How to make the EU’s defence commissioner work

The EU stands at a critical juncture in redefining its defence strategy.

Amid mounting security challenges, the idea of appointing an EU commissioner for the defence industry — first proposed by Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen in February 2024 — is gaining traction among some member states and think tanks.

However, this proposal hinges on two critical conditions, beyond the usual European horse-trading for such a high-level position.

First, the EU must allocate a sufficient budget to incentivise joint development, production, and purchases.

And second, the new role must not undermine that of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP). Enhancing institutional efficiency should be a priority when setting up this new portfolio.

A bigger budget for meaningful impact

A defence industry commissioner could be instrumental in tackling the fragmentation of defence industries across EU member states.

However, to break down national silos and foster effective cooperation, the budget allocated to the new commissioner must be substantial.

Anything less than tens of billions of euros would be insufficient to create the necessary incentives for joint projects.

The initiatives proposed within the European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP) are steps in the right direction, but a transformative impact requires significantly more funding.

With an ample budget, the defence industry commissioner would be in a position to stimulate large-scale projects that no single member state could undertake alone.

Pooling resources and expertise would enable more advanced and cost-effective military capabilities, bolstering the EU's defence posture and reducing Europe’s dependency on US arms suppliers.

Moreover, only with adequate funding could the new commissioner address the persistent issue of duplication and inefficiency within the EU's defence sector.

By centralising procurement and standardising equipment (following Nato standards), the EU could achieve economies of scale and interoperability among the national defence industries, making its defence policy more agile.

This would not only strengthen the EU's defence capabilities but also signal a strong commitment to collective security and fostering the European pillar within Nato. 

Working with, not against the HRVP

While the benefits of a defence industry commissioner are clear, this new role must not undermine that of the HRVP, who oversees the EU's Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and heads the European Defence Agency (EDA).

Internal rivalry would erode the EU's credibility and effectiveness on the global stage even more than its meagre defence capabilities already have.

To ensure complementarity between the two roles, the new defence commissioner should focus on industrial and procurement aspects while the EU foreign affairs chief, who is expected to be Estonia's Kaja Kallas, continues to account for the strategic and policy-oriented dimensions of defence and security.

The success of this dual structure hinges on robust communication and coordination mechanisms. Regular consultations between the defence industry commissioner and the HRVP as well as their respective teams can ensure that their efforts are aligned and mutually reinforcing.

This would create a cohesive defence strategy that leverages the strengths of both roles.

The establishment of this portfolio is a promising proposal that could help to enhance the EU’s defence capabilities.

However, its potential benefits will only materialise if the initiative is properly resourced and carefully integrated into the existing institutional framework.

By working toward this, the EU can achieve a more robust and effective defence posture, positioning itself as a global actor capable of meeting the 21st-century’s complex security challenges.