Climate Security, Energy Transition and Green Defence as a Strategic Priority in Euro-Atlantic Security
Strategic rationale and political anchoring
Climate security and energy transition have moved from being treated as primarily environmental and economic agendas to being framed, by Euro-Atlantic institutions, as strategic variables that affect deterrence, defence readiness, resilience, and the capacity to sustain operations under stress. In the Euro-Atlantic space, the formal political anchor is the recognition of climate change as a “threat multiplier” affecting collective security, explicitly stated at summit level and tied to the Alliance’s core responsibility to protect territory and populations. [1]
The consolidation of this priority is best understood as the convergence of three structural dynamics. The first is the physical-operational dimension: more frequent and more intense extreme weather events and long-term climatic trends create direct operational effects on bases, infrastructure, mobility corridors, training conditions, and the reliability of critical services that support force projection. NATO’s climate security impact work explicitly treats these effects as cross-domain and relevant to missions, installations, and resilience commitments, rather than a peripheral sustainability topic. [2]
The second dynamic is geopolitical-energetic. The post-2022 European security environment has underlined the strategic consequences of energy coercion, energy price shocks, and sabotage risks against along-the-route infrastructure, in a context where armed forces and defence industries remain structurally dependent on large and stable energy inputs. In the strategic framing adopted by NATO[3], energy is not merely a cost variable; it is a prerequisite for deterrence and operational sustainability, which explains why secure and resilient energy supply chains are increasingly discussed in proximity to resilience and defence planning. [4]
The third dynamic is industrial and technological. Climate adaptation and energy transition measures in the defence sector increasingly intersect with the same industrial bottlenecks, supply-chain constraints, and technology competition that have become central to European rearmament and industrial readiness. In European Union[5] policy vocabulary, this convergence is visible in how defence industrial readiness instruments and common procurement mechanisms are built to reduce fragmentation, strengthen the defence industrial base, and manage dependencies, while the security and defence strategy simultaneously calls for improved energy efficiency and sustainability of operations. [6]
At the level of formal strategic texts, the priority is anchored for NATO by the 2022 Strategic Concept, which integrates climate change considerations into the broader agenda of resilience and technological edge, and explicitly sets an objective to contribute to climate change mitigation through reduced emissions, improved energy efficiency, transition to clean energy, and the use of green technologies, while preserving operational effectiveness and the deterrence and defence posture. [7] The political reinforcement of this framing is visible in the continuity from the Brussels Summit’s endorsement of a climate and security action plan to subsequent summit declarations and communiqués that retain climate and energy themes within the broader narrative of resilience and security challenges. [8]
On the EU side, the Strategic Compass adopts a 2030 planning perspective and places climate change and environmental degradation among the drivers that shape the threat environment and operational context, while also reflecting an energy-security sensitivity connected to strategic autonomy and resilience. [9] The Compass is complemented by a dedicated climate and defence roadmap that aims to mainstream climate considerations into defence thinking across capability development, research and innovation, and infrastructure, and by a joint communication on the climate–security nexus that frames climate change and environmental degradation as factors affecting peace, security, and defence, implying a systematic need for early warning, foresight, and capability adaptation. [10] The Council has further institutionalised this agenda through conclusions that situate security and defence in a context of combined threats and challenges, providing an enabling political backdrop for integrating climate-related resilience requirements into security policy implementation. [11]
Alliance cohesion is a central political function of this priority. Climate-security and energy-transition agendas can generate internal friction if treated as constraints competing with deterrence spending, particularly during rapid force posture reinforcement. The institutional approach that emerges from NATO and EU documents is to reframe mitigation and transition measures as instruments of resilience and operational advantage, under explicit safeguards that effectiveness, safety, and interoperability are not degraded. This framing attempts to keep climate and energy topics inside the core security consensus, rather than allowing them to become an axis of political divergence among Allies and Member States. [12]
Theatres and domains are defined less by geography alone than by the intersection of operational posture with infrastructure exposure and supply dependency. The Euro-Atlantic area remains central because reinforcement, forward basing, and strategic mobility rely on critical energy, transport, and digital infrastructures that are vulnerable to both climate hazards and hybrid disruption. The High North constitutes a distinct theatre where climate dynamics alter accessibility and operational patterns, while also raising the strategic salience of maritime routes and infrastructure. The southern neighbourhood is relevant because climate stress can exacerbate fragility and instability, increasing crisis-management demands and affecting migration and regional security. Across these theatres, the relevant domains are multi-domain by construction, because energy systems, critical infrastructure, and climate data dependencies span land, maritime, air, space, and cyber, and carry an information dimension linked to resilience and societal stability. [13]
The planning horizon implied by the institutional architecture is layered. NATO’s climate security agenda includes a roadmap to 2030 and recurrent impact assessment cycles, while the EU Strategic Compass is explicitly oriented to 2030 objectives. However, infrastructure adaptation, industrial transformation, and energy transition dependencies extend beyond that horizon, because base modernisation cycles, platform lifetimes, fuel transitions, and supply-chain repositioning are typically medium-term undertakings. As a result, strategic decision-making is effectively structured around near-term milestones to 2030, with mid-term effects extending into the following decade. [14]
Operational generation and multi-domain implications
This strategic priority generates operational priorities by converting the political recognition of climate- and energy-related risks into requirements for resilience, sustainment, and force readiness under degraded conditions. In NATO’s formal approach, the climate and security agenda is operationalised through four pillars—awareness, adaptation, mitigation, and outreach—which provide a functional structure for converting the strategic problem into planning and implementation lines. [15]
Awareness has an operational meaning because it aims to reduce uncertainty in planning. NATO’s impact assessment work is structured explicitly around operational domains and examines how climate effects interact with missions, installations, and resilience commitments. This is not an abstract scientific exercise; it is a mechanism to inform defence planning, training assumptions, infrastructure priorities, and risk management across joint operations. [16] The EU’s climate–security nexus work follows a parallel logic: it emphasises evidence-based analysis and foresight, early warning, and a better understanding of indirect impacts on external stability, which then feed into capability adaptation and mission planning. [17]
Adaptation is operationally expressed through the requirement that forces and installations must function under more extreme conditions and more frequent disruptions. This intersects directly with resilience and civil preparedness, where NATO’s baseline requirements for national resilience explicitly include resilient energy supplies among other essential civil support functions. The operational implication is that energy resilience is treated as a prerequisite for sustaining military activity, including reinforcement and host-nation support, not as a separate sustainability agenda. [18] The EU–NATO cooperation on critical infrastructure resilience reinforces this operational logic by focusing on concrete sectors—energy, transport, digital infrastructure, and space—and by framing resilience as a shared requirement for both civilian continuity and military effectiveness. [19]
Mitigation becomes operational primarily through logistics and sustainment. NATO’s political commitment to reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency is bounded by explicit constraints: operational effectiveness, safety, and the deterrence and defence posture must not be impaired. This effectively means that mitigation is channelled into areas where it also reduces operational risk, such as reducing fuel demand for bases and support functions, improving energy efficiency of installations, and diversifying energy inputs where feasible. [20] The EU climate and defence roadmap similarly treats energy efficiency and sustainability as part of improving the robustness and performance of defence infrastructure and operations, not as a stand-alone environmental target. [21]
Outreach and partnership are operationally relevant because they structure standardisation and the mobilisation of external expertise. NATO’s climate action plan explicitly includes engagement beyond the Alliance and the use of best practices and expertise, while the EU approach relies on integrated action across institutions, Member States, and partner organisations, including the defence industrial and research ecosystem. [22]
The mission sets affected by this strategic priority include both high-intensity deterrence and defence scenarios and recurring crisis-response tasks. In the high-intensity spectrum, the priority shapes operational planning by treating energy as a critical enabler and by linking fuel and power availability to sustainment, mobility, and the resilience of critical infrastructure. NATO summit-level language on secure, resilient, and sustainable military energy supplies highlights that energy supply is now framed as part of the operational resilience problem set. [4] In crisis-response and civil support, climate-driven disasters and cascading risks increase the likelihood of domestic deployments, military support to civil authorities, and international disaster relief or stabilisation missions, which require logistics, engineering, medical, and command-and-control capabilities adapted to harsher operating conditions. [23]
The multi-domain character of the priority is structural rather than optional. Climate impacts on runways, ports, roads, and bases affect land, air, and maritime operations simultaneously, while reliance on space-based services for weather, earth observation, and communications creates an enabling role for space assets. NATO’s impact assessment explicitly frames climate-security effects across land, sea, air, space, and cyber domains, and ties them to resilience commitments. [16] Cyber is inseparable from the climate-energy agenda because energy systems and critical infrastructure are digitally managed and thus exposed to cyber and hybrid attacks, making cyber resilience a key operational dependency for energy continuity. The EU–NATO task force report addresses precisely these cross-sectoral interactions, indicating that infrastructure resilience must consider both physical threats and digital vulnerabilities, including in the energy sector. [19]
Doctrinally and in force planning, the priority increases the salience of resilience as an operational determinant of tempo and endurance. NATO’s resilience baseline requirements and associated civil preparedness work imply that defence posture credibility depends partly on the ability of societies and infrastructure to support sustained operations, reinforcement, and continuity of government and services under disruption. [24] The EU’s Strategic Compass, by setting a 2030 action orientation and calling for improved capacity to act and respond, implicitly aligns with this logic by treating resilience-related enabling functions, including energy security and efficiency, as part of the foundation for European capability and operational autonomy. [9]
Capability families and tactical building blocks
At capability level, the strategic priority decomposes into a set of capability families that address three linked problems: the resilience of installations and supply chains; the ability to operate in degraded or more extreme physical environments; and the capacity to exploit climate-relevant data and technology to reduce operational risk and dependency.
A first capability family concerns resilient basing and installation support. NATO’s climate security impact work and its resilience agenda jointly imply that bases must endure hazards and continue functioning even when external grids, fuel deliveries, or key services are disrupted. This creates tactical building blocks around hardened infrastructure, redundant power generation, protected fuel and power distribution, and emergency sustainment services, integrated with cyber protection for energy management systems. [25] In EU practice, energy efficiency of military buildings and the integration of renewable energy sources into defence infrastructure have been treated as concrete lines of work by the defence energy community, reflecting that energy performance and resilience are increasingly linked. [26]
A second capability family concerns deployable operational energy and sustainment for expeditionary or forward-deployed forces. The strategic logic is that fuel and energy demand amplifies vulnerability, because resupply convoys and single-point energy dependencies create predictable pressure points. EU-level analysis of energy security and defence industry linkages points to deployable camps and projects that seek to integrate renewables and energy-efficient systems to reduce operational dependency, illustrating how energy resilience is treated as a capability objective rather than a sustainability add-on. [27]
A third capability family concerns fuel resilience and diversification under the constraint of interoperability. In NATO framing, the transition towards cleaner energy sources is encouraged, but bounded by the requirement to preserve operational effectiveness and the deterrence posture. This implicitly means that, for many mission profiles, liquid fuels remain indispensable in the medium term, while diversification and alternative fuels must be implemented in ways that do not fracture interoperability or create incompatible logistics chains across Allies. [28] This family therefore includes tactical requirements for assured fuel logistics, fuel quality and compatibility management, and the ability to sustain operations under market volatility or coercive supply disruption. The emphasis on secure and resilient fuel supplies in NATO summit-level declarations underlines that these requirements cannot be fully delegated to civilian market stability assumptions. [29]
A fourth capability family concerns climate security intelligence, planning support, and early warning. NATO’s climate impact assessment approach treats climate effects as relevant across operational domains and installations, which implies a continuous requirement for climate-informed operational planning inputs, including weather and environmental intelligence, risk mapping for infrastructure, and scenario-based preparedness planning. [2] The EU’s joint communication on the climate–security nexus and related guidance similarly emphasise evidence-based analysis, foresight, and early warning as necessary to anticipate cascading risks, including those that affect governance stability, migration pressures, and conflict dynamics in fragile regions. [17] This capability family also links to the space domain, because earth observation, satellite-enabled monitoring, and secure communications architectures are enabling layers for climate risk awareness and operational planning. [30]
A fifth capability family concerns critical infrastructure protection and rapid recovery. The dual exposure of energy systems to climate hazards and to hybrid disruption has made infrastructure resilience a combined engineering, security, and operational problem. The EU–NATO task force on critical infrastructure resilience provides a structured institutional basis for this framing, focusing on the energy sector and associated cross-sector dependencies. [19] In operational terms, this points to tactical building blocks such as rapid repair capabilities, spare parts and stockpiling strategies for critical components, physical protection and surveillance of key nodes, and cyber-defence capabilities oriented towards industrial control system environments. [31]
Across these capability families, performance requirements converge on redundancy, resilience under disruption, and the ability to scale from routine conditions to crisis posture. Interoperability is a binding constraint, because diverse national energy transition approaches could otherwise generate incompatible technologies, fuels, or standards. NATO’s explicit condition that transition measures must preserve operational effectiveness and implicitly interoperability indicates that common standards and shared approaches are not optional; they are required to avoid operational fragmentation. [20]
Technology clusters and industrial transformation
The technology and industrial dimension of this strategic priority is characterised by cross-over between defence and civilian transition technologies. The problem is not merely to “green” defence, but to ensure that the energy system transformation does not create new strategic dependencies while simultaneously reducing existing vulnerabilities.
A first technology cluster relates to operational energy systems for installations and deployed forces. This includes distributed generation, renewable integration where feasible, storage, microgrid architectures, energy management systems, and hardening measures for continuity of power under disruption. The EU defence energy ecosystem, structured through the Consultation Forum for Sustainable Energy in the Defence and Security Sector and supported through EU-level programmes, is oriented precisely to improving energy management, efficiency, renewable use, and the protection and resilience of defence-related energy infrastructures. [32] This cluster is industrially anchored in construction and engineering services, grid and power-electronics suppliers, storage system manufacturers, and defence infrastructure providers capable of operating under security constraints. [33]
A second cluster concerns alternative fuels and fuel-system compatibility. The strategic driver is to reduce exposure to coercive supply disruption and price shocks while maintaining the energy density and reliability required for demanding operational profiles. NATO’s energy security work, including through its energy security centre of excellence, explicitly treats future military mobility and carbon-free fuels as topics of study connected to long-term planning and operational consequences. [34] This creates industrial demand for sustainable fuel production pathways, blending and certification capabilities, and logistics systems that can support both conventional and alternative fuels without undermining operational readiness. [35]
A third cluster concerns digital infrastructures for energy resilience and climate-security decision support. Energy management and resilience are increasingly software-intensive, relying on sensors, control systems, analytics, and cyber protection. This intersects with NATO and EU concerns about critical infrastructure resilience, because digital dependency both enables optimisation and creates attack surfaces. The EU–NATO task force work illustrates how resilience approaches must integrate digital infrastructure and space alongside energy and transport, which implies industrial roles for cyber security providers, secure communications vendors, and systems integrators capable of securing operational technology environments. [36]
A fourth cluster concerns space-enabled monitoring and services. Climate-security awareness and infrastructure risk management depend on earth observation, space-based communications, and data integration. The EU’s space strategy for security and defence is part of a sequence of security initiatives that treat space assets as critical, while research analysis notes the strategic logic of safeguarding space capabilities and improving their use for security and defence policy. [30] This has industrial consequences for satellite manufacturing, downstream geospatial analytics, secure data pipelines, and resilience of ground segments, which can be dual-use but must meet defence-grade reliability and security requirements. [37]
A fifth cluster concerns materials and industrial processes needed for transition and resilience. Energy transition for defence, particularly in storage and power electronics, increases demand for specific materials and components, potentially amplifying dependencies. Policy and research work on defence decarbonisation highlights the need to integrate sustainability into industrial practices and to manage the intersection of defence production and green technology development, rather than treating them as separate agendas. [38]
Industrial transformation is shaped by EU-level defence industrial strategy and programme instruments that are not climate-specific but materially relevant because they define how Europe intends to build readiness, reduce fragmentation, and strengthen the industrial base under geopolitical pressure. The European Defence Industrial Strategy frames industrial readiness through objectives tied to resilience, responsiveness, and reduced dependency, while the EDIP proposal explicitly aims to bridge emergency measures and to ensure defence industrial readiness for the future. [39] These instruments condition industrial incentives, supply-chain structuring, and procurement approaches for technologies that, in practice, include energy resilience and infrastructure adaptation projects when they are treated as defence-relevant enabling capabilities. [40]
The research and innovation layer is particularly important because it provides a route for transition-related technologies to be tested and adapted under defence constraints. The European Defence Fund provides the legal and financial basis for collaborative defence R&D and development, and EDF work programmes increasingly include topics related to capability adaptation, enabling technologies, and operational resilience, which can encompass energy resilience and environmental transition themes. [41] In NATO, the climate-security agenda explicitly links to science and technology communities and to the use of expertise for awareness and adaptation, providing another channel for technology maturation. [42]
Structural bottlenecks and strategic dependencies
The strategic priority is constrained by bottlenecks that arise from the interaction of operational urgency, industrial capacity, and the political economy of transition.
A first constraint is the emergence of new dependency profiles associated with energy transition technologies. EU analysis of energy security and defence industry linkages explicitly notes that shifting towards decentralised and renewable energy systems generates opportunities but also creates new dependencies, including those linked to batteries and critical raw materials, and highlights that the defence industry still relies heavily on external suppliers for some of these inputs. [43] This becomes a strategic vulnerability when the same materials and components are needed at scale for both civilian transition and defence energy resilience, thereby creating competition for supply and potential exposure to non-allied chokepoints. [44]
A second constraint is industrial scalability under simultaneous rearmament and transition pressures. European instruments such as ASAP and EDIRPA were created to address urgent industrial capacity needs and to accelerate production and common procurement, reflecting that industrial constraints are treated as strategic problems rather than normal market friction. [45] The same industrial base that must expand to meet high-intensity capability demand is also the base that would be required to deliver large-scale adaptation of infrastructure, deployment of energy resilience systems, and integration of new technologies. A core risk is that transition-related investments are postponed in favour of immediate production surges, thereby leaving structural vulnerabilities unresolved. [46]
A third constraint concerns standardisation and interoperability. Energy transition in defence cannot be treated as purely national experimentation because multinational operations depend on logistics compatibility, shared procedures, and common standards. NATO’s climate-security approach explicitly prioritises adaptation and mitigation without impairing operational effectiveness and deterrence posture; this creates a de facto requirement that technology adoption and fuel diversification must converge on interoperable solutions. [20] Without this convergence, the Alliance risks creating logistics fragmentation that would reduce readiness and raise sustainment costs in combined operations. [47]
A fourth constraint is the vulnerability of critical infrastructure to combined climate hazards and hybrid disruption. Resilience is not an abstract objective; it depends on infrastructure that can withstand extreme events and hostile interference. The EU–NATO task force explicitly frames resilience across energy, transport, digital infrastructure, and space, and offers recommendations to strengthen resilience and mitigate vulnerabilities. [19] This implies that adaptation investment must include physical hardening, redundancy, rapid repair capacity, and cyber defence, which are resource-intensive and require coordination across civilian regulators, private owners, and defence institutions. [36]
A fifth constraint is measurement and governance under security constraints. Both NATO and the EU have moved toward integrating methodologies and reporting practices, including work on emissions measurement and best practices. However, in defence contexts, comprehensive accounting can be limited by classification, data fragmentation across services and suppliers, and the difficulty of tracing supply-chain emissions without exposing sensitive operational information. NATO’s explicit commitment to develop methodologies and to mainstream climate considerations reflects awareness of this governance problem, but also implies that implementation is non-trivial and depends on sustained institutional effort. [15]
A sixth constraint is budgetary competition and political sequencing. The strategic challenge is to avoid framing transition as a competing objective to deterrence spending, because that can generate political resistance and slow implementation. Research on defence and climate emphasises that there are shared interests, notably in clean electricity and resilience, but also points to difficult choices and governance challenges in aligning defence spending with climate objectives. [48] This is particularly relevant given the broader EU defence industrial readiness agenda, which places high near-term demands on budgets and procurement systems, potentially crowding out some structural adaptation projects unless they are explicitly treated as readiness enablers. [49]
Overall, these bottlenecks affect readiness by shaping the time and cost needed to deliver resilient basing, secure energy supply, and interoperable sustainment solutions. They affect scalability by constraining how quickly adaptation can be implemented at the level of installations and supply chains. They affect resilience by determining whether energy and digital systems can function under simultaneous environmental stress and hostile disruption. [50]
Implications for institutions, industry, research and capital
Institutionally, this strategic priority functions as a filter that reorders planning questions. In NATO, climate and energy topics are increasingly routed through resilience, defence planning, and standardisation mechanisms rather than treated as separate environmental policy. The climate-security action plan’s emphasis on mainstreaming climate considerations into political and military agendas, alongside recurrent assessments and methodological development, indicates that the Alliance seeks institutionalisation rather than ad hoc initiatives. [15] In the EU, the Strategic Compass’s 2030 orientation, the climate and defence roadmap, and the climate–security joint communication together create a policy structure that links external stability risks, capability adaptation, and defence-sector sustainability into a single planning logic. [51]
For industry, the priority creates demand signals in two directions. The first is direct demand for infrastructure adaptation, energy resilience systems, and technology integration that can be deployed under defence constraints. The second is indirect demand generated by procurement and industrial-readiness reforms, because instruments such as EDIP are designed to reshape how industrial capacity is built, how supply chains are managed, and how common procurement is structured. [52] In practice, this means that suppliers positioned at the intersection of defence infrastructure, energy systems, cyber security, and space-enabled services can be structurally advantaged, provided they satisfy security-of-supply and governance requirements associated with defence procurement and sensitive infrastructure. [53]
For the research ecosystem, institutional funding and coordination mechanisms are central. The EU’s Consultation Forum mechanism and associated project infrastructure are designed to convert policy objectives into research studies, project ideas, and guidance, and to foster collaboration across ministries, industry, and stakeholders, including under the governance of EU institutions. [54] In parallel, the European Defence Fund provides legal and financial structure for collaborative defence R&D and capability development, including areas that can support energy resilience and operational sustainability, while NATO’s climate agenda explicitly links to science and technology communities to support research and adaptation. [55]
For capital allocation, the strategic implication is that the boundary between “defence investment” and “energy resilience investment” becomes less stable. Energy resilience is increasingly treated as a prerequisite for defence readiness, while defence industrial readiness programmes stress the need for responsive and resilient industrial bases and supply chains. As a result, investment cases that combine resilient infrastructure, robust cyber protection, secure supply chains, and defence-compatible performance requirements can be framed as part of security and defence readiness rather than purely climate policy. [56]
At system level, the strategic priority therefore structures institutional decision-making by integrating climate and energy variables into resilience and deterrence logic; it structures industrial positioning by favouring technologies that reduce operational vulnerabilities without degrading effectiveness; it structures research trajectories by funding and coordinating dual-use energy resilience solutions; and it structures capital allocation by reframing a subset of transition investments as defence enabling capabilities. [57]
[1] [8] https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2021/06/14/brussels-summit-communique
[2] [16] [23] [25] NATO Climate Change and Security Impact Assessment
[3] [5] [19] [31] [36] [50] [53] https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/EU-NATO_Final%20Assessment%20Report%20Digital.pdf
https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-06/EU-NATO_Final%20Assessment%20Report%20Digital.pdf
[4] [29] [35] https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2024/07/10/washington-summit-declaration
[6] [9] [51] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/strategic_compass_en3_web.pdf
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/strategic_compass_en3_web.pdf
[7] [12] [13] [20] [28] [57] https://www.act.nato.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/290622-strategic-concept.pdf
https://www.act.nato.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/290622-strategic-concept.pdf
[10] [21] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03-28-ClimateDefence-new-Layout.pdf
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2022-03-28-ClimateDefence-new-Layout.pdf
[11] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9225-2024-INIT/en/pdf
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9225-2024-INIT/en/pdf
[14] [15] [22] [42] [47] https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2021/06/14/nato-climate-change-and-security-action-plan
[17] https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2023/JOIN_2023_19_1_EN_ACT_part1_v7.pdf
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2023/JOIN_2023_19_1_EN_ACT_part1_v7.pdf
[18] [24] https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/resilience-civil-preparedness-and-article-3
[26] [27] [33] [43] [44] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/780411/ECTI_IDA%282025%29780411_EN.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/780411/ECTI_IDA%282025%29780411_EN.pdf
[30] [37] The EU Space Strategy for Security and Defence
[32] [54] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/882171
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/882171
[34] https://www.act.nato.int/article/ensec-coe-2025/
https://www.act.nato.int/article/ensec-coe-2025/
[38] Decarbonising Defence: Reconciling the Green Agenda ...
[39] [46] [49] [56] 52024JC0010 - EN - EUR-Lex - European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52024JC0010&utm_source=chatgpt.com
[40] [52] https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/document/download/6cd3b158-d11a-4ac4-8298-91491e5fa424_en?filename=EDIP+Proposal+for+a+Regulation.pdf
[41] [55] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0697
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0697
[45] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1525/oj
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1525/oj
[48] Defence and climate: seven points for a common agenda