Administrative Blockages Puts Europe's Ability to Defend Itself at Risk
By Dr. Robert Brüll
Brussels, Belgium, May 2,, 2025--’Strategic autonomy’ has long been an ambition of the European Union (EU). It refers to the capacity of the EU to act without being dependent on other countries in strategically important policy areas, such as defence. European Council President Charles Michel called it 'our new common project for this century' as well as 'the aim for our generation'. Now, amid global uncertainty, strategic autonomy has become a necessity.
Obstacles to Autonomy
Driven by that uncertainty, defence budgets, after years of being at threat of being cut, have swelled. Successive governments perceive the world as having become a lot more uncertain than it has been in recent years, and uncertainty creates concern. EU member-states have also suggested a €500 billion joint fund for defence projects and procurement. But the problem in Europe’s case is that a rise in defence spending isn’t enough to secure the safety of the bloc. Europe’s defence industrial strategy is ensnared in bureaucracy and paralysed by inefficiency. This is the main obstacle to military autonomy.
Why is this? Because decades of underinvestment have left gaps in key supply chains. These supply chains are the veins and arteries of any modern armed force: shuttling tools, technology, arms and ammunition to where it’s needed – but also fragile, if indispensable. Production lines are fragmented, priorities are in competition, and national governments – quite unsurprisingly – want to protect their own national industries.
Space Startups
This isn’t the only hurdle. Defense startups, or startups whose products have defence applications – many of them operating in the space sector – are still viewed with suspicion by government and public agencies in Europe. They’re typically perceived as untested, unproven, and so not worthy of any sizable investment. But without investment, they can’t prove themselves – or, at least, won’t be able to do so for some time. The problem, then, is chicken-and-egg.
"...Defense startups, or startups whose products have defence applications – many of them operating in the space sector – are still viewed with suspicion by government and public agencies in Europe..."
Many space startups develop technology or products with defence applications. The two areas are closely linked. Their founders and senior teams would leap at the chance to enter a new market without having to change their core offering in any meaningful way. Many products, including ours, are no different whether they’re used for civilian vehicles, tanks, spacecraft, dummy ships (‘rubber ducks’), chaff for fighter jets, or something else. In Ukraine, it’s barely an exaggeration to say that every startup develops products with defence applications.
But even if a space startup developed products whose applications were principally civilian, investment, or the prospect of investment, might encourage them to pivot or put more time and energy into defence product development. It would also incentivise aspiring entrepreneurs, researchers, scientists and others to launch defence startups and take advantage of that expanding market.
A Culture of Caution
It isn’t just the government and public agencies who are wary of investing in defence startups. Venture capital firms in Europe are put off by any
mention of defence. Their criteria for backing companies remain strict, owing to Europe’s peaceful recent history. After the carnage of the Second World War, the countries of Europe made determined efforts to avoid another conflict breaking out on the continent through diplomacy and disarmament. That commitment grew even stronger after the wall came down in 1989. Culturally and politically, Europe developed a powerful aversion to militarism and aggressive nationalism, and from that rigid criteria for investment in defence-related industries emerged. Many investors have preferred to back companies in sectors that align with social or environmental goals. Even space startups who primarily develop products with civilian applications can be victims of this.
Since the invasion of Ukraine brought war to Europe’s doorstep, the continent’s attitude is changing, but it’s changing slowly. Because what is having to change is deeply ingrained. Europe’s unease about defence investment reflects the horrors the people of the continent experienced in the 20th century. Those same people are not easily persuaded that the present circumstances require a shift in outlook. But a shift in outlook is required. It’s a cliché to say that ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’, but the reality of this moment in our history is that we need to think seriously about defence – which means investing seriously in it.
The U.S. Example
These are problems that the United States doesn’t have. Procurement for defence purposes is centralised and efficient. Needs are swiftly met. The different forces of the US – the Air Force or Navy, for instance – even have their own channels and budgets to get the things they want at short notice. In Europe, whose history, geography and political structure is, of course, vastly different to that of the United States, this isn’t the case at all. There are small production runs, needless duplication and conflicting national priorities. This hamstrings the goal of strategic autonomy as it pertains to defense. And the upshot of that is that the continent, despite its wealth, freedom and rich tradition of innovation, is struggling to rise to the challenges it faces in a volatile world.
One reason for this, as mentioned above, is that Europe is not in the habit of thinking about war. We have been blessed with having a largely peaceful continental culture for decades. While the US locked horns with the Soviet Union and others, celebrated its soldiers and built a culture around the need for defence and security, Europe, despite involving itself intermittently in conflicts, has remained largely peaceful in its outlook.
Companies like FibreCoat supply vital shielding materials to NATO allies. But scaling these efforts across Europe remains an arduous task. In theory, local production could stabilise disjointed supply chains, reducing the dependency of any given country on faraway sources, or ones going through political turbulence, which can make them unreliable. In practice, however, establishing cross-border manufacturing in Europe isn’t straightforward. Procurement offices resist long-term agreements, discouraging industry investment in large-scale facilities.
A Path Forward
Defense firms could partner with local companies and make use of the existing infrastructure. Or they could design modular products, enabling separate parts to be shipped in standard containers and then assembled closer to the battlefield. These are part-solutions, though they are not structural or systemic. Those issues require change at a deeper level. Europe will have to consider how to make joint procurement the default option, rather than the exception to the rule. Some kind of reconciliation between national priorities and the collective good must be sought out. The gaps in the continent’s major supply chains will need to be identified and filled in. A unified body with the agility and responsiveness to be able to grapple confidently with whatever the future holds is within Europe’s grasp. But reform will be needed.European leaders showed foresight by prioritising ‘strategic autonomy’ as far back as 2013. They were mindful that things change, and that a bloc such as Europe should be able to take care of itself.
The task now is to remove the obstacles to making that happen, stripping away the layers of complexity that no longer support the objectives of the Union. That will allow the continent’s many innovative space and defense businesses to grow and to get their products where they’re needed without undue delay. Europe has to be able to hold its own and protect its citizens – and to avoid being dragged into potential conflicts that stem from the tensions between its allies and others.
-------------------------------
Dr. Robert Brüll is the Founder and CEO of FibreCoat, a provider of advanced materials technology. FibreCoat’s lightweight, high-performance, cost-effective, electrically conductive materials protect against radiation, heat, and electromagnetic interference (EMI), making them crucial for space, defense, automotive, and construction.
