Latest news with #NATOAlliance
Euronews
16-07-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Is Russia producing a year's worth of NATO ammunition in three months?
In a keynote speech in London last month, the NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte repeated a warning he has made in public at least three times this year: the western alliance is severely lagging behind Moscow on ammunition production. 'In terms of ammunition, Russia produces in three months what the whole of NATO produces in a year,' Rutte said on 10 June, adding that Putin's war machine is 'speeding up, not slowing down". Rutte, who became chief of the military alliance in October last year, went on to repeat the same warning. 'Let me repeat it again. NATO's economy is 25 times bigger than Russia's. It's 50 trillion (dollars), and the Russian economy is two trillion. That two-trillion-dollar economy is producing four times as much ammunition as the whole of NATO is producing at the moment,' he said. We verified his claims against the available data. We found that, while Moscow's ammunition production may have been approximately four times more than that of the NATO Alliance in 2024, there are signs that the gap could be closing. What do we know about Russia's ammunition production capacity? Information about Moscow's military production capacity is classified. Experts' estimates are based on the statements of officials, leaked intelligence and historical data. We can say with certainty that Moscow has steeply increased its ammunition production since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, outpacing its western counterparts. The Estonian Foreign Intelligence Service estimates that Russia produced or refurbished 400,000 artillery rounds in 2022, multiplying its production more than eleven-fold to produce 4.5 million rounds in 2024. An analysis by consulting firm Bain & Company for Sky News in May 2024 came to the same conclusion, putting the total number of shells produced or refurbished in 2024 at an estimated 4.5 million rounds. Russia predominantly produces 122mm and 152mm artillery shells, while the NATO-standard shell has a slightly bigger diameter of 155mm, and is mainly used in the Western Howitzer systems, such as those provided by allies to Kyiv. The Bain & Company analysis estimates that the 152mm shell favoured by Moscow is also around four times cheaper to produce at $1,000 (€860) per shell compared to $4,000 (€3430) for the NATO-standard 155mm shell. The ammunition stockpile available to Moscow is also believed to be greater than its own production capacity due to the stocks it imports from its allies. According to media reports citing South Korean intelligence leaked this week, North Korea has supplied Russia with 12 million rounds of 152mm shells to be used in Ukraine. While this figure cannot be independently verified, satellite imagery analysed by the Wall Street Journal last December showed signs of a significant scaling up of production facilities in North Korea as well as an increase in shipments to Russia. How does NATO's capacity compare? We verified Rutte's statements by looking at the comparative ammunition production capacity of European allies and the US, the main NATO manufacturers. In 2024, Europe and the US produced an estimated 1.2 million shells per year, according to the Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs, compared to Russia's estimated 4.5 million. These estimates would roughly align with Rutte's claim that Russia is producing four times more ammunition annually than its NATO counterparts. Yet the Western alliance is looking to dramatically close the gap in 2025. The European Commission has set a target to ramp up ammunition production to 2 million rounds per year in 2025, while the US is looking to hit a new target of 100,000 rounds per month by October. Other allies, including Norway, the United Kingdom and Canada, are also looking to boost supply chains. While hitting those targets would see NATO significantly close the gap on Russia, western allies have in the past struggled to fulfil their promises. The European Union missed its target to provide Ukraine with one million artillery shells by March last year, prompting the Czech Republic to spearhead an international fundraising drive to procure more ammunition rounds for Kyiv, which has since secured the participation of 16 countries. The Czech initiative has since delivered 1.6 million shells to Ukraine. The Czech foreign minister said in May that funding has been secured to keep the programme going through to 2026, but that its future depends on parliamentary elections scheduled to take place in October. Is the Western lag endangering Ukraine's resistance? It is also unclear how much of those Western stockpiles would be sent to Ukraine in 2025. The government in Kyiv has previously said it needs around 200,000 ammunition rounds per month to be able to withstand Russian assaults on the front line. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently said that Ukraine hopes to receive some 3 million artillery shells from its allies this year, including 1.8 million from a Czech-led programme. But the West, particularly Europe, is still struggling to fire up its ammunition industry. Explosives — the essential core of ammunition shells — are in shortage with just one single factory in Poland currently producing trinitrotoluene or TNT. Western targets are also still far behind Russia's, despite the Russian economy being almost 25 times smaller than the combined size of NATO's economies.
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Ukraine's NATO Hopes Decline Rapidly, Zelensky Isolated As NATO Talks Turn 'Toxic'
Ukraine's hopes for NATO membership are fading as talks with Western allies stall. Described as 'toxic' by a Ukrainian official, the negotiations have reached a dead end. Once supported by NATO members, Kiev now faces growing reluctance amid concerns over Russia's reaction and shifting global priorities. Recent summits have downplayed the issue, and key leaders — including Donald Trump — have voiced strong opposition. With no timeline and rising tension, Ukraine's path to NATO remains uncertain.#ukraine #nato #putin #zelensky #trump #UkraineWar #NATOAlliance #RussiaUkraineConflict #Zelenskyy #VladimirPutin #TrumpOnUkraine #Geopolitics #EasternEuropeCrisis #GlobalSecurity #NATOMembership #USForeignPolicy #KremlinWatch #UkraineDefense #UkraineCrisis #WorldPolitics
Time of India
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Zelensky Exposed! ‘Kyiv Not Negotiating Ceasefire In Good Faith, Peace Talks Are Just For Show'
Ukraine's participation in peace talks with Russia is largely performative, according to a top Ukrainian diplomat. Georgiy Tikhiy admitted that Kyiv joins negotiations in Istanbul mainly to avoid criticism from Western allies, not because it expects real ceasefire outcomes. While prisoner exchanges have occurred, meaningful diplomatic progress remains stalled. Ukrainian leaders continue to criticize Moscow's delegation as unserious, while Russia questions Zelensky's legitimacy, especially after his term expired. President Putin has signalled willingness to meet, but doubts whether Zelensky can legally sign any binding agreements. The conflict remains locked in a diplomatic stalemate, with both sides undermining each other's credibility.#ukraine #nato #putin #zelensky #trump #UkraineWar #NATOAlliance #RussiaUkraineConflict #Zelenskyy #VladimirPutin #TrumpOnUkraine #Geopolitics #EasternEuropeCrisis #GlobalSecurity #NATOMembership #USForeignPolicy #KremlinWatch #UkraineDefense #UkraineCrisis #WorldPolitics
Al Jazeera
26-06-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
NATO's 5 percent spending pledge is a threat to people and the planet
NATO's leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries' gross domestic product (GDP) on 'core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035'. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a 'quantum leap' in spending that would guarantee 'freedom and security' for the military alliance's one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security – and if so, for whom? The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it's easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025. This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level. Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It's an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet. In reality, the money will be diverted – most of all from social and environmental spending – even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: 'If we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.' Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon. Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules. NATO's spending spree will not only divert money – it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world's biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 – roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan. NATO's justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of 'Russia' and 'terrorism'. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO's actions partly set the stage for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO's 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for 'terrorism', the idea that NATO's increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the 'War on Terror', where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment. The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump's pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a 'dynamic growth industry' and a 'mega force' that will drive investment trends in the coming years. NATO's idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
CNA
25-06-2025
- Politics
- CNA
Trump calls strikes on Iran severe despite "inconclusive" intelligence
US President Donald Trump is doubling down on claims of "total obliteration" to Iranian nuclear sites as he meets with leaders of the NATO bloc. The defence alliance is wrapping up two days of talks on boosting defence spending, centred on Mr Trump's demand for the bloc to do more. Ross Cullen reports from The Hague.
