By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to President Zelenskyy, Ukraine and the European Union are on course to match Russia’s annual artillery round production by 2026. He indicated that slight acceleration by partner nations could ultimately give Ukraine and its allies an artillery advantage over Moscow. This increased production is a strategic move to ensure sustained ammunition supplies for Ukraine’s defense and reduce Moscow’s battlefield advantage. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has also reported that Europe’s artillery shell production has increased significantly in recent years.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy’s bold prediction that Ukraine and the EU will match or even surpass Russia’s artillery production by 2026 sparks some interesting thought. It’s a statement loaded with implications, from economic strategies to the very nature of modern warfare. The prospect of such a shift, especially considering the backdrop of a war economy versus a peacetime one, definitely merits a closer look.
The key point here is that Russia, currently operating in a full-blown war economy, has dedicated resources to producing artillery shells on a large scale. This is a significant advantage for Russia, given the high demand for such weaponry. To match or exceed this level of production in just a few years is a testament to the combined potential of Ukraine and the EU. It’s also worth noting that the EU’s original intent was geared towards preventing another major European war, emphasizing prosperity and trade over military buildup, it now has the necessity to act and the determination to support Ukraine in its defense.
However, there are several nuances to consider. While Russia has been producing shells, some reports suggest that not all the ammo is of the highest quality. The use of potentially substandard shells from countries like North Korea further complicates the picture. Also, Russia has been forced to operate in a war economy, which means that the economic burden has been very heavy for them. It is a costly undertaking.
So, the EU and Ukraine, on the other hand, are working under different circumstances. They are not in a full war economy, meaning they face different challenges and opportunities. Bureaucracy and the need to navigate legal channels can be slow but they are also much more efficient. This difference is particularly significant because the EU is not prioritizing military expansion. They must navigate the complexities of a peacetime economy. Also, the need to quickly transition into producing munitions previously in low demand complicates matters.
This also highlights the difference between a democracy and an autocracy. Democratic processes, by their nature, can be slow to mobilize. But once they do, they can be fast to scale things in the long run.
One thing to keep in mind is Russia’s financial stability. They are already struggling with budget shortfalls and the economic strain of the war. The recent recession and decreasing GDP further complicate matters. The EU and Ukraine, if they can leverage their economic capacity effectively, could have a significant advantage in terms of sustainable production over time.
There’s also the geopolitical dimension. China’s role is crucial, but in a way, it’s also a double-edged sword for Russia. China could be helping Russia, but to what end? The financial ruin for China could happen if Russia is able to win over. Russia is still capable of sustaining itself and its war. The success of the Western countries in terms of economic and military power is not to be diminished.
The assumption, though, is that Ukraine and the EU will be able to build modest capacity by 2026. It will be a challenging task to achieve this goal in four years. The war’s outcome may depend on how quickly they can ramp up production and deliver high-quality artillery shells.