The European security environment entered a new era at the NATO summit in the summer of 2025, where defense-related investments no longer mean just weapons procurement or troop maintenance. The role of construction, and especially infrastructure projects supporting defense, is growing.
NATO countries will commit to increasing their defense spending to five percent of gross domestic product by 2035 in June in The Hague.
One and a half percent of this pot is intended not only for promoting cybersecurity, but also for infrastructure projects that support defense in particular. The role of construction is therefore rapidly growing as part of Europe's new security architecture.
At the same time, the EU is preparing for a huge investment tsunami, as the Commission's own estimates indicate that the financing needs for defense, the green transition and digitalization will rise to an annual level of 1,200 billion euros.
Infrastructure, which has been designed for decades purely for civilian use, needs to be updated to meet the demands of modern military equipment and crisis preparedness. Roads, bridges, railways, ports and tunnels are at the heart of this transformation. Outdated European structures cannot withstand the weight of tanks, nor can they support rapid troop movements, and basic peacetime logistics cannot withstand the stresses of a crisis. Now, this needs to change, and quickly.
Europe's repair debt is also a security debt
One thing is repeated in the EU's military mobility assessments: critical infrastructure is simply not sufficient for military use. Bridges in many countries are limited to 40-tonne loads, while modern armour weighs 60–70 tonnes. Track capacities and tunnel profiles vary, ports are undersized and bottlenecks in road networks slow down the movement of equipment. Another problem in many member states is that infrastructure maintenance or planning traditions have never taken military use into account as a serious variable. Finland is also a bad example; it has taken care of national defence, but its transport infrastructure already has a repair debt of almost 4,2 billion euros.
The problem has been spoken about in public by, among others, the Greek EU Commissioner. Tzitzikostas Apostles, which is responsible for transport and the strategic development of ports, maritime transport, as well as rail and road networks, including security and logistics aspects. (1)
The EU estimates that simply upgrading existing infrastructure to make it suitable for military use will require investments of at least 70 billion euros in the short term. (2) This includes strengthening bridges, modernising railways, increasing port capacity, removing bottlenecks in road networks and expanding logistics terminals. When you add to this entirely new projects – new TEN-T corridors, modernising border crossing points, multimodal logistics hubs – the overall picture grows rapidly.
In Finland, almost all other public spending is also being cut, but the share of defense-related spending in the budget is clearly increasing.
In 2024, defense spending was approximately 2,4 percent of GDP. Petteri Orpo The government has set a goal of increasing spending to at least three percent of GDP by 2029. The goal is to increase defense spending to five percent of GDP by 2035. Of this, actual defense would account for 3,5 percent. (3)
Investments in infrastructure construction, logistics systems and critical dual-use infrastructure are a key part of the official security policy plan.
It is essential for the construction industry that these projects are subject to EU internal market rules. Although each member state would like to favour its own companies, international tenders cannot be avoided. This opens up a real export opportunity for Finnish operators, as long as they enter the market at the right time and with the right strategy.
How the EU and NATO are guiding – and limiting – the growing infra-boom
While there is often talk of an “infra boom”, it is equally important to understand how both the EU and NATO are trying to guide, limit and target this growing mass of investment. Both organisations have recognised the risk: if any project can be called “security infrastructure”, dubious interpretations and political backlash will inevitably arise.
The EU's most important tool for developing transport, energy and digital networks has been Connecting Europe Facility, CEF-funding (Connecting Europe). In its next period, the share allocated to military mobility will increase dramatically.
Through CEF, the EU wants to ensure that dual-use infrastructure is supported precisely where it has genuine benefits for both civilian logistics and defence. This is particularly the case for the TEN-T core network, where military mobility requirements are now permanently enshrined in the design requirements.
The second entity is EU defense industry funding. European Defence Fund EDF and to be prepared alongside it European Defence Industrial Programme EDIP are seeking to create a permanent financing model for European defence production and its supporting structures. This also includes logistics and storage solutions, which can be defined as dual-use and infrastructure investment. However, member states are engaged in fierce political wrangling over who the funding will ultimately go to and how strictly the projects should be defined.
On the NATO side, on the other hand NATO Security Investment Programme funds joint bases, airfields, depots, ports and fuel systems. Although the funding is small compared to the size of the EU, it often acts as a trend-setter and standard-setter, and it is in these projects that international consortia are most active.
The EU and NATO are therefore trying to boost investment on the one hand, but on the other hand to prevent attempts to finance projects with little defence value in the name of defence. The Messina Bridge in Italy has become a prime example of this. The bridge's massive €13 billion cost pot has been tried to be justified as a military mobility project so that it could be counted as part of defence spending. Defenders talk about dual use and the logistical development of southern Italy, critics about environmental and cost risks. Both are right, and that is precisely why the case is a good example of future political disputes.
Alongside Messina, other projects have already emerged where creative dual use meets security policy considerations. For example, several projects for electrification and standardization of the Eastern European railway network and plans for new bridges over the Danube have been marked as high priority projects from a military mobility perspective. In some cases, it is a genuinely significant improvement from a defense perspective, in others, it is a solution to purely national transportation problems, which are now being branded in a militarily acceptable form.
The competitive advantage of Finnish expertise
In the midst of all this, the Finnish construction industry has a strong position. Due to the northern climate, geological challenges and long distances, Finland is used to building durable, heavy and reliable infrastructure, which is exactly what military mobility requires. The design and implementation of bridges, railways, ports and logistics terminals are strengths of Finnish companies, as are life-cycle and modular solutions.
When infrastructure is built on the principle of dual use, the importance of quality, operational reliability and security of supply is emphasized. The Finnish design and implementation culture meets these requirements well. At the same time, Finnish companies already have strong references from the Baltic Sea region and northern Europe, where NATO compatibility and cross-border logistics chains are commonplace.
For the Finnish construction industry, this does not just mean the opportunity to participate in individual projects abroad. It is about setting in motion the infrastructure structure of Europe for the next 30–50 years, offering opportunities for design, implementation, maintenance and long-term partnerships.
The schedule is merciless.
Although NATO and the EU talk about 2035 as a long-term goal, the real projects will start moving in 2026–2030. This means that tenders, consortium formation and feasibility studies will start immediately. For the construction industry, this is a critical message: if Finnish companies are going to be involved, the preparation must start now. Not next year, not in the next funding period, but now.
Success requires that companies identify their strengths, productize their expertise from a dual-use infrastructure perspective, network with actors in allied countries, and build readiness to participate in international tenders. It is not a question of whether opportunities are available – there are many. It is a question of whether we are ready to seize them in time.
Text references
- (1) Financial Times: Europe's roads and rail unfit for war with Russia, EU transport chief Warns
- (2) Euronews: Kubilius: EU needs at least €70 billion to strengthen military mobility
- (3) Bank of Finland Bulletin: How would higher defense spending affect Finland's economic growth?
About the author
Mika Horelli is a freelance journalist who has lived in Brussels for eight years and closely follows the political processes of the European Union and their impact on Finland. He also writes for RT on EU topics that are central to the construction industry. Horelli has previously worked as a freelance journalist in Denmark and the United States.
Write a comment