Key Takeaways

• The 2025 EDA report argues that European defence cooperation is shifting from long-term ambition to urgent readiness, driven above all by Russia’s war against Ukraine and pressure for greater European responsibility in collective defence.
• The EDA is trying to turn shared EU defence priorities into actual programmes through tools such as the Capability Development Plan, CARD, and Priority Implementation Roadmaps, signalling a move from declaratory coordination to more structured implementation.
• Innovation is a major theme of the report, with HEDI, operational experimentation, and a large pipeline of collaborative research projects presented as ways to speed up the transition from technological development to military use.
• The report also exposes a structural weakness: Europe still invests far less of its defence budget in research and development than the United States, raising doubts about its ability to scale innovation into deployable capability.
• The most concrete evidence of progress lies in joint procurement, especially in ammunition, soldier equipment, and CBRN protection, where the EDA is aggregating demand and harmonising requirements across Member States.
• Capability development is presented in broad terms, covering not only weapons systems but also logistics, cyber defence, military mobility, satellite communications, interoperability, and command-and-control. This reflects a more realistic understanding of what readiness actually requires.
• The report suggests that the EDA is becoming a more capable coordinator and facilitator at EU level, but it does not yet prove that Europe has solved the core problem of turning cooperation into military mass, industrial depth, and rapid delivery.

Introduction

The European Defence Agency’s 2025 Annual Report makes a clear argument: the European Union is no longer operating in a permissive security environment, and defence cooperation can no longer remain an exercise in procedural ambition. Russia’s war against Ukraine, the return of high-intensity warfare on the continent, and growing pressure for greater European burden-sharing within the transatlantic alliance have forced a sharper conception of European defence readiness. In the report’s logic, “strategic autonomy” is no longer rhetorical decoration. It is recast as a long-term necessity tied to readiness, industrial resilience, and credible military capability.

The EDA presents itself as the intergovernmental hinge connecting national defence planning, collaborative research, joint capability development, procurement, and EU-level policy influence. In 2025, it organized its work around five core tasks: identifying shared priorities, enabling innovation, harmonising military requirements, aggregating demand for procurement, and ensuring that ministries of defence have a coherent voice in wider EU policy. That structure is useful, but it also risks creating the comforting illusion that coordination itself is strategic success. The real significance of the report lies elsewhere. It shows an agency trying to move from process management to operational relevance. The central question is whether Europe is genuinely building military mass and usable capability, or merely refining the machinery of cooperation.

From Priority-Setting to Strategic Direction

One of the report’s strongest points is that European defence cooperation is being tied more explicitly to agreed priorities. The 2023 revision of the Capability Development Plan established 22 EU capability priorities across military domains and strategic enablers, and in 2025 the EDA aligned its work further with the European Council’s nine Priority Capability Areas and the White Paper on European Defence Readiness 2030. This matters because Europe’s defence problem has never been a total absence of plans. It has been fragmentation, duplication, and the chronic inability to translate broad consensus into convergent force development.

The report also shows some institutional maturation. The new governance framework for capability development became fully operational in 2025, while CARD and Priority Implementation Roadmaps were used to connect long-term priorities to practical business cases and future programmes. That is a sensible correction to an older model in which capability planning too often stopped at declaratory alignment. The four-phase logic outlined in the report—setting priorities, translating them into business cases, shaping programmes, and executing them—reflects a more disciplined understanding of defence planning. 

Still, the report is weakest where it is most self-congratulatory. Prioritisation is necessary, but it is not a substitute for political choice. Listing priorities across every domain can quickly become a way of avoiding hard trade-offs. Europe does not merely suffer from capability gaps; it suffers from dispersion of effort. If everything is a priority, nothing is. The report suggests progress in structuring cooperation, but it provides less evidence that Member States are yet prepared to sacrifice national autonomy at scale in order to achieve European coherence.

Innovation as a Means, Not a Strategy

The report places major emphasis on innovation, particularly through the Hub for EU Defence Innovation. In 2025, HEDI ran the first EU-wide operational experimentation campaign for autonomous logistics systems, convened the European Defence Innovation Days in Krakow with nearly 1,000 participants, and advanced proof-of-concept work on AI decision-support for integrated air and missile defence. More broadly, the EDA reported 82 new research and technology projects under negotiation worth €490 million, with the total ongoing and planned R&T portfolio reaching €788 million. The European Commission also entrusted the EDA with 42 EDF projects worth more than €300 million. 

These are not trivial achievements. The most promising aspect is not the conference diplomacy, which think tanks and institutions always oversell, but the effort to compress the cycle from laboratory research to field testing. The OPEX campaign on cross-domain logistics, involving 108 experts from 22 countries, is more serious than generic innovation branding because it attempts to create procurement-ready outcomes. Likewise, the CapTech structure links national experts, industry, SMEs, and research organisations to concrete technology pathways in areas ranging from cyber resilience and advanced materials to quantum sensing, space, and autonomous navigation. 

Yet the report inadvertently reveals a deeper problem. It states that U.S. RDT&E spending accounts for around 16% of the overall defence budget, compared with approximately 4% in the EU. That gap is not just a budgeting statistic; it is a strategic indictment. Europe remains structurally weak at scaling innovation into deployable capability. The report rightly celebrates experimentation, but experimentation without procurement reform and production depth simply creates a better catalogue of unrealised ideas. The EDA appears increasingly capable as an innovation broker. Europe as a whole remains less convincing as an innovation power. 

Capability Development: Useful Breadth, Unclear Mass

The most substantive part of the report concerns capability development. In 2025, the EDA supported 35 capability development projects worth €260 million and continued work across land, naval, air, space, cyber, logistics, and command-and-control domains. There are serious efforts here: loitering munitions and uncrewed ground systems informed by lessons from Ukraine; MARSUR III achieving interoperability with NATO systems; work on integrated air and missile defence; the European Combat Vessel; SATCOM support including for Ukraine; cyber exercises and deployable security operations concepts; and military mobility measures aimed at reducing bureaucratic obstacles to force movement across Europe.

Several features deserve attention. First, the report shows a welcome shift from platform fetishism to systems thinking. Capability development is described not merely as equipment acquisition but as a broader package involving doctrine, training, logistics, maintenance, and infrastructure. That is correct. European debates often default to prestige projects while neglecting sustainment, mobility, or interoperability. Second, the repeated incorporation of lessons from Ukraine is a sign that the EDA is at least attempting to anchor planning in contemporary warfare rather than in bureaucratic inertia. Third, the emphasis on air and missile defence, seabed infrastructure protection, cyber resilience, and satellite communications reflects a more realistic view of vulnerability in modern conflict.

But here again the report invites scepticism. It is impressive in scope and less impressive in concentration. Europe clearly has activity; what remains uncertain is whether it is generating enough usable force structure, fast enough, to alter deterrence. The European Combat Vessel will not enter service until the 2040s. Air superiority studies are underway, but studies do not close capability gaps. The report shows the EDA becoming better at designing cooperative pathways. It does not yet prove that Europe has solved the more brutal problem of turning coordination into military mass within politically relevant timelines. 

Joint Procurement and the Industrial Question

The strongest practical section of the report is the one on procurement. The EDA’s case is straightforward: fragmented national purchasing weakens both readiness and industry, whereas aggregated demand can improve value for money, accelerate delivery, and support the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base. In 2025, the agency advanced procurement projects in ammunition, soldier equipment, CBRN gear, flight suits, and loitering munitions. Most notably, joint orders for 155mm artillery ammunition worth more than €375 million continued under the Collaborative Procurement of Ammunition project, while demand aggregation showed especially strong interest in small arms, autocannon, and 155mm ammunition. 

This is where the report is most persuasive because it addresses a genuinely strategic bottleneck: Europe’s inability to match urgency with scale. Procurement cooperation is less glamorous than innovation summits, but it matters more. If Member States can aggregate demand, standardise requirements, and give industry predictable orders, then Europe has a chance to strengthen production capacity rather than simply lament dependence. The report is also right to frame procurement not just as efficiency policy but as an industrial policy instrument linked to EDIS and broader resilience goals. 

Even so, the industrial challenge is larger than the report sometimes admits. Defence production requires long-term demand certainty, financing, regulatory alignment, and political willingness to privilege European supply chains where appropriate. The EDA advised the European Investment Bank on projects seeking financing worth up to €700 million, while the EIB invested more than €4 billion in security and defence in 2025. The Cooperative Financial Mechanism also aims to ease budget-cycle mismatches that obstruct collaboration. These are useful tools. But they remain enabling measures, not an industrial breakthrough in themselves. The test is whether they produce enduring production depth, not just more agile financing arrangements. 

The EDA’s Expanding Policy Role

The report’s fifth core task may appear the most bureaucratic, but it is strategically important. The EDA increasingly acts as the channel through which defence ministries influence wider EU legislative and policy processes. In 2025 it contributed to the White Paper for European Defence Readiness 2030, the Military Mobility package, the EU Space Strategy for Security and Defence, cyber policy, and access-to-finance efforts for industry. In effect, the agency is trying to prevent defence from being treated as a narrow sectoral concern disconnected from transport regulation, industrial finance, space infrastructure, or digital resilience.

This is necessary because modern defence capability is shaped as much by regulatory and industrial ecosystems as by ministries of defence. Military mobility is an obvious example: forces that cannot move rapidly across borders are not credible even if they exist on paper. Likewise, space and cyber are not auxiliary domains; they are foundational enablers of command, communications, awareness, and resilience. The EDA’s broader policy role therefore reflects a more sophisticated conception of preparedness.

Still, there is a danger in this expanding remit. The more the EDA becomes a coordinator across everything, the greater the risk that it becomes accountable for little. Influence is not execution. Advising, facilitating, and aligning are important, but they can also conceal the basic truth that hard capability still depends on Member States. The report sometimes blurs that line. The EDA can reduce friction. It cannot, by itself, create political will.

Conclusion

The EDA’s 2025 Annual Report documents an agency that is more active, more integrated into EU defence policy, and more serious about moving from conceptual cooperation to practical outputs. It shows real progress in linking priorities to programmes, connecting innovation to experimentation, expanding joint procurement, and embedding defence concerns across wider EU policy. In that sense, the report marks a transition from an era of procedural European defence to an era of readiness-oriented European defence.

But the report should not be read naively. Its evidence supports a claim of institutional acceleration, not yet a claim of strategic transformation. Europe is learning how to cooperate more effectively, but it is still struggling to generate capability at the scale and speed demanded by the current security environment. The EDA has become a more credible instrument for defence coordination. Whether that becomes genuine defence readiness depends less on the agency’s administrative competence than on Member States’ willingness to make harder choices: concentrate spending, standardise requirements, privilege collective procurement, and sustain industrial production over the long term.

That is the real conclusion the report points toward, even if it does not fully say it. Europe’s defence problem is no longer diagnosis. It is execution. And on that question, progress is visible, but it is not yet decisive.

Related Publications