Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic
\n The EU’s military mobility budget funded 95 projects in 21 member states, but it remains relatively modest compared to the real needs, Tony Murphy, president of the ECA, told reporters on Wednesday.
\n ADVERTISEMENTEU member states are still not moving fast enough to deploy their military personnel, equipment, and assets smoothly due to bottlenecks, red tape, and design flaws in the military mobility action plan, according to a new report by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).\u00a0\u201cNow more than ever, the EU seeks to future-proof itself efficiently against aggression, and there is clearly a need for speed. However, we found that there are some bottlenecks along the way,\u201d Tony Murphy, ECA president, told reporters on Wednesday.\u00a0Moving troops and armaments across the EU can face delays for various reasons, including bureaucracy and limited coordination, the Luxembourg-based EU financial watchdog said.\u00a0For example, one EU member state currently requires 45 days advance notice to allow cross-border movement \u2014unless there is an emergency, such as the war in Ukraine. In another case, tanks from one member state were denied passage through another due to exceeding weight limits set by road traffic regulations.\u00a0The EU Military Mobility project has a budget of \u20ac1.7 billion for the 2021-27 period to help member states respond more rapidly and effectively to crises at the bloc\u2019s external borders or beyond, including at short notice and on a large scale.\u00a0Following Russia\u2019s war of aggression against Ukraine, the EU allocated the entire \u20ac1.7 billion budget by the end of 2023 as a political signal, creating a potential funding gap of more than four years until the next budgetary period.\u00a0\u201cSuch a long vacuum can cause delays in additional investments and a loss of experience among stakeholders on EU funding,\u201d the ECA\u2019s president pointed out.\u00a0The EU funded 95 projects in 21 member states, but the military mobility budget remains relatively modest compared to the actual needs, Murphy argued. He also noted that the selection of dual-use infrastructure projects for EU funding lacked sufficient consideration of geopolitical factors.\u00a0\u201cThere is a clear concentration of EU-funded projects in the east of the EU, in Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia,\u201d Murphy stressed.\u00a0By contrast, along the southern route toward Ukraine, the EU did not fund any projects in Greece.\u00a0\u201cMilitary mobility will be a priority of the Commission\u2019s mandate,\u201d a spokesperson for the executive said in response to the ECA report.\u00a0The Commission, together with EU member states and the External Action Service, has identified four military mobility corridors across the EU and is currently assessing investment needs to guide the implementation of military mobility projects.\u00a0\u201cWork on investment needs for military mobility assets is underway too,\u201d the Commission spokesperson added.\u00a0The EU auditors have also recommended that the Commission use existing EU transport funds to address military mobility bottlenecks.\u00a0The Commission has accepted all recommendations and emphasised that it is working on proposals to tackle the lack of coordination, with a focus on simplification, infrastructure investment, military mobility assets\u2014such as infrastructure protection and special equipment\u2014and closer cooperation with NATO.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic The EU’s military mobility budget funded 95 projects in 21 member states, but it remains relatively modest compared to the real needs, Tony Murphy, president of the ECA, told reporters on Wednesday. ADVERTISEMENTEU member states are still not moving fast enough to deploy their<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":195277,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[60],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-195276","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-politics"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195276"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":195278,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195276\/revisions\/195278"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/195277"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}