Europe has set itself a clear goal: be militarily ready by 2030. But with drone incursions, airspace violations and a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape, is that timeline still realistic? And what does "ready" actually mean in practice?
In this episode of Allies in Innovation, host Mikkel Svold revisits the EU security and defense agenda with Séverin Schnepp, Associate Director of European Affairs at Terma, and Christine Nissen, Chief Analyst at Think Tank Europa. Together, they unpack the EU Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030, the Danish EU presidency, and what has really changed in the past four months on defense and security.
They discuss new EU instruments like EDIP and the SAFE loan, the idea of European preference in defense procurement, and the evolving relationship between states and industry. At the same time, they explore the political realities, national interests and time pressure that could either drive Europe toward real readiness or keep it stuck in talks and strategies.
If you want to understand how Europe is trying to move from vision to capability, this episode gives you a clear and grounded overview.
In this episode, you will learn about:
- What the EU Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030 actually aims to achieve.
- How the Danish EU presidency has pushed key defense initiatives forward.
- The role of EDIP and the SAFE loan in strengthening Europe’s defense industry.
- What European preference means for defense procurement and industry.
- Why drones and hybrid threats are changing the sense of urgency.
- How national interests and geography shape countries’ threat perceptions.
- Why the relationship between states and defense industry needs a reset.
- The main roadblocks to coordination, speed and common capability projects.
Episode Content
00:00 Can Europe be ready for war by 2030 and what does readiness mean
01:03 New security reality with airspace violations and drone incursions
01:48 Introducing guests Séverin Schnepp and Christine Nissen
04:26 EDIP, the Defense Roadmap and cutting red tape for industry
05:40 How the broader geopolitical context has raised the stakes
08:27 The SAFE loan and how 19 member states have signed up
09:25 Turning EU money and loans into real capabilities and production
10:58 What the EU can do to better push the agenda into industry
13:14 European preference and why EU funds are tied to EU-made systems
18:23 Main roadblocks: coordination, speed and defining “smart choices”
21:03 Rebuilding the state, industry relationship and long term trust
23:19 Is the 2030 readiness goal realistic and how deadlines change behavior
33:25 What defense spending looks like per EU citizen
35:18 The final stretch of the Danish presidency and what comes next
37:22 Flagship capability projects and priorities for 2026 and beyond
Production
This podcast is brought to you by Terma.
This podcast is produced by Montanus.
Episode Transcript
Mikkel Svold (00:00): We talked about it in the last episode, the Defense Readiness Program, we should be ready for war by 2030. Will we still make it?
Severin Schnepp (00:07): It's always the same question of what does it mean to be ready? The European Commission has presented a plan, the Defense Readiness Roadmap 2030.
Christine Nissen (00:15): The incentive is that more EU countries are working together, the European preference idea that you see groups of countries going together, developing products, developing capabilities that you then also incentivize the states to procure together.
Mikkel Svold (00:33): What are some of the roadblocks that you see for this to succeed?
Severin Schnepp (00:37): The challenge I would say of coordination and the challenge of speed.
Christine Nissen (00:41): We need to completely rebuild the relationship between the state and the industry on a range of policy areas, but especially when it comes to the events.
Mikkel Svold (01:03): Across Europe, tensions remain high with airspace violations reported in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and drone incursions happening across Europe. Against this backdrop, the EU has made tangible progress. We've made progress on several key initiatives including capacities, including financing, and of course including regulation and spending. Welcome to Allies in Innovation. I'm Mikkel Svold and I'll be your host. And in this episode, we are revisiting the EU security and defense agenda. And we'll try and evaluate the first full month of the Danish EU presidency, and we'll explore how these initiatives on defense they have moved forward and what remains to be solved.
(01:48): So, in the studio with me, I once again have Severin Schnepp, who is the director of European Affairs at Terma. Welcome to you.
Severin Schnepp (01:55): Thank you, Mikkel.
Mikkel Svold (01:57): And I also have Christine Nissen, who is the chief analyst at Think Tank Europe. Welcome.
Christine Nissen (02:01): Thank you.
Mikkel Svold (02:02): So, Severin, think the first question that we probably need to ask is, we talked about it in the last episode, the Defense Readiness Program 2030. So, we should be ready for war by 2030. Will we still make it, do you think? And is it soon enough?
Severin Schnepp (02:19): Yes, thanks Mikkel. So, obviously that's the question that keeps everyone awake at night. I would say I think we have to be positive. I think we have a plan. Like you mentioned, the European Commission has presented a plan, the Defense Readiness one Roadmap 2030, which is the evolution I would say that we have from the previous episodes where we were talking a lot, but we didn't have a clear plan. So, now we have something to deliver on and something where the member states will be hold accountable, where we have some metrics where we will measure the progress.
(02:52): It's always the same question of what does it mean to be ready, but I would say that we are always ready when we have a plan, when we have an action plan, and we will probably talk more about it. But this plan really bring up a lot of new things. We talk a lot about the European flagship projects. We might get back to this later. Also, some new ways of funding defense, new way of buying together, reinstating the European preference for industry. So, my personal assessment is that yes, we have a plan, so we should be positive that we are making the right move towards this target.
Mikkel Svold (03:30): And I think maybe Christine, could you take us through what has actually happened in the EU over the course of these last four months? I know it's a fairly short period of time for a democratic process of this magnitude, but anyway, what has happened? Where have we moved forward?
Christine Nissen (03:44): Well, I do think that on quite a few number of areas and a key focus for our last podcast session was the priorities for the Danish presidency. And the main priority perhaps has been that of defense and security. And this is also the issue area where the presidency has been most successful. There are a number of examples. So, we've seen how the Danish presidency has concluded the EDIP, the European Defense Industrial Program, which was also expected to be finalized during the Danish presidency. But that doesn't mean it hasn't been difficult.
(04:26): There has definitely been some Danish diplomats having some long nights in terms of finalizing this program, which is an important program for the EU's defense industry and one that has been underway for quite some time. Then we have of course the Defense Roadmap, which is also exactly as Severin says, this is a very significant document. It's a plan which will hopefully implement some of those big strategic visions that have been flowing around for some time now and then some other smaller, we also have the defense omnibus that is about cutting red tape, making it easier for the European defense industry to integrate. So, there are some concrete examples of the Danish presidency moving forward.
(05:16): And of course, this has been some busy month in a broader perspective. It is also a difficult timing for the Danish presidency, because of the geopolitical context. You could argue that we almost have a new security situation. The airspace violations have been quite a turning point for the European security order.
Mikkel Svold (05:40): Actually, that leads me another question, which is what has changed in the environment? And I don't know if the listener can hear us a little bit of a rumbling in the background. It's actually because today, we are sitting in the headquarters in the hallway of Terma. So, it's a pretty central location, but it might be a little bit of rumbling in the background. But Severin, what has changed in the environment for Europe since we last spoke, which is only four months ago, but I'm thinking the US with Trump, I'm thinking Ukraine obviously with the war with Russia and also what about the other member states?
Severin Schnepp (06:20): Yeah, I think it's a fair assessment to say that the security environment has degraded, simply to say that we've seen a number of activities. You mentioned it, a violation of airspace by jet fighters, a drone incursions. Again, just last week, I think Brussels airport had to close three times in the same day because of a drone's incursions in the national airspace. Additionally, I think we've seen more and more concerns from how will the war in Ukraine evolve, how is it going to change? And basically, the realization that supporting Ukraine is necessary, but Europe needs to keep rearming itself.
(07:03): We've been talking a lot about the sense of urgency and I think this has been almost, I would say a political buzzword that we need to do this. But now I think the facts have become bigger than just the talks. And I think this is what is changing. And just to give an example, some drones, when there was the Copenhagen European Council, it was just the days after the drone incursions Denmark in the Danish airspace. And since then we have been talking about drones so much and even Ukraine has proposed to support European nations on counter drone technologies. So, I think we just see that there is a new, I would say momentum or at least a new understanding of the level of threats that we are in.
Mikkel Svold (07:50): Yeah. And talking about the drones, we've also talked about drones on this podcast with Karsten Marrup who is from the Danish Defense College. So, if you haven't heard that to the listeners, then go back and hear that. It's very, very interesting. I think one of the things that I want to highlight is that last time we talked about the EDIP, the European Defense Investment Program, and we talked about the joint loan, the safe loan of, as far as I recall 150,000 billion euros, what does this mean to the defense industry and are they approved? Are we moving forward and what happens now?
Christine Nissen (08:27): We have seen how these instruments are more or less finalized. So, we have the safe loan. I think we discussed in the last podcast how that would be received by the member states. And now we know that it has been quite well-received. We have 19 member states who have applied for a loan to be given to developing together out of 27. So, the loan is basically fully ascribed at this point. And I think there was even discussion at some point whether any member state would be interested in these funds and what they give opportunity for. Yeah.
Mikkel Svold (09:11): Yeah. So, money is on the way, basically?
Christine Nissen (09:11): Some money, yes. Mm-hmm.
Mikkel Svold (09:13): Some money. How do we then turn these money into something that was a political project and now into actual production of defense equipment? What happens now?
Severin Schnepp (09:25): Yes, exactly what happened. I think this is where in the industry, we have definitely this is our responsibility. It's not just about the money. It's about how do you create the value for money and how do you produce. I just came back from a Bucharest where there was the NATO industry forum, and I think it was interesting because the NATO Secretary General say, "Industry, everything you produce would be purchased. Do not be afraid of surplus. We will buy it." And I think it was a very strong message, but it was also in a way, a message that we need to remember that when you have a growing industry, it also means growing costs.
(10:02): So, if we need to produce more, something that is actually important to understand is that not all the money goes directly into buying something or producing something or to produce something, it costs money. If you take a company like Terma, we've been growing staff wise. But that means that if we want to produce more and deliver in time and in volume of what we are being required, that means that we need to make a lot of investments, investments yet to recruit people, investments, to strengthen the production lines investment in R and D, because it's also a lot about still being technologically relevant for the threats we are facing.
(10:37): So, I think it's an important parameter to understand that growth is not just I would say about production, it's also about people and it's about the tools to produce and that takes a lot of our time.
Mikkel Svold (10:51): What do you think the EU needs to do to push the agenda into the industry, Christine?
Christine Nissen (10:58): I think that we have come some way at this point, but it's also with these many new initiatives including this new roadmap, which is indeed a significant instrument in terms of moving from talk to action or implementation. Maybe we can talk a bit more about how that is envisioned. But at the same time, many of these EU instruments also emphasize the fact that defense is a national domain and the EU knows this, defense is very close to the national heart. And the EU has very much constructed many of these EU instruments in a way where the member states will be the driving force. So, what we need is still for this to work, political leadership in terms of implementing and also more national money.
(11:51): We also see that many of these things, example the safe loan, that's a loan, it needs to be repaid at some times. And we have also seen now the negotiations over this new European industrial program that's the EU member states, they didn't manage to find new money. And it's also the amount of money of EU money is still limited in terms of what is actually needed at this point. But at the same time, obviously we do have a situation where probably in 2025, we'll reach those 2% of GDP. The European member states are spending on defense. So, there is a political willingness in Europe. It's a bit different compared to which country you zoom in on, but it's there, but it will be driven by the member states.
Severin Schnepp (12:43): I fully agree and I think it's important to also understand that the EU at the end of the day, and when I say EU, the European Commission is here to incentivize and create a market signal. So, if you take the safe loan, it's 150 billion euros subscribed by 19 member state as Christine has said. But ultimately, it's not that much money if you have to split this by 19 member states. But it is a way to incentivize. And if you link this to the AD program we just talked about, both instruments are actually linked to what we call this European preference and buying together.
(13:14): And I think this is a very interesting, I would say topic because European preference means product that are first of all produced in the EU, second produced by an EU controlled entity, third, that have at least 65% of EU components. And finally, that have what we call the European design authority to translate. It's the IPR as an industry, the ability to modify, for instance, a radar as you need without having to ask the permission from any other country. And so, this is shaping the market now.
Mikkel Svold (13:48): Yeah, so just to get that clear. So, the money that are coming, they are primarily for European initiatives or things developed in Europe, solutions developed in Europe?
Severin Schnepp (14:01): Yeah, EU funds will go to EU industry and EU products.
Mikkel Svold (14:06): Now, Christine, you mentioned the fact that of course these loans and the way that the industry in the Europe works right now in contrast to say Russia, say the US, say China, any other place basically, any other major player are very dependent on these national states, on the individual members. We talked about it last time a little bit also, don't we risk to have just a lot of small working for themselves, working for the nation only solutions rather than having this big holistic web of cooperation across Europe?
Christine Nissen (14:42): Mm-hmm. This is of course still very much a risk and this is how the European defense industry to large extent looks like today. And this is also very much what the EU commission is trying to change, right? And exactly as you say Severin, the EU perhaps doesn't come with that much money as such. This is not where the key focus has been, but it is the incentives. And here, we do see some very new processes that are being started by EU instruments addressing exactly this problem. And I think that of...
Mikkel Svold (15:26): What incentives is that?
Christine Nissen (15:27): For example, the European preference that in order to get your hands on these money, even though it's not that much, but the idea is of course, that you also put in national money in that fund. But the incentive is that more EU countries are working together, the European preference idea that you see groups of countries going together, developing products, developing capabilities that you then also incentivize the states to procure together. So, this is very much the driving focus for the commission changing that fragmentation you mentioned, which is not only economic risks but also very much a security risk. It's much more difficult working together when you don't have the same capabilities.
(16:19): So, that's obviously a key focus and I think that most member states can see that it makes a lot of sense. There are just still a lot of national interests involved in how we structure the...
Mikkel Svold (16:32): And you also have geographical differences, right? It's different being Spain than being Poland.
Severin Schnepp (16:41): Exactly.
Mikkel Svold (16:42): In the current threat scenario, it's just different. And the incentives from those two opposites, they must be different.
Severin Schnepp (16:49): Yeah. If you take, for instance, we talk about the safe loan. I think Poland on its own subscribed for a bit more than 40 billion euros, almost one third of the loan actually was subscribed by Poland. So, it's obviously the threat perception is completely different. But I want you to just give an example of we talk about this European preference and these incentives, and it's important to look at it of course at the continental level, but also look at national level of what our country actually doing. And if you take two examples, one is Denmark. Denmark selected a couple of months ago for its current based air defense, a European system, which is a French-Italian, it's called SAMTNG.
(17:26): And it's interesting because that system was actually in competition with the US Patriot. Now of course, it's not just a matter of political choice, it's a matter of requirements, it's a matter of what you need, what makes sense capability wise. But it's an interesting would say signals that you see. And another one is Germany. Germany is planning to spend a bit more than 80 billion euros in contracts next year for its defense. And 90% of that money will go to actually European systems and European equipment. Again, we also need to look at what our country actually doing, not just the political discussion, but also in fact what is actually happening.
(18:08): And I think it's a good example to see that this European preference goes beyond simply some EU instruments that are incentivizing. It's also at national level. There's also decisions that are being made that are actually much more impactful. And if we turn
Mikkel Svold (18:23): Our head around and then say, okay, what are some of the roadblocks that you see for this to succeed, what is the primary roadblock?
Severin Schnepp (18:32): Well, I can start, but I think it's always a mix of the challenge I would say, of coordination and the challenge of speed, speed is of essence. That's something that I've heard in a lot of places and a lots of conferences. So, yes, it's about speed and it's about making sure that we make the smart choices. But smart choices, everyone can have its own definition of is that the right decision or not? So, I think it's a lot about how do we coordinate early on, and especially for industry, what we need as an industry is to be involved from as early as possible in all this procurement process, because then we are able to match the requirements that are being asked. We're able to actually produce at scale.
(19:19): We're able to make a solution that makes sense both in production capacity and in times of delivery. It's also a matter of trust. That means that in an industry like Terma, we need to have this relationship of trust with whether it's the Danish authorities, it's the NATO allies, whether it's in other industrial partnership.
Christine Nissen (19:44): Mm-hmm. And I think this is also a good example of the... actually all of these dilemmas or roadblocks that you are mentioning are also good examples of the time that we are in today. Because for example, the relationship between industry and state is something that we need to think about in a completely different way. We have talked about for a long time, it's a chicken and the egg question. The state needs to tell the industry what it needs and give some security in order for the industry to take the risk and produce it.
(20:21): And therefore, it's also interesting what you mentioned, what you took with you from Bucharest that now there is this announcement from NATO and the member states that will buy whatever you'll produce. But nevertheless, this has been something that quite recently was not the announcement made. And actually, yes, there are some countries obviously where the relationship between the state and the industry is very close. But in European countries this is not the case. And we are in a new time today where we need to completely rebuild the relationship between the state and the industry on a range of policy areas, but especially when it comes to defense and this is a new way of...
Mikkel Svold (21:03): What needs to be rebuilt?
Christine Nissen (21:04): How close the relationship will be. It's a good thing that we now have a state representative that are up for buying what the industry will produce. But we need to institutionalize that relationship to a much larger extent. And what we're talking about today, many of these EU instruments are trying to do exactly that. But sometimes, there's also a little bit a question of scale when it comes to there's only that much these instruments can do. And what we talked about before, it is the member states that are driving these processes. So, they need to be willing to do that as well.
Mikkel Svold (21:45): And Severin, what can the industry as such, what can the industry do to get in a closer relationship with governments?
Severin Schnepp (21:54): I think again, it's about trust. And I mean I want to just give an examples because I think it's just easier, and it's a Terma example. So, we have a 30 years long contract on a Very Short-Range Air Defense, VSHORAD with the DALO. So, the Danish acquisition and logistic organization and 30 years is a very long time, but it's a time that allow us to actually build that relationship. Of course, you need trust from the beginning because committing to 30 years is a long time, but then it allows us to work together and have several phases progressing into this relationship. So, it's about long-term contract and not being afraid of doing this.
(22:34): And I fully agree with what Christine has said, that it's different times. We need to think different. In Bucharest, the SACT, so the top admiral in NATO, Pierre Vandier, he said that in Ukraine they don't have time to test and they don't have time to train. We still have time to test and we still have time to train, but we also need to look at this from a different perspective. And it's a different time, it's a different pace.
Christine Nissen (22:59): Yeah, no, and in that context, it's also interesting, for example, the EU readiness 2030 plan was criticized for, or a problem was, is it even realistic that we'll be ready in 2030? Which is interesting because we do not have that...
Mikkel Svold (23:19): It's an honest question also, right?
Christine Nissen (23:21): Definitely. It's an honest question and it's something like there is this story that apparently speaking about the Danish presidency was actually Denmark quite from high up that suggested this idea of 2030. And many member states were like, "No, that's too soon. We are not ready, let's push it back a bit. Or let's not be so concrete about the timing."
(23:44): And therefore, I also think leading back to your introduction, that this new situation that we are in right now with the threats, the hybrid threats from the drones, and now we're in a situation where we have to... that's also a turning point in the sense that much of the defense planning that we're doing right now and the procurement, the orders that are being put in also have a time perspective in where we need to be ready in 2030 and now we have a new situation where we need to be ready before 2030. So, that also changed the way that we are structuring our readiness planning at this point of time.
(24:27): And also in terms of what we're buying, right? Because a lot of Europe's capacity crisis is about our shelves being empty. We do not have the capabilities required, but we also need to have a discussion about what capabilities, because does it make sense to stock, for example, drones? No, it doesn't.
Mikkel Svold (24:47): They'll simply be outdated in five years.
Christine Nissen (24:49): Exactly, exactly. So, do we need to think in completely new terms, like have a subscription order go together in a smaller group of countries where we maybe do not need to own everything ourselves? So, there are many things that are up in the air right now when it comes to procurement and the way that we are structuring our defense readiness.
Mikkel Svold (25:10): Our institutions and the states, are they moving fast enough to match these? Now you say it's not even a 2030, it even sooner these ambitions, are we moving fast enough?
Severin Schnepp (25:21): I mean I think again, it's always a difficult question, but I would say that yeah, it is very challenging to move being 27 in the room, plus some of the associated country, it's very difficult decision you have to make. Everyone comes with a different background. Some countries have a high public depth, some countries are in a really good shape. Everyone has also a different army size wise. So, not the name, not the same requirements. I think there's been a lot of efforts if you see, I think defense has been on the agenda of the European council almost all the time, which usually sometimes it was not always the case. So, I think everyone is doing as best as they can.
(26:08): But I also think it's very important to not stumble upon too much of a nationalistic issues, or my point is to say we are all in the same team and we need to keep moving together. And we see that it's not always a given on all topics. And we see that sometimes the debate can also stumble into more, I would say, political ideas than rather than, for instance, industrial reality. And this is where we need to be careful, and this is where I would say it's important that industry is also engaged in all these conversations because we need to also be there to remind that yes, we understand your point, but this might not be doable actually from a purely production perspective.
Mikkel Svold (26:53): I think it was you Severin who mentioned last time, we talked that from the very beginning that the EU was in some member states saw EU as this joint project that will make EU basically play among the superpowers of the world. And then I think you said, yeah, but when Denmark joined back in the days, it was more for what's in it for me, it was purely for financial and economic reasons. Now what you're talking about here is that we actually need to have all of the EU member states take this mentality of we are maybe not one nation, but we are one collective that can move forward and has power in the world on the global scene, yeah, as one team. How far are we?
(27:45): And again, we can talk a Danish contact, but actually I think for the listeners, it might be just as relevant to talk about other member states. How far are we from this one team feeling? Because when I look around, when I travel Italy or France, every time I pass a hotel, I see the European flag. When I pass a hotel in Denmark, I see no European flags. So, how far away are we from this one team sensation or feeling?
Christine Nissen (28:19): That's a good question. And I guess that all politics is a product of its time, right? And you could probably also, because that's right, from a Danish perspective, our approach to EU membership has been one of cost efficiency, but much of what we're talking about now is very much also cost efficiency and then so much more as well, right? And I think that Denmark has indeed been on quite a journey when it comes to our relationship to the EU.
Mikkel Svold (28:51): But actually, I think just now before it was an economic, basically what's in it for me economic wise? Is it the same today just with defense, or are we seeing a broader sense of European-ness in Denmark or is it still just what's in it for me, realizing that we are a mini-put nation?
Severin Schnepp (29:13): I mean I know that the think tank Europa make great statistics usually on the European feeling among the Danish population. So, I'm sure Christine would have a good example on that. But I think, and again, I'm not Danish myself, but I have the feeling that at least for a company like Terma, there is a much bigger understanding of the European agenda, the European security awareness and why we need to play a role in this. So, I do believe that there is an understanding that again, we are all in the same team or no country can face and respond to all these challenges alone. Now again, we are also victim sometimes of our own diversity.
(29:52): I usually use these examples that if you were in a room and you have to choose a movie being 27, you're always going to end up choosing probably not a film or something extremely specific. Yeah, you might end up with, I don't know, Shrek, because maybe that's the consensus you can get. So, it's also sometimes building the hard consensus or building a consensus on the high standards. This is very difficult. But we also need to have faith in us Europeans that we can find the right answers when the problem is there. I would say that it would be nice if we could avoid to always wait for the last minute to get there, but we see that we are able to be to take difficult and courageous decisions when it's needed.
Mikkel Svold (30:37): I don't know, Christine, would you like to add to that?
Christine Nissen (30:41): Ah, yeah, maybe just a couple of points. When it comes to the Danes, yes, the relationship to EU and not least EU defense has really changed. I think we had some numbers from 2025 where I think it was 84% of the Danes wanted the EU to play a bigger role when it come to EU defense. So, that's quite a high number. And I think if you take your eyes away from Denmark as such and look at the European perceptions when it comes to what the EU should be doing and the extent to which Europe is acting as one.
(31:24): We do have a similar story where to a larger extent there is a pretty historical majority of European states after probably the Ukraine invasion being the main turning point, and then pushed even more by the new Trump administration where we agree on how we need common solutions to these big problems including that of our security situation and our capability gaps and trying to close them. So, we have as a historically high group of European countries, both at the political leadership and also amongst the European populations that want much more Europe and a more sovereign Europe as well.
(32:15): We do also have a higher number of politicization and a higher number of polarization amongst European populations that are pushing a little bit back in terms of this development. So, both more, wants more Europe and then also a rising group that are pushing back.
Severin Schnepp (32:40): No, I fully agree and I think we also need to remember that defense is a big piece of any state budget that means that it needs to be relevant for the EU citizen. So, we shouldn't forget this dimension that at the end of the day, wherever you live in Europe, you want to feel in a safe place. You want to feel secure, right? Security is one of the first need and necessity in life. And there was a very interesting figures from Euractiv EU media. They calculated in 2024, how much defense would cost per EU citizen. It was an average across nations. So, it's worth what it's worth. But they came to the conclusion that each EU citizens were paying per day, two euro and 90 cents for their defense.
(33:25): It's not a lot, it's less than three euro per person every day. I think it's also part of the public discussion or is this enough? Of course again, some countries spend more, some countries spend less. So, it wouldn't be fair to just... but I think the figure in itself is interesting.
Mikkel Svold (33:41): You have one last point, our time is...
Christine Nissen (33:42): Just a very short point. I saw another very interesting figure where defense spending after the end of the Cold War had gone down. We all know that. And then the health spending, how much a state is spending on health has gone up like this. So, that means that I think that we are in a situation now in the coming years since we are now approaching this year 2.1% of GDP on defense, where those money will go from other things. We have been used to a situation where we could spend money on issues like health and issues like cutting taxes.
(34:20): And I very much agree that we'll need to really get our citizens on board with the fact that the way that we'll structure our national spending in the coming decades probably will be very different from what we have been used to.
Mikkel Svold (34:37): I think we made that point actually in the last episode also, or maybe it could be in another episode with other people, but the fact that right now, people don't really feel the extra spending, but there comes a time when that extra spending on defense is going to come from somewhere and that can be of course tax raising or it can come from different areas, and that of course will then it's going to be interesting to see what then happens to the attitude towards increased defense spendings. Our time is needed up, but I want to just look forward just a little bit. Today is the 10th of November, so we still have a little bit less than two months left of the presidency.
(35:18): What should we expect for the next two months and what do you think we will leave for the next presidency in Cyprus, Severin?
Severin Schnepp (35:27): Yeah, yeah. As you mentioned, so we are now 60 days until the end of the presidency. I think we mentioned it in the beginning...
Mikkel Svold (35:34): Not that you're counting.
Severin Schnepp (35:36): No, I'm totally counting, but that's the Brussels effect you always need to calculate for the next one. But no, I think when it comes to defense, at least the Danish presidency made two big win. One being this EDIP program with this European preference. And the other one just happened last week, which was what we call the mini omnibus just to simplify reallocation of some EU fund into defense. That was a good thing. And I think for what's coming, we still have a simplification package that is being discussed. There is a lot of elements to it, including, for instance, a fast-tracking defense permit.
(36:09): So, if you want to open a new manufacturing facility, you would get an answer in 60 days instead of maybe stumbling in four, five, six months or more than days. So, there's that. We talk a lot about money. The Danish EU presidency also initiated the discussion on what we call the EU long-term budget. The commission proposed to multiply by five the amount dedicated to space and defense. So, it's quite interesting and it's also like we were talking about market trends and market effects.
(36:38): So, of course, the more you will have this mechanism, the more it will incentivize the market to have this consolidation of the European defense industry. And maybe the last topic is the so-called flagship projects. It's not called a drone wall anymore, but there is, let's say, European Defense Drone Initiative, Air Shield, Space Shield, and the last one, it's called Eastern Flank. These are project that still need to be determined, but it's supposed to be continental capabilities. And my hope is that we can see more concrete details and let's say plan for making this happen.
Mikkel Svold (37:16): Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Christine, if you were to point to one priority for 2026, what would that be?
Christine Nissen (37:22): I think where Severin ended with making these big common capability projects concrete. And the interesting thing about the EU defense roadmap is that it actually puts deadlines on some of these projects and deadlines that the heads of states will need to discuss and deliver on already in '26. So, that's quite also, we've talked about this several times to go from talk to action and I think this is one of the main areas where this defense roadmap is super ambitious, that it tries to put short deadlines on and also making the heads of states involved in this process. So, we'll know very much in '26 and '27 whether or not they have managed to deliver on some of these things.
(38:19): And I think that this will also make us determine whether we have actually managed to implement whether we have actually managed to move from talk to action.
Mikkel Svold (38:29): Do you agree with this? Is that your one priority if you were to choose, Severin?
Severin Schnepp (38:34): I would agree that now it's time for delivery and it's time to make things concrete. I think talks is great, but now what we need is actually a real tangible results. And again, back to the EU citizens that they need to see that what is being done at European level actually has a purpose and has a function, has a value for them. I think for me, that's the most important.
Mikkel Svold (38:58): Let those be the last words. Severin Schnepp, thank you so much for joining and the same to you, Christine Nissen
Severin Schnepp (39:02): Thank you.
Mikkel Svold (39:02): Thank you so much for joining the talk today.
Christine Nissen (39:04): Thanks.
Mikkel Svold (39:05): And to the listener out there, if you like this episode, please do share it with your friends and colleagues or whoever might find this interesting. For me, it was definitely interesting. It's interesting to see this one joint European force becoming reality and I think the whole making Europe one, I think it's an important point to be made also. Thank you so much for tuning in and if you have any questions, please do reach out to us at podcast@terma.com and that was podcast@terma.com. You can reach out with topics that we should bring up or you can reach if you have guest proposals.
(39:41): Of course, if you just want to say hi and ask questions for Severin or Christine and I can send those on. So, once again, thank you so much for listening and see you in the next episode.