Erkin Oncan
The issue is not just allowing tanks to cross borders easily; it is the reorganization of borders, cities, ports, highways, and budgets according to military logic.
The European Union (EU), long associated with free movement, customs-free trade, and a common market, is now reshaping its borders for a completely different purpose: the seamless passage of tanks and armies.
The Military Mobility Package announced by the European Commission is, in the literal sense, a step that pushes Europe into the most comprehensive military infrastructure transformation since the end of the Cold War.
What is military mobility?
Military mobility means the rapid transfer of troops, equipment, and materials from one place to another - including crises requiring civilian evacuation. Achieving this depends on appropriate infrastructure, sufficient transport capacity, and effective rules and procedures. Transportation can be carried out by the armed forces or by civilian carriers contracted by military authorities.
The Commission's proposal focuses on three main issues: regulatory facilitation, strengthening critical infrastructure, capability matching, and coordination with NATO.
With the new regulation, pre-determined procedures, emergency exemptions and prioritization mechanisms are introduced for the movement of military personnel, vehicles, and equipment across member states.
The plan emphasizes the importance of close coordination with NATO; many of the steps are intended to be aligned with both EU and NATO standards.
European security circles argue that the current system operates "slowly."
Bridges unable to carry 60-ton tanks, tunnels too narrow, outdated rail systems, runways unable to support heavy cargo aircraft, current driver rest requirements, customs procedures, and - most importantly - permit processes stretching up to 45 days.
In short, any military force moving across Europe is legally, structurally, and practically forced to move slowly. What the EU wants to "change" is precisely this. Because the anticipated "big war" with Russia requires structural changes across Europe.
Although Brussels has published numerous documents on the plan, it can also be explained in simple terms: Tanks will now pass through "Schengen" too.
Permit times, traffic rules
The current notification requirement for cross-border military movements in Europe is 45 days. This is far behind the three-day border-crossing procedure EU countries committed to in 2024.
EU High Representative for Foreign Policy Kaja Kallas summarized the "problem" bluntly: "If a bridge can't carry a 60-ton tank, we have a problem. If a runway is too short for a cargo plane, we cannot resupply our personnel. It is unacceptable 11 years after Russia's annexation of Crimea."
Under the new regulation, military forces moving across borders must be granted passage within three days. Compared to the present 45-day notification rule, this is a truly "radical" change.
Additionally, when an "emergency" is in effect, mandatory rest periods for drivers and certain traffic rules will be suspended, customs procedures for items such as food sent to military personnel will be accelerated, and military vehicles will be given priority in traffic.
This means, for example, that a tank brigade could be shifted from Germany to Poland and from there to the Baltic corridors in a very short time.
Critical infrastructure adjustments
Significant changes are also expected in Europe's infrastructure for the Military Schengen.
The Russia-Ukraine war, and the heightened concerns it triggered across Europe, have reshaped perceptions of security within the EU, prompting member states to put infrastructure and logistics at the center of defence planning.
In Europe's current infrastructure system, this has only one meaning: civilian domains being transformed for military purposes.
Strengthening infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, ports, and railways "to support heavy military vehicles" may directly affect civilian use, and bridges or roads built or reinforced for military needs could reshape urban planning and civilian transportation.
Moreover, European countries - most of them NATO members - pledged in June to allocate 5% of GDP to defence in order to protect infrastructure and ensure defence readiness, with 1.5% earmarked specifically for critical infrastructure. Brussels argues the plan does not overlap with NATO but instead reinforces the alliance's defence planning.
EU officials also announced that member states will be able to use existing EU infrastructure funds for transportation networks adapted to military needs and can additionally tap into a new €150 billion defence credit program. This entire picture suggests that the infrastructure adjustments will bring major changes both in budgetary and social terms.
EU officials have prepared a priority list of 500 bridges, tunnels, roads, ports, and airports that must be adapted or strengthened to withstand heavy military traffic. The cost of these investments is around €100 billion. In the proposed long-term EU budget for 2028-2034, military mobility spending is set to be increased tenfold to €17.6 billion.
In fact, the EU launched its military mobility policy back in November 2017. The first Joint Action Plan of 2018 focused on improving the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) for dual-use purposes, leading to a €1.7 billion dedicated military mobility budget under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for 2021-2027, supporting 95 dual-use transport projects in 21 member states.
The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - described as "an important EU funding instrument that promotes growth, employment and competitiveness through targeted infrastructure investments at European level" - will now be used for tank transit.
Completed projects
There are already completed projects aligned with the EU's "new needs." These projects are key to fulfilling the vision of a Military Schengen:
Three new overpasses on Wojska Polskiego Avenue in Poland were adapted for the passage of oversized military vehicles along the Baltic-Adriatic Corridor.
In Latvia, a new 1C-class icebreaker entered service in March 2025, improving civilian and military navigation in winter conditions and supporting NATO's Eastern flank logistics.
In Portugal, WAM/ADS-B air surveillance technology improved the Air Force's air traffic control capabilities and established a nationwide civil-military surveillance network.
Two bridges on the A2 highway in Poland were upgraded to support 130-ton vehicles.
In Italy, railway lines and systems in Pontedera and Palmanova were adapted to accommodate 740-meter trains.
Modifications at the Oritkari railway junction in Finland reduced maneuvering times and strengthened the system to enable the transport of large military equipment.
The Suwalki section of Lithuania's A5 Kaunas highway was improved, enhancing security and strengthening military connections.
At Franjo Tuđman Airport in Croatia, taxiways were upgraded to accommodate military aircraft and lighting was improved.
New digital surveillance systems were developed at Warsaw Chopin Airport in Poland, adapted to military operations.
At the Verbrugge Zeeland Terminal in the Netherlands, two railway tracks were expanded to support 740-meter trains, capacity increased by 30%, and loading times "accelerated."
Criticism and objections
This is the EU's "official" project. While supporters argue it will make Europe safer, critics gather around three main arguments:
- The reconstruction of civilian infrastructure according to military needs
Strengthening a bridge to carry a 60-ton tank may of course benefit civilian life. But it also means that cities and transportation networks will now prioritize military requirements.
- The normalization of troop movements
Military convoys are not part of daily life in many EU countries. With this plan, Europe's highways and railways will witness military transfers far more frequently.
- Oversight problems
The question of which military unit can enter which country, and how fast, is an extremely political issue. Accelerating these processes may weaken the oversight power of parliaments and local governments.
In short, prioritizing this new military arrangement could, as "new necessities" emerge, mean additional restrictions in social, economic, and political terms.
Because the issue is not just allowing tanks to cross borders easily; it is the reorganization of borders, cities, ports, highways, and budgets according to military logic.