EUDIS, HEDI, DIANA: What's behind Three Defense Innovation Acronyms?
In Europe, with Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine showing little sign of abating, a persistent gap remains between security needs and defense spending. According to a 2006 commitment enshrined at the 2014 Wales NATO summit, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members should disburse no less than 2% of their national gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, out of which 20% is to be spent on equipment and research and development. In 2024, only 23 Allies out of 32 are expected to meet or exceed this target, though a significant improvement from only three in 2014. This total includes the United States (US) devoting 3.38% of its GDP to defense, constituting almost 70% of all NATO member defense spending combined.
EUDIS, HEDI and DIANA are three recent policy instruments meant to encourage defense innovation in Europe, and beyond. Fielded by the European Commission, the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), respectively, these seemingly comparable defense investment instruments underline key challenges confronting European defense
They stand for competing national visions: European supranational, intergovernmental, as well as transatlantic defense perspectives in differing and diverging combinations.
EUDIS, HEDI and DIANA highlight the persistent gap with European defense objectives set 20 years ago, most notably the divide between stated ambitions and actual means invested.
Also available in:
Themes and regions
ISBN / ISSN
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
EUDIS, HEDI, DIANA: What's behind Three Defense Innovation Acronyms?
Author(s)
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
Defense Research Unit
The Defense Research Unit is a program that aims at stimulating the strategic debate by dealing with subjects at the junction of the “technico-operational” and the “political-strategic”. A unique structure in France, it brings together civilian researchers and “military fellows” from each of the three armies to produce work on defense policies, the capability and strategic adaptation of armies, and foresight on tomorrow's conflicts.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
From Ukraine to Gaza: Military Uses of Artificial Intelligence
The wars in Ukraine and Gaza show us the extent to which artificial intelligence (AI) has become integral to battlefield operations.
French thinking on AI integration and interaction with nuclear command and control, force structure, and decision-making
This paper analyses the French literature on France’s perception of military AI, especially its consequences on strategic systems and competition, and nuclear deterrence.
The Future of Europe’s Strategic Deterrence is (also) at Sea
A cursory look at both France and the UK suggests that the future of European nuclear deterrence is at sea.
Populism and International Relations
Populism is flourishing, in Europe and elsewhere: a populist holds power today in Argentina and perhaps tomorrow in the United States. What does its spread say about our societies? And how is it shaping them, where populists rule? Do their economic policies stand any chance of success? Do their foreign policies have a greater impact on the world around them or at home? If “Trump 2.0” comes to be, will he have a free hand? If so, what can we expect?