Twenty want a slice of €100bn in EU arms loans, defence commissioner says
The SAFE lending mechanism, approved earlier this spring, is aimed at funding military purchases for EU countries, Norway and Ukraine included in the programme, and others – such as potentially the United Kingdom – mulling over whether to join as well.
"According to our informal evaluation, around of 20 member states will take loans – and that can be [a] very conservative evaluation," the Lithuanian commissioner said, adding it "could be for around €100 billion, but it can be even more."
Speaking with Euractiv just days before Tuesday's first deadline to express interest in the €150 billion pot under the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) programme, Kubilius said there is "big appetite" for the fund.
However, Kubilius did to specify which specific countries have put in requests, or divulge just how much each capital is hoping to borrow.
It is understood that Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech ia , Estonia, France, Ireland, Lithuan ia, Po land and Romania all are requesting funding . According to national sources, Austria, Finland, Slovakia remain unsure, while Germany and Sweden are expected to join broader procurement deals but not request the loans.
EU countries have until next week to signal their interest for the plan and say how much money they want to borrow via the EU, and then will have until November to decide on what to purchase with that cash.
In a letter from Kubilius to the EU countries seen by Euractiv, Kubilius called on the countries to use the money for joint purchases, even though they are allowed to go solo.i The Commission is also open to EU countries joining the programme at a later stage even if they miss the upcoming deadline.
(bts, jp)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
Experts raise doubts over EU-US pharma plan's staying power
Emma Pirnay and Vasiliki Angouridi Euractiv Jul 30, 2025 06:00 2 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Want to keep reading? Get a subscription on Euractiv Pro and elevate your political insight! Discover Euractiv Pro For corporations Already have an account? Log in
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
Speed key to halting Europe's possible pharma flight
Thomas Mangin Euractiv Jul 30, 2025 06:00 3 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Want to keep reading? Get a subscription on Euractiv Pro and elevate your political insight! Discover Euractiv Pro For corporations Already have an account? Log in
Euractiv
an hour ago
- Euractiv
INTERVIEW: Return hubs are ‘not easy to do', says former Commissioner Schinas
Margaritis Schinas served as a European Commission Vice-President from 2019 to 2024 and was a key architect of the fiercely debated New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Now out of the EU limelight, he speaks to Euractiv about the political minefield of implementation – and the bloc's major shift on migration. The adoption of the controversial pact in 2024 marked a major overhaul of the European Union's migration and asylum system. The new rules are set to come into force in summer 2026 and the implementation phase is in full swing, amid calls for an even more rigorous stance on migration. But, rolling out the 10 legislative files making up the pact might not be straightforward. Member states had to submit national implementation plans by December 2024, but some are dragging their feet. Hungary, for example, has yet to submit its plan. 'The Pact means the end of Hungary,' Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Monday. Poland, too, remains fiercely opposed. What follows is an edited transcript. Euractiv: Looking at the bigger picture, how do you view the apparent shift in EU migration policy, with more and more member states pushing for a tougher migration policy? Schinas: The way that migration policy evolves at national and European level is not the result of an experiment that is taking place in a laboratory. Policy follows what the people and the voters want. People across Europe – and I would say across political families – want more order on migration and on migration management. They want procedures, controls, border management. They want solidarity [between EU countries], and they want returns. Many are highlighting a newfound sense of unity on migration. That is quite striking, considering that just a few years ago, putting migration on the EUCO agenda would have triggered major divisions. I fully agree with you that we have now a new... how should I call this? In French, we would call it a 'prise de conscience' [awakening] around migration. I'm very happy to see that this is not only happening, but it's intensifying, and permeates policy beyond migration. It goes into foreign policy, development policy, the way we spend our money in third countries... and all of this is good. Do you think the concept of return hubs would have been possible just five years ago? I understand that there is a political market that wants to explore these return hubs and extraterritorial solutions. I do not oppose it in principle, but I don't think that it's something that's easy to do. From a legal standpoint? From all points of view, judging from what I saw and what I tried to do over the last five years. My advice would be: It would be okay to explore, but it would be a mistake to chase an objective not doable in the short term, or raise expectations. I'm not sure that this is the way to proceed. I belong to a school of thought that policy should be based on what is feasible. You coordinated the Commission's work on the new pact from 2019 to 2024. How do you assess progress so far, considering that several member states still haven't submitted their national strategies? I think that you cannot answer this without looking at how European migration policy was in the past [before 2019]. The short answer is: there wasn't any. We had repeated attempts and efforts that have all failed. The only thing that we had was this obligatory relocation scheme, taking people from Italy and Greece following the collapse of Syria [in 2015, Europe experienced a significant migration crisis, largely driven by a surge in refugees fleeing conflict and instability in Syria and other countries]. I'm very proud that, at the end of my mandate, we managed to have the first ever regulatory framework for migration and asylum. I have no doubt that everything that is happening – now or next year when the pact come into force – will be a huge improvement compared to the situation back in December 2019. Still, Poland and Hungary are staunchly against the new pact. If they don't implement it, do they risk jeopardising the whole approach? There have been some objections, but I think it's fair to say that these objections did not materialise – unlike in 2015 – into a block on the pact. Each member state's position is legitimate. However, I would say that these have been stances of member states [Hungary, Poland] wanting to make a point on where they stand on migration – rather than blocking Europe from having a comprehensive migration policy. It is very telling that we may have lost Warsaw and Budapest, but we have won Giorgia Meloni's Rome. I am optimistic that this will not hinder or prevent the pact's implementation. Do you see potential for the consensus to crumble once hard numbers – such as for the Solidarity Pool in October – are on the table? I do not agree. We have put so much time, effort, and resources into this European regulatory approach. It would be suicidal for Europe to arrive at the point that we are now and then begin undoing it. I fail to see who will be well served by doing this. The only people that would be happy if we fail to live up to our regulatory commitments would be those who want to destroy Europe – the Le Pen's and the Mélenchon's of this world... the Podemos and the Vox. The ones who have been consistently attacking the pact and calling for its demolition are the extremes – both on the right and the left. I want to be clear that I don't put Warsaw and Budapest in this spot; it's another league. With their stances, they want to remind us, how they view migration policy. But I say again that I don't expect them to block Europe from having and implementing a common regulatory policy on migration. EU leaders to debate 'accelerated implementation' of migration law reforms A German proposal for Council conclusions seen by Euractiv calls for implementing the rules earlier than planned, but member states are divided. (vib, aw)
