Shell Game: How Democracies Lose Production Wars
Europe promised Ukraine a million artillery shells this year. Russia makes that every three months.
Grüezi!
Please forward this to someone who things Europe is doing enough…
1️⃣ Shell Shocked
Europe’s Artillery Crisis in Seven Acts
TL;DR
Russia outproduces Europe 5:1 in artillery shells
EU promised Ukraine 1 million shells, delivered half
Democratic constraints make wartime production impossible
By the time you finish this sentence, Russia has sent five shells screaming into Ukrainian lines. Europe has made one. Ukraine has fired none.
Every high explosive-filled 155mm shell represents European impotence. At a metre long and 45 kilos, it’s the perfect military totem for a continent that cannot match authoritarian output.
Russian fires 10,000 shells daily – Soviet-standard 152mm rounds that cost $1,000 each from factories running 24/7. Ukraine, having switched to NATO-standard howitzers, responds with 2,000 rounds per day at $5,000 per shell.
That’s a five-to-one disadvantage in both volume and price. Russia produces 4.5 million shells annually. The entire combined output of the US and Europe barely reaches 1.3 million. This isn’t abstract policy failure – every missing shell means another position overrun, another village lost.
“What we are in now is a production war” – NATO official
Democratic market economies, optimised for profit margins and regulatory compliance, cannot compete with Russia’s command system. The Kremlin conscripted 3.5 million workers into armaments manufacturing. European factories navigate union negotiations, environmental regulations, and shareholder returns.
The EU’s Defence Industrial Strategy sounds good on paper, but converting policies into production lines takes years. Ukraine doesn’t have years. Even meeting the EU’s 2025 target of two million shells annually would still leave Europe producing less than half of Russia’s current output.
Consequences
Ukraine rations shells while Russia maintains continuous barrages
European production capacity remains structurally inferior
The “production war” exposes democracy’s wartime weakness
2️⃣ The Peace Dividend Bill
Three Decades of Decay Come Due
TL;DR
Europe dismantled defence industry after Cold War
EU delivered only 500,000 of promised 1 million shells
Factories, workers, and supply chains don’t exist
When Russia invaded Ukraine, European leaders discovered political declarations cannot conjure ammunition from thin air. The EU promised Ukraine one million artillery shells by March 2024. They delivered barely half. Not from betrayal – the factories simply didn’t exist.
Europe’s defence industrial base decayed after three decades of peace dividends. Governments sold military land for housing developments. Engineers retrained for renewable energy. Munitions plants became business parks. The skilled workers who knew how to forge gun barrels retired without replacements.
“Europe has been living in a strategic fantasy”
Russia never stopped. Their armaments factories sprung back to Soviet-era capacity, ready for mobilisation. When Putin gave the order, they shifted to round-the-clock production on rotating 12-hour shifts. No environmental impact assessments. No procurement committees. No shareholder meetings. Just the occasional shove from a window when targets weren’t met.
This isn’t a temporary problem. Building a single new ammunition plant takes three to five years. Training specialised workers takes longer. Creating supply chains for explosives, propellants, and precision components requires diplomatic agreements, environmental permits, and massive capital investment. Europe needs all this yesterday.
Consequences
Rebuilding defence industry requires 5-10 year timeline
Skilled workforce must be trained from scratch
Environmental and safety regulations slow every step
3️⃣ American Handcuffs
How US Guarantees Became Strategic Straitjacket
TL;DR
Nearly two-thirds of European defence procurement comes from US
No European alternatives to key systems exist
Nearly 500 US combat aircraft on order
From 2020 to 2024, nearly two-thirds of European NATO defence procurement came from the United States. This isn’t wilful stupidity – it’s the logical endpoint of assuming permanent American reliability. Europe bought the best systems available: F-35 fighters, Patriot missiles, precision munitions. All “Made in USA.”
Portuguese officials asked the awkward question: what happens if a hostile US president “blocks the software”? But they ordered F-35s anyway. No European alternative exists. The Franco-German future fighter won’t arrive until the 2040s. When Washington paused Patriot shipments to Ukraine, Europe had nothing to offer.
“We sold our sovereignty for a discount”
The technical integration runs deeper than procurement. European forces depend on American satellites for targeting, American systems for encrypted communications, American specifications for ammunition. Even European-made weapons often require US components or authorisation codes.
Breaking this dependency isn’t just expensive – it might be impossible. Developing fifth-generation fighters, satellite constellations, and advanced missile systems would cost hundreds of billions and take decades. Europe would need to rebuild entire industries while maintaining current readiness. The maths don’t work.
Consequences
Europe remains strategically subordinate to US decisions
No viable path to defence autonomy before 2040s
American leverage grows with each procurement cycle
4️⃣ Votes Against Volleys
The choice: Pension cuts or Putin wins.
TL;DR
Only 30% of Europeans prioritise defence over social services
Populist parties polling 20-35% oppose military spending
Politicians who cut healthcare for howitzers lose elections
Ask European voters to choose between bigger defence budgets or better hospitals. Seven in ten choose hospitals. This isn’t ignorance – it’s democracy working exactly as designed. Grandmothers vote. Artillery shells don’t.
The numbers are awful for defence hawks. Germany: 76% support Ukraine, but only 38% accept reduced social spending for defence. France: National Rally polls at 34% promising NATO withdrawal. Germany: AfD at 23% demanding Russian sanctions end. Italy and Hungary already have pro-Russian governments prioritising cheap energy over Ukrainian sovereignty.
Democratic politicians face electoral suicide. Cut visible benefits for invisible deterrence. Reduce nurse training for naval readiness. Cancel kindergarten funding for kinetic weapons. The attack ads practically write themselves:
“They chose bombs over babies.”
Modern weapons systems compound the problem. The F-35 programme started in 1996, achieving operational capability in 2021. Politicians must ask voters to sacrifice today’s healthcare for weapons their successors will unveil.
Russia operates at Putin’s pleasure. Europe operates on electoral cycles.
Consequences
Defence spending remains politically toxic across Europe
Populist parties gain by opposing military budgets
Democratic timelines cannot match authoritarian urgency
5️⃣ The Fiscal Straitjacket
EU Budget Rules vs NATO Reality
TL;DR
NATO demands 5% GDP defence spending by 2035
EU rules make this mathematically impossible
Italy counts bridges as “defence” to make numbers work
NATO’s new target sounds simple: spend 5% of GDP on defence by 2035. The EU’s response amounts to “that’s nice, but no.” European budget rules, designed for peacetime stability, now prevent wartime mobilisation.
Brussels offered wiggle room: spend an extra 1.5% on defence until 2028. After that, back to austerity. But NATO wants 3.5% for core defence, plus 1.5% for infrastructure. For debt-laden countries like Italy (143% debt-to-GDP) or Greece (167%), this means choosing between economic collapse or strategic vulnerability.
Creative accounting has already started. Italy wants its €13.5 billion Sicily bridge counted as “defence” because troops could theoretically use it. Spain’s leader explained that 5% would cost €300 billion, asking simply: “Where would it come from?” Germany refuses joint borrowing, fearing it becomes Europe’s military ATM.
The constraints create impossibilities. Meet NATO targets and trigger market panic over broken EU rules. Maintain fiscal discipline and remain militarily impotent. Borrow collectively and watch German voters revolt. Cut pensions for weapons and lose power to populists who’ll cut defence anyway.
Consequences
Most EU nations cannot legally meet NATO targets
Creative accounting replaces actual capability building
Fiscal rules trump strategic imperatives
6️⃣ The China Trap
When Your Supplier Arms Your Enemy
TL;DR
EU-China trade worth €739 billion annually
China controls materials for military production
Beijing backs Russia to keep US distracted
Europe’s economic entanglement with China paralyses strategic decision-making. With €739 billion in annual trade, China represents Europe’s largest import source. Beyond consumer goods, Beijing controls materials essential for both green transitions and military production.
When China restricted rare earth exports in 2025, European production lines stopped. Not slowed – stopped. No rare earths means no electric vehicles, no wind turbines, no advanced military electronics. The same materials Europe needs for climate goals power precision weapons.
“Beijing fears US focus shifting from Ukraine to Taiwan”
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi delivered the quiet part out loud: Beijing doesn’t want Russia to lose because it keeps America distracted from the Pacific. This puts Europe in an impossible position. Confront China economically and watch industry collapse. Accommodate Beijing while it enables Russian aggression.
Alternative supply chains require decades and massive investment. Australian and Canadian rare earth projects might eventually provide options, but “eventually” doesn’t help Ukraine today. Every European sanction on Russia strengthens Chinese leverage. Every Chinese export restriction weakens European resolve.
Consequences
China holds veto power over European rearmament
Economic decoupling would cripple EU industry
Beijing’s Russia support constrains EU options
7️⃣ The Democratic Disadvantage
Why Authoritarians Win Production Wars
TL;DR
Russia’s command economy beats market democracy
Germany cuts Ukraine aid 70% while promising future spending
European incrementalism cannot match Russian urgency
The arsenal of bureaucracy: Germany slashes immediate Ukraine aid by 70% while pledging defence increases for 2035. Spain and Italy contribute €10-20 million – not from indifference but because debt-laden budgets cannot bear more.
Europe’s peacetime strengths became wartime weaknesses. Regulatory excellence doesn’t forge artillery barrels. Market efficiency doesn’t mobilise populations. Democratic accountability doesn’t enable rapid industrial conversion. The system optimised for prosperity cannot optimise for production.
“Months and years, not decades”
Five assumptions from the “end of history” era proved false: economic interdependence prevents conflict; American protection is permanent; defence industries switch on like light bulbs; voters sacrifice for principles; time favours democracies. Each shattered assumption costs Ukrainian lives.
The tragedy isn’t that Europe chose badly – it’s that European choices made perfect sense until February 2022. Now the continent faces wartime challenges with peacetime tools. Incremental solutions might eventually build capacity, but “eventually” has a price denominated in destroyed cities and occupied territory. The arithmetic is simple: Russia makes five shells, Europe makes one, Ukraine fires none.
Consequences
Democratic systems structurally disadvantaged in production wars
European incrementalism mismatched to threat timeline
Each delay measured in Ukrainian territorial losses
Thanks for reading!
Best
Adrian
Endnotes
“Russia producing three times more artillery shells than US and Europe for Ukraine,” CNN, 12 March 2024.
“EU Commissioner: EU will match Russia’s ammunition production in 2025,” Kyiv Independent, 15 January 2025.
“How much will rising defense spending boost Europe’s economy?” Goldman Sachs, 6 March 2025.
“European arms imports nearly double, US and French exports rise, and Russian exports fall sharply,” SIPRI, 11 March 2024.
“NATO’s ‘Brain Death’ in The Hague,” CSIS, 1 July 2025.
“A round-up of recent polling on Ukraine and defence,” YouGov, 17 February 2025.
“The economic impact of higher defence spending,” European Commission, Spring 2025 Economic Forecast.
“European defence spending soars, but climate and care are still ‘unaffordable’?” New Economics Foundation, 25 June 2025.
“EU defence in numbers,” European Council, 2025.
“The Challenges of Defence Spending in Europe,” Intereconomics, 2024.
“Defending Europe without the US: first estimates of what is needed,” Bruegel, 2025.
“Charted: NATO Defense Spending as a Share of GDP,” Visual Capitalist, 25 June 2025.
“China tells EU it does not want to see Russia lose its war in Ukraine,” South China Morning Post, 4 July 2025.