Despite progress on military mobility in the European Union, a range of administrative and infrastructure barriers still means that moving military equipment across the bloc can, in extreme cases, take up to 45 days. With the security threat growing, the aim is to cut that time to a maximum of three days. This is the rationale behind calls from Members of the European Parliament to create a “military Schengen” for troops and heavy equipment—an initiative that would also require substantial investment in infrastructure. In the EU’s next financial framework, EUR 17 billion is expected to be allocated for this purpose.
“The European Union currently has a Schengen area for civilians. We can travel from country to country within the EU essentially without stopping—no queues, no border checks—using an ID from any member state,” Dariusz Joński, an MEP from Civic Coalition (Koalicja Obywatelska), told Newseria. “Now we want to do everything we can to create a military Schengen, so that in the event of need, a threat, or war, we can rapidly move heavy equipment and soldiers from one country to another. Today this is very difficult, because obtaining permission to transport equipment from one EU country to another can take 45 days. In a crisis, we simply don’t have that kind of time.”
In December 2025, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on military mobility, calling for the removal of internal borders for the movement of troops and military equipment across the EU. The Parliament stressed that military mobility is a priority for EU–NATO cooperation and is essential for enabling allied forces to move in times of peace, crisis, or war. MEPs want the EU to follow NATO’s example and ensure that rapid reaction forces can cross internal EU borders within three days in peacetime and within 24 hours in a crisis.
“Fast movement of armed forces in crisis situations is of enormous importance for the EU’s eastern flank, because the threat today—and possibly in the future—is Russia, the East, and the war in Ukraine,” said Mariusz Kamiński, an MEP from Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość). “EU states and NATO countries must therefore be prepared for fast, mobile action, so that it is possible to demonstrate significant military strength in the right places and within the right timeframe.”
Joński also referred to remarks by the U.S. president: “Donald Trump says it directly: if you want to be safe, invest in your own security as Europe—I won’t finance everything every time. Of course, it’s not the case that just anyone will be able to move military equipment. Only member states will do so, with government approval. We know exactly how much equipment can be transferred, how many ships, rail wagons, or vehicles can be moved at one time. Everything is described in detail so that there are no unclear situations.”
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine exposed the EU’s military mobility constraints and highlighted the need to move equipment from member states to Poland and then further beyond the eastern border.
“Procedures today are quite complicated and very lengthy. It’s even hard to find drivers willing to transport heavy equipment from one country to another, because if you have to wait at every border for a dozen—or even several dozen—days, not everyone will take that on, not to mention the security aspect,” Joński said. “If there is a threat, equipment has to be moved from one place to another within three days. It seems that the procedural barriers have been removed. So if there is consent from the government of the country the equipment is being transported to and from, there should be no problem.”
MEPs recommend working toward a military Schengen area, supported by a military mobility task force and a European coordinator to speed up implementation of various initiatives, while the European Commission would provide an action plan.
Following the resolution, Parliament’s transport and defence committees are beginning legislative work on a military mobility package presented by the European Commission in November 2025.
“There are also needs related to modern, adequate road infrastructure so that armed forces and armoured units can move effectively and efficiently across the EU in crisis situations,” Kamiński explained.
In the EU’s next multiannual financial framework for 2028–2034, the European Commission proposed increasing the budget for military mobility to more than EUR 17 billion—more than ten times the amount in the current period.
“During work on the document, we included that Poland would be one of its main beneficiaries, because we border Russia and Belarus,” Joński said. “This will allow us to build dual-use infrastructure. In peacetime, civilians will use roads, motorways, and overpasses, but in the event of a threat they will be used by soldiers, the military, and heavy equipment. Previously, the EU built roads and bridges so that trucks—15 to 17 tonnes—could cross them. But a tank weighs around 70 tonnes, so not all overpasses and roads could withstand that.”
In the resolution, MEPs called on member states and the European Commission to increase investment in transport infrastructure, especially along the EU’s four military mobility corridors (three of which run through Poland). The Commission’s plan identifies several hundred key bottlenecks—such as bridges and tunnels—that require modernization. The resolution also urges the Commission to simplify procedures for obtaining funding for dual-use projects.
“Simplified procedures help safeguard the sovereignty of member states, because we are talking about a military threat from potential aggressors—in practice, Russia—so this is of enormous importance for our security and therefore for our sovereignty,” Kamiński emphasized.
“General Eisenhower once said that a great deal depends on infrastructure: you can win or lose a battle, a campaign, even wars,” Joński added. “There’s something to it—you can have the best equipment, but if you can’t move it quickly from one place to another, you are weaker. No one is saying there will be war, but we must be prepared for the possibility that Putin may make very unpredictable decisions toward the EU and Europe. And because we are a frontline country, bordering Belarus and Russia, it matters to us that Europe would defend us in such a situation—if needed.”
