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.
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
Fury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.
