MEPs from the European Parliament’s Transport and Defence Committees have pressed for a “military Schengen” across the EU — a sweeping reform designed to dramatically speed the movement of troops and equipment in the event of a crisis sparked by Kremlin aggression.
The draft resolution, passed earlier this week, reflects growing alarm that bureaucratic obstacles and inadequate infrastructure are undermining Europe’s readiness at a time of mounting threat.
The resolution, adopted by 56 votes to 11 with two abstentions, lays bare the political urgency felt in Brussels: “We do not have time to waste,” as one rapporteur put it. For MEPs, removing the red tape that currently hampers military mobility is not simply a tactical improvement — it is a strategic imperative.
A Military Mobility Revolution
At the heart of the proposal is the creation of a true “military Schengen area,” granting armed forces across the EU a level of cross-border access akin to that enjoyed by civilian traffic. Under the plan, military convoys would enjoy priority transit, streamlined authorisations, and reduced administrative delays — crucial measures if Europe is to respond swiftly to potential aggression.
To bring this vision to life, MEPs call for a dedicated military mobility task force and a European coordinator to oversee implementation. They also propose a digital, one-stop shop to issue cross-border movement authorisations for military assets — eliminating redundant national procedures.
Investing in Infrastructure — Quickly
But reform will not mean much without investment. MEPs emphasise that upgrading the EU’s military mobility corridors must be matched by targeted funding. They welcome the Commission’s proposal to boost the military mobility budget to more than €17 billion, but warn that this commitment must not be watered down.
The resolution identifies some 500 critical infrastructure “hotspots”, including bridges and tunnels, which must be strengthened to support heavy military traffic. According to MEPs, turning these corridors into a credible military network will ultimately require around €100 billion in long-term investment.
In parallel, they are calling for greater support for dual-use projects — those that benefit both civilian and defence use — and simpler application procedures to access funding.
Unifying EU-NATO Cooperation
A cornerstone of the proposal is closer EU–NATO cooperation. MEPs want regular joint exercises and “stress tests” to identify and remove obstacles that could hamper rapid deployment.
Perhaps most ambitiously, they urge alignment in response times: rapid-reaction forces should be able to cross EU internal borders in just three days during peacetime, and within 24 hours in a crisis.
This push is deeply consonant with broader European defence thinking. Earlier this year, Parliament called for a “Europe-led enforcement” capacity, warning that the EU must reduce its reliance on external actors and coordinate more deeply with NATO.
Voices from the Front Lines of European Defence
MEPs from across political groups made clear how seriously they view this reform. Transport and Tourism Committee rapporteur Roberts Zīle said: “Far too many hindrances to military mobility could be quickly addressed. The Commission’s proposal must be treated with urgency.”
From the Security and Defence Committee, Petras Auštrevičius warned: “Deterring an aggressor demands readiness. Deploying troops and hardware rapidly throughout the EU is not a luxury – it’s essential. A military Schengen must be built without delay.”
A Strategy Born of Eastern Flank Concerns
The driving force behind the resolution is not merely abstract geopolitics; it is a very real concern for the EU’s eastern flank. MEPs explicitly highlight the strategic vulnerability of countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, noting that swift deployment of reinforcements can be the difference between deterrence and defeat.
In their view, a military Schengen would provide a practical mechanism to strengthen NATO’s Eastern presence — without building parallel structures, but by improving the functionality of the EU’s own transport and security networks.
Moving from Ambition to Action
The resolution now awaits a vote in the European Parliament’s full sitting, likely during the December session. If backed, MEPs hope it will galvanise both Commission and member-state action — not just in terms of policies, but in hefty budgetary commitments and infrastructure upgrades.
They are demanding more than symbolic support: they want a roadmap from Brussels. And, crucially, they want long-term, reliable funding — not ad-hoc injections followed by budget cuts.
Strategic Stakes: Why It Matters
To supporters, the case for a military Schengen is not only about defence bureaucracy — it is about strategic sovereignty in a volatile world. As Russia continues to cast long shadows over Eastern Europe, the ability to move forces reliably across EU territory offers a form of deterrence that goes beyond rhetoric.
If realised, the plan could reshape European defence logistics. Rather than units waiting weeks for clearances or being stymied by infrastructure they cannot cross, forces would benefit from near-seamless access. This could make the difference in any future crisis, providing NATO and the EU with a sharper, faster, more credible defence posture.
The Road Ahead: Hope with Challenges
Implementation will not be easy. The scale of investment required, and the political sensitivities of military mobility, mean the plan must clear many hurdles. Some member states remain hesitant about ceding more control over transport corridors, while others worry about the cost burden. But MEPs argue that delay is far more dangerous than disagreement.
They make the case that Europe is at a historic inflection point: with Moscow showing no signs of stopping its aggressive posture, the only realistic path to security is collective readiness. A military Schengen, they say, is no panacea — but it could be the cornerstone of a genuinely resilient European defence posture.
Main Image: Philippe BUISSIN © European Union 2025 – Source : EP Usage terms: Identification of origin mandatory
This Article Originally Appeared at DEFENCE MATTERS.EU
Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
