There is and never will be any common strategic planning and common spending without common foreign and fiscal policies. So I assume his country will not loudly cry “but our souvereignity!” when those things are proposed…

“While insisting that member states should remain in the driver’s seat of defense policy, the former Lithuanian prime minister said…”

So that’s a no. Thx, bye.

“In practical terms, Kubilius wants to advance plans for […] a European Security Council […]. Such a body could discuss issues ranging from the European pillar of NATO to defense industrial policy.”

Yeh, no. That idea would not close any gaps but create them by making the EU dependent on single members that can veto everything just by withholding their military assets that are an integral and coordinated part of a common defense architecture.

"In his view, European military doctrines should follow Ukraine’s example by better integrating innovation and smaller players into procurement processes and defense planning.

For now, Kubilius said, “there is not enough space for start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises to grow up.”

At the same time, he added, Europe’s largest economies, including Germany and France, still purchase relatively little defense equipment directly from their European partners.

So this is the actual issue. Got it… Again: Thx, bye. We will no be the piggy bank for your ambitions to build up domestic industry. Countries making decisions based on how much their own industry can benefit instead of military considerations is the actual cause for the insane fragmentation of EU defense planning and spending, not a solution.

to close capability gaps

What are the gaps?

domestic companies in Germany currently receive 60% of defense orders — double the share recorded in 2020

Which must mean US spendig went from 60% to 30% and not that Germany stopped buying from the EU.

The European Commission is expected to present a package by early July aimed at creating a single market for defense. The objective is to reduce fragmentation and lower the costs of growing the defense industry.

What does that mean? The following doesn’t make sense.

We need to find a way to balance the [existing] bottom-up approach with much more top-down influence,” he told the audience on Wednesday.

In his view, European military doctrines should follow Ukraine’s example by better integrating innovation and smaller players into procurement processes and defense planning.

That won’t work. Smaller players means fragmentation.

The EU has learned nothing from Boeing’s dominance. They are bound to create big players that fix bad products with lawyers and corruption.

The national approaches are top down. To call that bottom up and assume that it will be better when the EU dominates it sounds like a very dangerous idea to me.