In the European Union, transport is increasingly moving beyond the realm of economics and becoming an integral part of security policy. The idea of a so-called “military Schengen” implies the creation of a space where military equipment, personnel, and cargo can move between countries quickly, without unnecessary bureaucratic barriers and under unified rules.
As of March 2026, this topic has already moved from the level of concepts into a practical phase. At the EU level, work is underway on a regulation aimed at simplifying the movement of military cargo and harmonizing procedures between member states. This is no longer just about political declarations, but about creating a binding framework for the rapid and large-scale movement of forces and equipment across the Union.
At the same time, a more systemic framework is taking shape. Military mobility is being considered alongside broader initiatives such as Readiness 2030, ReArm Europe, and other defense programs. This means that transport is no longer a supporting element – it is becoming part of the overall security architecture.
“Railways play a particularly important role in this process. The European Commission is already working on adapting rules for the transport of military cargo, including oversized equipment and hazardous materials. Certain regulations are also being revised to meet new requirements for speed and interoperability of transport,” notes Alona Lebedieva, owner of the Ukrainian multi-sector industrial and investment group Aurum Group.
Another important aspect is the integration of military mobility into civilian infrastructure. The TEN-T network is increasingly viewed as a foundation not only for the movement of goods and passengers, but also for military transport. Some infrastructure projects are already being designed as dual-use – meaning they take into account both civilian and defense needs.
There is also a digital dimension. The EU is working on creating a unified data exchange system that will enable the coordination of transport between countries without delays or duplication of procedures. This involves the standardization of rules, secure data exchange, and the integration of national systems.
Lebedieva also draws attention to developments around Iran, which have only reinforced this logic. “Disruptions to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz have demonstrated that transport security for Europe is not only about the movement of troops on the eastern flank, but also about the ability of the economy to withstand shocks to global supply routes for energy resources, raw materials, and critical goods. When an external crisis almost instantly affects logistics, energy prices, and production costs in Europe, infrastructure becomes not only a matter of efficiency, but of strategic resilience,” she notes.
As a result, a new approach to infrastructure is emerging. Roads, railways, ports, and logistics systems are increasingly seen not only as economic assets, but as elements of strategic resilience. The key question is whether Europe will be able to transform its transport system so that it functions equally effectively in peacetime and under heightened security risks.
“For Ukraine, this issue has a particular significance. Ukraine’s transport system is already effectively operating under conditions of constant military mobility, and its experience of rapidly adapting logistics, railways, and infrastructure to crisis conditions could serve as a practical case for the EU. In the context of integration into TEN-T and the development of joint corridors, Ukraine can not only become part of this new system, but also help shape it – as a country that has already undergone the need to combine the economic and defense logic of transport. In this sense, Ukraine’s integration into European transport networks is no longer only a matter of trade or reconstruction, but also a contribution to a new model of European security,” emphasizes Alona Lebedieva.
At the same time, Ukraine’s further progress in this direction requires a more structured approach. This includes, in particular, the implementation of EU directives aimed at simplifying border procedures, as well as sanitary and phytosanitary controls, which directly affect the speed of cargo movement.
Lebedieva also stresses that corridor governance is no less important. It would be advisable to establish an institution of national coordinators for each of the TEN-T corridors passing through Ukraine, as different corridors have their own specifics, bottlenecks, and require tailored management solutions.
In addition, a logical step would be the creation of a permanent consultative mechanism involving Ukraine, neighboring EU countries, and Moldova, to synchronize infrastructure decisions and coordinate corridor development. It is at this level that practical coordination can be formed – without which even the most strategic initiatives risk remaining fragmented.