PESCO: This EU defense project works in practice – “Network of LogHubs in Europe and Support to Operations”

Xpert Pre-Release

Available in 27 languages 📢

Published on: August 3, 2026 / Updated on: August 3, 2026 – Author: Konrad Wolfenstein

PESCO: This EU defense project works in practice – “Network of LogHubs in Europe and Support to Operations” – Image: Xpert.Digital

Preparing for emergencies: How the LogHub network makes Europe's armies ready for deployment

Billions for the troops: Why Europe's security depends on an inconspicuous logistics network

From feasibility study to reality: Why this logistics concept is now vital for the EU's survival

European defense policy often resembles a paper tiger: Grand visions, ambitious feasibility studies, and billion-euro budgets frequently end in bureaucratic stagnation and unilateral national actions. Yet, at a time when the continent's security architecture is being shaken to its core, a seemingly insignificant project is coming into focus, proving that European military cooperation can indeed work. The PESCO project "Network of LogHubs in Europe and Support to Operations" connects national military depots into an intelligent, cross-border logistics network. What initially sounds like dry administrative organization is proving to be a strategic milestone for NATO and the EU. Led by Germany, this network demonstrates how shared infrastructure can revolutionize troop mobility, reduce costs, and translate the much-vaunted European strategic sovereignty from theory into reality. Whether this system can serve as a blueprint for the entire security architecture of Europe, or where it reaches its structural limits, can be seen by taking a closer look at the new European logistics landscape.

Note on terminology: The project name "Network of LogHubs in Europe and Support to Operations" is used in its original English version in this analysis. The German Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVg) and the German Armed Forces also do not translate the name, but use this English title as an established technical term in their official communications and documents.

Europe's secret supply line: Why a warehouse decides strategic sovereignty

The PESCO project "Permanent Structured Cooperation" is considered by many observers to be the most practical and tangible example of European defense cooperation. Unlike numerous other projects under the umbrella of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), which often remain at the level of declarations of intent and feasibility studies, this network has already had a real, operational impact. It connects existing national military logistics sites into a common system and has already been used in practice to support NATO missions in the Baltic states. This raises the fundamental question of whether this project is truly a model for successful European defense integration or whether it rather highlights the structural limitations that European cooperation projects regularly encounter.

The institutional architecture of a new logistics landscape

Formally, the project has existed since March 2018 as one of the original PESCO projects and is coordinated by Germany, France, and Cyprus. The basic idea is to operate existing national depots, warehouses, and port facilities not in isolation, but as a shared system. Instead of each country maintaining its own expensive logistics chains for multinational operations, armed forces rely on a network where equipment, spare parts, and ammunition can be centrally stored, pre-positioned, and rapidly deployed as needed. Currently, 15 EU nations are participating in this project, with 14 of them having already contributed at least one national logistics location to the network as a so-called LogHub. The system currently comprises around 25 to 26 logistics facilities distributed across the continent, although not every location needs to cover all functions, such as storage, transport, transshipment, or maintenance, simultaneously.

The strategic heart of the network is the Joint Coordination Centre, located at the Bundeswehr Logistics Center in Wilhelmshaven. From there, support requests from participating nations are centrally received, assigned to the appropriate LogHubs within the network, and the flow of materials is monitored. Basic operational planning is carried out in parallel by the German Logistics Command in Erfurt, while the actual German LogHub is located at the Bundeswehr Depot South in Pfungstadt, Hesse. This distribution of functions across multiple locations illustrates just how complex even a seemingly simple logistics project must be structured in practice to accommodate differing national responsibilities and historical structures.

From test run to real-world use in a NATO context

The LogHub network faced its first practical test early on, in a highly sensitive security context. In November 2019, the Lithuanian and German LogHubs were used to support NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence mission in the Baltic states, which serves as a deterrent on the alliance's eastern flank. Specifically, equipment was fed into the network via the German LogHub and then distributed to the multinational battlegroups on the ground via the Lithuanian location. A further field test followed in August and September 2020, during which equipment was deployed for NATO's Forward Air Policing mission, with the Polish LogHub also being activated. These two operations demonstrated that the network can function across borders and significantly simplify the logistics chain for prioritized operations, eliminating the need for each participating country to organize transport, security, and customs clearance separately.

The then-commander of the logistics command, Major General Volker Thomas, emphasized that a network is not an end in itself, but must be continuously used to prove its value. This statement touches on a sore point of many European cooperation projects: structures can be created relatively easily on paper, but their actual use in day-to-day operations requires political will and sustained investment. The project's initial capability was achieved by the end of 2020, with full capability planned for the end of 2024.

Germany's expansion program as a signal of the seriousness of the project

A particularly telling indicator of the strategic importance now attributed to the project is the planned expansion of the German LogHub site in Pfungstadt. There, approximately 40,000 square meters of warehouse space are to be cleared in existing halls by 2024 at the latest. Furthermore, an expansion and technological modernization of the site, with an investment volume of around €210 million, is planned by 2028. This sum underscores that this is no longer a purely conceptual project, but rather a real investment in critical infrastructure, both in terms of construction and technology.

The planned modernization explicitly aims to integrate digital technologies for managing material flows, which should make the network not only more efficient but also more resilient and flexible. One unresolved issue concerns the financial settlement between nations. Currently, there is no secure, shared communication network or efficient accounting system, leading to considerations of a points-based system where reciprocal logistical support is balanced, rather than individual billing between countries. As long as such administrative questions remain unresolved, the system's practical smoothness will be limited.

Opening up to third countries as a geopolitical calculation

It is noteworthy that the LogHub network, despite being an EU project, was deliberately opened to the participation of third countries. During a German EU Council Presidency, a compromise proposal was formalized, regulating the conditions for third-country participation in PESCO projects. Canada is now actively participating in this logistics hub network project, while the United States, Canada, and Norway are already involved in the closely related military mobility project. This opening is strategically significant because it blurs the line between EU defense structures and NATO, thus countering concerns that PESCO could become a competitor to the alliance.

A concrete example of the desired close integration is the planned cooperation with the Joint Support and Enabling Command in Ulm, an operational NATO headquarters responsible for the rapid deployment and supply of troops across the European continent. This connection effectively positions the LogHub network as a logistical foundation capable of serving both EU missions and NATO operations, which makes sense from a resource efficiency perspective, but simultaneously raises questions of overlapping responsibilities and prioritization in a crisis.

The broader context: military mobility as a security policy priority

The LogHub network is part of a broader European effort to improve military mobility across the continent. The Council of the European Union has set itself the goal of creating an EU-wide military mobility area by the end of 2027 as a first step towards the gradual realization of this capability. By the end of 2026, Member States are to implement a total of 13 concrete commitments, including prioritizing investments in transport infrastructure for military movements and accelerating authorization procedures for cross-border troop movements. In October 2024, four priority corridors for military mobility were identified and presented to the EU Military Committee, and subsequently adopted by the Council in March.

However, here too, a significant discrepancy exists between political ambition and actual funding. Within the framework of the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework, only around €1.7 billion was made available through the Connecting Europe Facility for the co-financing of dual-use transport infrastructure; this is 75 percent less than the €6.5 billion originally proposed by the European Commission. While these funds did co-finance 95 projects in 21 member states and fully utilized the available resources, the reduction in the original level of ambition illustrates a recurring pattern in European defense policy: ambitious goals are formulated, but the concrete financial backing regularly falls short of the original plans.

Hub for Security and Defense - Advice and Information

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

Why Europe's defense capabilities continue to stagnate despite LogHub projects

PESCO as a whole: Between optimism and disillusionment

To properly contextualize the LogHub project, it is worthwhile to examine the overall record of PESCO. Initiated in 2017, the Permanent Structured Cooperation now comprises 26 member states participating in well over 60 ongoing projects. However, a confidential analysis by the German government concluded after only a few years that PESCO had not yet significantly enhanced European operational capability. Critics point, for example, to the European Medical Command in Koblenz, another project coordinated by Germany, which, despite having 27 positions, has no troop units under its command and whose added value compared to existing NATO structures remains questionable.

Christian Mölling, research director at the German Council on Foreign Relations, is among the most prominent critics of PESCO's track record to date. He points out that since the 2008 financial crisis, approximately 30 percent of European military capabilities have been lost because states prioritized their national sovereignty over a common military capacity. Security expert Ulrike Franke of the European Council on Foreign Relations also cautioned early on against unrealistic expectations, describing PESCO at best as a small step on a long road, not a breakthrough to European military independence. These voices temper the media narrative of the LogHub network as a flagship project and highlight the structural weakness that many PESCO initiatives remain mere feasibility studies without translating into concrete capabilities.

A nuanced academic analysis also identifies deeper conceptual contradictions within PESCO itself. The framework simultaneously attempts to achieve targeted openness to outcomes, prioritizing practical-technical aspects over political symbolism, robust intervention capabilities alongside credible territorial defense, and market consolidation alongside continued competition. These sometimes conflicting objectives are interpreted and prioritized differently by the participating actors, which structurally limits the coherence of the overall project. However, for the LogHub network, a comparatively pragmatic infrastructure project with clearly measurable physical results, these conceptual tensions are less significant than for projects aimed at arms standardization or joint armed forces integration.

The economic logic behind the shared use of infrastructure

From a purely business perspective, the LogHub concept follows a classic logic of pooling fixed costs and leveraging economies of scale. Instead of 15 or more nations maintaining their own redundant storage capacities, transport fleets, and administrative structures for multinational operations, the existing infrastructure is shared. This fundamentally lowers the average operating costs per operation, reduces the need for new construction, and significantly shortens response times in crisis situations by pre-positioning materials at strategically located sites.

This logic, however, only holds true if the network is actually used regularly, because fixed costs for personnel, maintenance, and digital infrastructure are incurred regardless of the actual usage intensity. Major General Thomas had already emphasized this point early on when he warned that a network activated only twice a year would fail to make economic sense. The system's actual profitability therefore depends significantly on the utilization rate, which in turn depends on the political willingness of member states to use the network as a standard instrument and not just as an exceptional solution.

The changed security policy climate since 2022

The significance of logistics networks like the LogHub system has fundamentally changed since Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine. What was previously perceived primarily as a bureaucratic efficiency project is now considered critical infrastructure relevant to security policy. Current analyses show that European NATO states could increase their annual defense spending to an estimated 800 billion euros by 2030, which would be about 300 billion euros more than in 2025 and represent the largest defense buildup since the end of the Cold War. European NATO states have now agreed on a new spending target of 3.5 percent of gross domestic product for nuclear defense.

At the same time, the same study highlights a structural problem that is also directly relevant to the LogHub network: The sharp increase in budgets has so far translated only to a limited extent into actually deployable military capabilities. The equipment inventories of many European countries remain below 2021 levels, partly as a result of extensive support for Ukraine, while order backlogs and delivery times in the defense industry are increasing significantly. More than half of the major European defense programs are behind schedule or exceeding their planned budgets. In this context, a functioning, shared logistics infrastructure takes on additional urgency because it can at least mitigate some of the operational bottlenecks caused by delayed procurement programs.

Fragmentation as the real Achilles' heel of European defense capability

One of the key structural weaknesses, which even the LogHub network can only partially compensate for, is the continuing fragmentation of the European defense landscape. Studies show that Europe operates significantly more diverse platforms and weapon systems than the United States in almost all military categories – from fighter jets and combat vehicles to naval vessels – and that this fragmentation has intensified in most categories since 2014. The consequences are higher development costs, reduced interoperability between armed forces, and longer modernization cycles.

For a logistics network, this fragmentation represents a significant increase in complexity, as differing spare parts standards, ammunition calibers, and maintenance requirements complicate joint warehousing and the smooth redistribution of materials between national contingents. Particularly high savings potential is seen in consolidating the highly fragmented supply chains in the so-called Tier 2 and Tier 3 segments, such as materials, defense electronics, and mechanical components. Industry analysts estimate that targeted mergers in this area could unlock approximately €9 billion in efficiency and cost advantages annually, amounting to around €45 billion by 2030. However, as long as this fragmentation persists on the procurement side, the LogHub network will only be able to realize a portion of its actual efficiency potential, since logistical standardization reaches its limits when the underlying systems themselves remain inconsistent.

More radical alternative designs as a contrasting backdrop

The limited reach of incremental projects like the LogHub network has recently given rise to more radical reform proposals. German experts from business, the military, and academia have proposed a far-reaching restructuring of European defense structures with the concept known as "Sparta 2.0," which, with investments of around €500 billion, aims to significantly increase Europe's military independence from the United States. Such proposals highlight the contrast between the pragmatic, step-by-step approach of the LogHub network and the call for a more fundamental structural overhaul of the European security architecture.

This contrast raises a fundamental strategic question: Are incremental cooperation projects focused on efficiency gains, such as the LogHub network, sufficient to make Europe capable of acting in an increasingly tense geopolitical environment, or is a more fundamental break with the existing, strongly nationally oriented defense structure necessary? The answer likely lies in a combination of both approaches, with pragmatic infrastructure projects like LogHub creating the necessary practical foundation upon which more far-reaching structural reforms could later be built.

A cautiously positive, but not euphoric, assessment

Overall, the PESCO LogHub network represents one of the more tangible success stories within the often sobering record of European defense cooperation. It has made the leap from mere declaration of intent to operational reality, has already been activated several times in the context of actual NATO missions, and is materially backed by concrete, three-figure million-euro investments, such as the expansion of the Pfungstadt site. Precisely because it focuses on a comparatively apolitical, technical function – namely the shared use of existing storage and transport capacities – it has been able to largely avoid the obstacles caused by national sovereignty concerns that are typical of other PESCO projects.

At the same time, this relative success story should not be overstated. The network does not solve any of the fundamental structural problems of European defense capability – neither the persistent fragmentation of weapons systems, nor the delayed procurement programs, nor the basic question of the political willingness to act jointly and swiftly in a crisis. Rather, its strength lies in demonstrating on a small scale that shared infrastructure can function when the participating actors recognize a clear operational benefit and the cooperation is not burdened with far-reaching sovereignty issues. Whether this model can be transferred to more complex and politically sensitive areas of defense cooperation remains the crucial open question for the coming years of European security architecture.

Consulting - Planning - Implementation