By John Q. Hosedrinker 
At a NATO industry forum, Secretary General Mark Rutte announced that NATO has surpassed Russia in ammunition production due to the opening of numerous new production lines and accelerated deliveries across the defense sector. Rutte emphasized the need for increased output, faster delivery times, and long-term investment as the Alliance prepares for prolonged strategic competition, highlighting Russia’s war in Ukraine as the clearest example of the threat. He also stressed the importance of defense-industrial cooperation, innovation, and partnership with entities like the EU and Indo-Pacific democracies to maintain NATO’s edge. Rutte urged industry leaders to expand production, assuring them that the Alliance has the resources and capability to overcome those seeking to undermine NATO.
Read the original article here
NATO Overtakes Russia in Ammunition Production: ‘We Are Turning the Tide,’ Rutte Says. Let’s break this down, shall we? It’s a headline that sounds like a game-changer, right? But the devil, as always, is in the details, and frankly, I think we need to temper our enthusiasm a bit. The news, from what I understand, is that the combined ammunition production capabilities of NATO have finally surpassed Russia’s output. That’s a significant achievement, a sign that the collective West is mobilizing and stepping up its support for Ukraine. Prime Minister Rutte’s comments suggest a shift, that the tide is turning. I can see why he might say that, but it’s crucial to understand the nuances here.
This, though, is not just about outproducing Russia. The real challenge, and the one that is truly massive, is outproducing not just Russia, but also China, North Korea, and Iran. And that is a different beast entirely. It seems that the EU and the US have realized that it’s more critical than ever to support Europe and, as a whole, to be strong together. However, my inner pessimist whispers that we’re still playing catch-up.
So, is this a shift in the stalemate? Yes, in a way. It does appear to be a positive development, but is it enough? Does it account for what Russia is getting from North Korea? Probably not. We need to be realistic about the scale of this. The goal isn’t just to produce more than Russia, it’s to produce enough to win. The approach to winning requires more production, more spending, and the necessary manpower.
Let’s remember that Russia only responds to strength or weakness. The hope is that this increased production is happening within Europe, given the perceived unreliability of the US and the historically weak state of the EU arms industry. I’d argue that the ammunition in question here should be artillery shells, not small-arms ammo. The entire NATO, with its combined population and massive GDP, has finally managed to outproduce a single country like Russia.
The fact that NATO can now outproduce Russia is cool, sure. But we need to remember the sheer scale of the challenge. Some are drawing comparisons to a football team bragging about having more balls in its locker room than its rival. It’s almost as if it’s stating the obvious that 30 countries can outproduce a single nation! But we are ignoring the elephant in the room.
The fact is, even if NATO is currently outproducing Russia, China can outproduce NATO by a wide margin in an all-out war. Think about the implications of China potentially blocking rare earth exports. This could cripple NATO’s ability to produce high-end weapons systems. We have very limited refining capabilities for these critical materials. In a full-scale conflict, China could win through attrition.
And what about the war in Ukraine? The reality is that we’re unlikely to match the millions of cheap drones China can produce or their missile capabilities. The hope is that economic sanctions will prevent China from fully supporting Russia. However, there are obvious supply chain dependencies, and Russia and China would have an advantage in access to raw materials like gun cotton and steel.
Russia, with its authoritarian system, is more easily able to scale up production. They are at war, they have a military doctrine that calls for high consumption of artillery shells, and they have the advantage of vast, sparsely populated areas for production sites. The EU, on the other hand, has a more hands-off approach to its economy. Convincing manufacturers to increase production capacity can be challenging, especially in the absence of a long-term commitment. Different member states also face different challenges, with some having more space and others more GDP.
It’s ironic that this success is based on the assumption that the war in Ukraine will continue. Some believe that any talk of peace initiatives could be seen as helping Russia. The idea of out-producing China seems almost impossible. The war is probably going to continue for years, leading to a war of attrition. The EU is in a different situation from Russia, which has geared much of its economy to war production. The fact that the EU is outproducing something while not being in such a state is a key point, I guess.
The point being, if you have more new balls in your locker room, you can now give away your old ones. Now, some people will tell you that the analogy is a little off because footballs aren’t used to kill people, and comparing single countries with multiple states’ sizes and resources is unfair. And, yes, it’s true that China’s manufacturing capacity is enormous. The U.S. is looking into restarting rare earth production and refining before 2030, but that is a long time, and the U.S. isn’t exactly stable right now.
But what about other options? Where else could we get rare earth minerals? Canada? And the strategy would be to have such an overwhelming initial force that it might prevent a full-scale war altogether, maybe? They have plenty of automated and modern factories and are only after South Korea and Japan in terms of industrial automation. The U.S. will not suddenly be able to out-manufacture China. The focus should be on boosting domestic production and empowering allies who can produce more.
The problem, here, is the lack of industrial expertise and human knowledge to operate these processes. We have the money, but we don’t know what to do with it. We didn’t refine high-end rare earths for decades. We don’t teach it at universities and have almost no skilled people in the West (or outside China). This strategic capability being in the hands of hostile states is a losing proposition, plain and simple.
Becoming a sustainable economy makes us less dependent on China and Russia. It would also be good to start recycling our own waste rather than sending it to China. But that is a messy process and a tough sell for those concerned about profitability in Europe.