By Andrew Gray and Lili Bayer
BRUSSELS, Dec 15 (Reuters) – The future of proposed EU “flagship” defence projects – including a counter-drone system initially called a drone wall – is in doubt as European Union leaders plan to snub a call to endorse them at a summit in Brussels next week.
The plans are at the centre of a power struggle between the European Commission – which proposed them – and some national governments, which argue big defence projects are primarily a matter for them and the NATO military alliance, not for the EU’s executive body.
EU heavyweights such as Germany, France and Italy – which have large defence industries and arms procurement departments – have made clear they prefer to work in coalitions to develop defence capabilities rather than on Commission-proposed projects.
One EU diplomat said there was “clear scepticism” about the flagship idea but it was too soon to say whether it would survive – a view echoed by several other diplomats.
Northern and eastern European countries aim to keep the projects alive by voicing support for them at a meeting of leaders from the bloc’s eastern flank in Helsinki on Tuesday, two days before the Brussels summit, diplomats say.
The Commission proposed four flagship projects in October as part of a “roadmap” to get Europe ready to defend itself by 2030, reflecting growing concern over Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine and doubts about U.S. commitments to European security under President Donald Trump.
The projects comprise a European Drone Defence Initiative, originally called a drone wall, an Eastern Flank Watch to fortify the bloc’s eastern borders, a European Air Shield and a European Space Shield.
The Commission roadmap called for EU leaders to endorse the flagships by the end of this year. But a first and second draft of conclusions for Thursday’s EU summit seen by Reuters – the latest dated Friday – contain no such endorsement.
An item can only be included in the summit conclusions with the unanimous approval of all 27 EU leaders, which seems unlikely at this stage. That would leave the flagships in limbo – neither approved nor rejected by the leaders.
“The word ‘flagships’ is not mentioned because some member states are against the idea,” said an EU official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “However, some others want to proceed with them.”
The European Commission said it would “keep working with our member states to turn the European Flagships into reality because they are essential for Europe’s readiness by 2030”.
DRONE WALL ATTRACTED ATTENTION AFTER INCURSIONS
The drone wall proposal attracted widespread public and political attention following the incursion of some 20 Russian drones into Poland in September and a spate of other drone incidents in countries including Romania, Denmark and Germany.
The Commission said the project would consist of a network of sensors, jamming systems and weapons to defeat drones.
But EU members are also forming coalitions of countries to work on filling gaps in Europe’s defence capabilities, separately from the flagship proposals.
Under that model, EU countries would jointly develop and procure anti-drone systems, for example, rather than work on a Commission-proposed flagship.
“The actual work will be done by member states,” predicted a second EU official.
The Commission proposed that flagships could be designated as European Defence Projects of Common Interest, making them eligible for EU funding. But officials said the coalitions of countries could also propose projects of common interest, and EU governments would ultimately decide on EU funding.
The initial drone wall proposal ran into resistance from southern and western European countries, who said it was too focused on eastern Europe when drones posed a security challenge right across the continent.
The Commission revamped the plan into a pan-European network, but some governments remained sceptical about the EU taking such an initiative.
(Reporting by Andrew Gray and Lili Bayer; Additional reporting by Essi Lehto and Anne Kauranen in Helsinki; Editing by Hugh Lawson)
Comments