Defence Technology and Industrial Base (EDTIB) generated an estimated turnover of €70 billion in 2021 and employed around 500,000 people. However, its capacity is far from sufficient to meet the immediate demand.

The example of ammunition production is particularly illustrative. The ASAP (Act in Support of Ammunition Production) program, with a budget of around €500 million, was intended to drastically increase European artillery ammunition production. The EU's capacity for producing 155mm artillery shells was increased to one million per year, and the target of two million per year by the end of 2025 is ambitious. However, a significant portion of this capacity is already committed to existing contracts and export obligations, which limits the actual volume available for Ukraine or for replenishing European stockpiles. Industrial companies like Rheinmetall sometimes report lower production figures than the official EU figures suggest.

The fundamental structural transformation that Europe needs requires more than short-term emergency programs. The European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP), with a budget of €1.5 billion for the period 2025 to 2027, expands upon the logic of existing programs and promotes joint procurement and increased production. The Roadmap for Defence Readiness 2030, presented in October 2025, calls for the rapid expansion of European defence industrial production. However, the reality remains that Europe's defence base has been optimized for decades for downsizing and efficiency, not for rapid scaling in times of crisis.

Civil-military entanglement: The difficult balancing act between economy and defense

One aspect that deserves particular attention in the debate surrounding military logistics is the necessary integration of civilian and military resources. Currently, over 75 percent of military material transport within the German Armed Forces is already carried out by civilian companies. This dependence on private logistics providers becomes a critical vulnerability in a conflict situation, when these same resources are also needed for supplying the civilian population.

The revised TEN-T Regulation now officially recognizes military mobility as a key component of the trans-European transport network. Four military corridors have been identified jointly with NATO and are to be upgraded to meet dual-use standards. In January 2024, the Netherlands, Germany, and Poland signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a model corridor for cross-border troop movements from west to east, with the Joint Security and Economic Cooperation (JSEC) in Ulm responsible for its design. The Rail Baltica project, which aims to create a modern rail link between the Baltic states and the European standard-gauge network, serves both civilian and military purposes and significantly strengthens logistical resilience in the particularly vulnerable northeast of the EU.

The challenge lies in ensuring that dual-use investments benefit both sides without disadvantaging one at the expense of the other. Upgrading bridges to a 70-ton load capacity, widening tunnels, and standardizing track gauges also benefit civilian freight transport. However, financing such projects from the defense budget is politically controversial, while financing them from the transport budget can undermine the defense rationale. The BraveTech initiative, a €100 million joint EU-Ukraine project that links the Ukrainian BRAVE1 defense technology platform with EU instruments such as the European Defence Fund, represents an innovative approach to combining combat-proven innovations with Europe's industrial capabilities.

Europe's defense under stress: The inconvenient truth behind the reform promises

An honest assessment of European military logistics reveals a tension between unprecedented political momentum and deeply entrenched structural obstacles. On the one hand, there are the ambitious packages and programs: the Mobility Package with its harmonized rules, the EMERS emergency system, the tenfold increase in budgets, the €800 billion ReArm Europe plan, the drone wall initiative along the eastern flank, the defense industry transformation roadmap, and the annual stress tests starting in 2026. The political commitment is real and without historical precedent in the history of European integration.

On the other hand, there are the realities of implementation. The European Court of Auditors soberly noted that the existing action plan was not built on sufficiently solid foundations. The new rules still need to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council. The major infrastructure investments lie in a future that Russia may not wait for. The production capacities of the European defense industry are optimized for peacetime conditions and will take years to ramp up to wartime readiness. And the 27 member states each have to navigate their own parliaments, budgets, and political constraints before joint decisions can be translated into concrete measures.

Brigadier Lampl, drawing on his experience as Director of Military Logistics at the EU Military Staff, formulated a crucial insight: a simultaneous offensive on multiple levels is needed, encompassing everything from physical infrastructure and digital and technological modernization to political and regulatory reforms. None of these dimensions can be considered in isolation, because failure in one area can negate progress in all others. A bridge capable of supporting a tank is of little use if the permit to cross it takes 45 days. Rapid approval is of little use if the cyber defenses of the command and control system are compromised. And the best AI-powered route optimization is useless if the munitions factories cannot produce enough.

Military logistics has thus become a litmus test, revealing whether Europe can successfully transition from strategy to implementation. The rhetoric has shifted, budgets are increasing, and regulatory instruments are being strengthened. Whether this will be sufficient to prevail in the race against Russia's arms buildup will not be decided in Brussels conference rooms, but on the roads, bridges, and railways of a continent that is only slowly remembering that peace is not the absence of threat, but the ability to respond to it.

Markus Becker

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

Head of Business Development

Chairman SME Connect Defense Working Group

LinkedIn

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve as your personal advisor.

contact me at wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

Just call me on +49 7348 4088 965 (Munich) .

LinkedIn