The European Union’s Defence Commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, said the bloc should integrate Ukraine into a future European defence union, speaking at the European Defence and Security Summit in Brussels.

According to remarks reported by Reuters, Kubilius said: “It would be difficult to make sense of things if we did not regard the integration of Ukraine’s armed forces into our defence architecture in Europe as a vital issue.”

Kubilius stressed that Ukraine currently holds a dominant position on the battlefield thanks to the transformation of its military doctrine.

Calling for the integration of Europe’s defence industry and Ukraine’s manufacturing facilities into a single military structure, Kubilius said Ukraine should be fully integrated into the EU’s military market.

He added that the European Commission could present a detailed analysis of the defence market and initial proposals for next steps as early as next week.

At a later stage, the commissioner said, the Commission would propose changes to defence procurement rules and other market regulations.

Kubilius also outlined a strategic objective for the European Union.

He argued that EU member states should spend around €7 trillion on arms production over the next decade in order to surpass Russia in military strength and weapons stockpiles. According to Kubilius, such spending would be consistent with commitments under NATO to raise defence budgets to 5% of gross domestic product.

Urging Europeans to be prepared to bear the cost, Kubilius described it as “the price of peace.”

At the same time, he suggested moving away from the production of highly sophisticated weapons that are difficult to manufacture in large quantities. Instead, citing the example of drones used in Ukraine, he called for a focus on producing “enormous quantities of satisfactory weapons.”

The EU Defence Commissioner also underscored the need to integrate Ukraine’s innovative defence industry into Europe’s broader defence and technological base.

Hungary has refused to endorse a joint letter intended to be sent on behalf of all 27 European Union member states to the European Council and the European Commission in support of Ukraine’s and Moldova’s accession to the bloc.

According to Politico, citing sources familiar with the matter, the letter is required for Kyiv’s and Chisinau’s membership applications to advance to the next stage of the accession process.

The sources said Hungary was the only member state that declined to back the document. Because approval requires the consent of all 27 member states, the issue is expected to be revisited next week.

Hungary, which previously blocked Ukraine’s accession negotiations for an extended period, was led at the time by Prime Minister Viktor Orban. His successor, Prime Minister Peter Magyar, has not opposed the launch of the negotiation process but has insisted on removing the phrase “as soon as possible” from the draft letter’s reference to Ukraine’s accession.

Magyar said Hungary does not support opening all negotiating chapters simultaneously in an effort to accelerate Ukraine’s membership bid.

Explaining the government’s position, he said: “Partly because the ink on the documents relating to the first chapter has barely dried, and partly because this would send the wrong message to Western Balkan countries such as Serbia, Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia, which have been working for years to become members of the European Union.”

The European Union formally opened the first chapter of accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova in June. The process was launched during a ceremony in Luxembourg attended by the foreign ministers of member states and is divided into six thematic clusters covering different areas of legislation and policy.

The opening of the first cluster, which covers core issues including the rule of law, the functioning of democratic institutions and public administration, marks the transition from the preparatory phase to practical work on meeting accession requirements.

The EU’s ambassador to Ukraine, Katarina Mathernova, has said Kyiv could join the bloc by 2030, although the final timeline will depend on how quickly the Ukrainian authorities complete the required legal and institutional reforms.

Mathernova also said she hoped all 33 negotiating chapters could be opened by the end of the summer.

The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.

In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.

According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.

The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.

At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.

“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”

The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.

The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.

European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.

Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.

A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”

Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”

Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.

In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.

The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.

A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.

Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.

Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.

The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.

“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”

Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.

Shagina said:

“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”

In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.

Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.

“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.

Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.

A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”

“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.