I’d like to learn more about the progress on the rearmament of Europe. Do you have any long form resources I could read?
I only hear bits and pieces about the slow progress. I remember hearing the goal that the EU would produce X amounts of ammunition per year. Did that happen? I also recently heard about Ukraine opening a factory in Denmark. That seems good, but still not the broad rearmament I’ve been wanting to see.
Are there good overviews, with some stats and maybe some nice looking graphics? I realize a lot is secret, but still.
Edit: I decided not to be a lazy bum and did my own googling. I found this testimony about the “Danish Model” by a member of CSIS. I learnt that Ukraine has capacity to produce $35B of military equipment per year, but only $6B to spend. Other countries are purchasing another $10B worth of military equipment per year from Ukrainian producers. This is the Danish model.
Unfortunately at least on the english speaking internet the overall quality of resources for this has plummeted. To be frank, I think a lot of this has to do with the necessary dumbing down that has been applied to the media over conversations about war ever since 9/11 sent authoritarianism in the US into overdrive and reduced justifications for military strikes into cartoonish cynical jokes, this process has reached an absolute peak in utterly denying the Palestinian Genocide and pretending it is a war and as a result discussion in english speaking media about ALL wars and conflicts right now has been reduced to baby like parroting of whatever the military and politicians say with no journalistic critique of the narrative being presented from a perspective of known established realities about war. “tanks are obsolete!” “helicopters are obsolete!!” “artillery is obsolete!” … it is honestly exhausting.
That coupled with enshittification makes this a very difficult time to find good information even as in many ways paradoxically there has never been better access to information.
That rant aside, this article is a good place to start
In general I would pay attention to defense news websites and also note the general structure of joint european military exercises, they typically display the cohesive intention behind what can feel like meaningless unrelated details of arms procurement.
In a way I think the best way to put a picture together for yourself is to think of an abstracted idea of an armored brigade combat team with supporting drone, air and naval assets.
Armored Battalion (×2)
Headquarters and Headquarters Company
Tank Company (×2)
Mechanized Infantry Company
Mechanized Infantry Battalion (×1)
Headquarters and Headquarters Company
Tank Company
Mechanized Infantry Company (×2)
Cavalry Squadron (×1)
Headquarters and Headquarters Troop
Tank Troop (×2)
Cavalry Troop (x2)
Field artillery (fires) battalion
Headquarters and headquarters battery
Target acquisition platoon
M109 155 mm self propelled howitzer battery (×2)
Brigade engineer battalion
Headquarters and headquarters company
Combat engineer company
Engineer support company
Signal company
Military intelligence company
Brigade Support Battalion
Headquarters and Headquarters Company
Distribution Company
Field Maintenance Company
Medical Company
Headquarters Platoon
Treatment Platoon
Medical Evacuation Platoon
Forward Support Company (Cavalry)
Forward Support Company (Combined Arms) (×3)
Consider all the primary equipment needed for a wholistic “unit” of an equivalent fighting force along with drones, aircraft and navy if applicable. Don’t forget bridgelayers and logistics! In general, considering the largest militaries in Europe such as the German military then ask the basic question what is the state of that countries equipment for those major roles? What is the state of Germany’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Main Battle Tanks?
That is relatively easy to google and get good information on, it is easy to establish for example that the Lynx and Leopards are extremely advanced fighting vehicles that have undergone many series of modernizations. You can compare this to the UK whose Ajax IFV vehicles are so broken that they vibrate too violently for the soldiers inside to not be injured by it. From this perspective of evaluating the state of equipment programs things are much more accessible.
Poland and Germany are two easy to point to European nations that have massively increased the power of their military. Poland alone with its orders of K2 and Abrams tanks, piles and piles of AH-64 helicopters and plenty of ground based missile and tube artillery now represents an extremely intimidating military power. I suppose it might not all be deployable tomorrow, but the longterm trajectory is definitely not a slow, limping subdued reaction. Both HIMARS type rocket artillery and traditional cannon artillery are crucial types of equipment to consider as well and Europe has thoroughly rearmed itself with both and will continue to do so into the indefinite future I imagine.
Lastly consider fighter aircraft programs as they are a strategic asset, here is easiest you can find lots of news about the increase of fighter aircraft production and modernization in European militaries. The fact that Canada would even consider purchasing European fighter aircraft instead of US equivalents even as it is neighbors of the US, yes even given the political situation right now, says a lot in itself. I also think the ability of France to donate Mirage 2000-5F aircraft to Ukraine reveals a depth and breadth to Europe’s sophisticated fighter-bomber aircraft stock demonstrating a serious increase in strength. Military airlift is the other big aviation asset (especially considering the future dominant role of Rapid Dragon type systems) that people always overlook and there again Europe is in a stronger position than ever with the Airbus A400M.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc. And most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help (if they can fight as efficiently as Ukraine which is not a given). That’s why unity and further ramp up is so important. Most of the really impressive production is happening inside Ukraine. But it’s also generally not up to Russian rates. It will be some time before Europe is really prepared to go it alone and that’s only if they really start producing now, which I wouldn’t say is really happening yet.
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc.
Without a qualitative measure, those numbers are nearly meaningless. It’s also worthwhile knowing how much of that materiel actually gets to the front lines. Command economies are notorious about claiming to hit production targets, yet nothing actually changing downstream. Nobody wants to tell the boss they missed their production quota, since doing so can lead to defenestration.
A state, let alone a union of lots of states, are not at war because you feel like it. wiki: war
It is generally characterized by widespread violence, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces.
So what makes you think the EU is at war and why are all the implications that would have missing?
Note that “being attacked” is something different than being at war, as per above, but I am not going to start a new discussion before we have not finished this one.
Call it a covert war or what you want, but the EU is under attack by Russia and has been for some time. Just because one side has started a war campaign against the other and the other hasn’t responded in kind doesn’t make the war not real.
I’d like to learn more about the progress on the rearmament of Europe. Do you have any long form resources I could read?
I only hear bits and pieces about the slow progress. I remember hearing the goal that the EU would produce X amounts of ammunition per year. Did that happen? I also recently heard about Ukraine opening a factory in Denmark. That seems good, but still not the broad rearmament I’ve been wanting to see.
Are there good overviews, with some stats and maybe some nice looking graphics? I realize a lot is secret, but still.
Edit: I decided not to be a lazy bum and did my own googling. I found this testimony about the “Danish Model” by a member of CSIS. I learnt that Ukraine has capacity to produce $35B of military equipment per year, but only $6B to spend. Other countries are purchasing another $10B worth of military equipment per year from Ukrainian producers. This is the Danish model.
Unfortunately at least on the english speaking internet the overall quality of resources for this has plummeted. To be frank, I think a lot of this has to do with the necessary dumbing down that has been applied to the media over conversations about war ever since 9/11 sent authoritarianism in the US into overdrive and reduced justifications for military strikes into cartoonish cynical jokes, this process has reached an absolute peak in utterly denying the Palestinian Genocide and pretending it is a war and as a result discussion in english speaking media about ALL wars and conflicts right now has been reduced to baby like parroting of whatever the military and politicians say with no journalistic critique of the narrative being presented from a perspective of known established realities about war. “tanks are obsolete!” “helicopters are obsolete!!” “artillery is obsolete!” … it is honestly exhausting.
That coupled with enshittification makes this a very difficult time to find good information even as in many ways paradoxically there has never been better access to information.
That rant aside, this article is a good place to start
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/04/28/european-drone-training-sites-mushroom-in-nod-to-ukraine-war-tactics/
In general I would pay attention to defense news websites and also note the general structure of joint european military exercises, they typically display the cohesive intention behind what can feel like meaningless unrelated details of arms procurement.
In a way I think the best way to put a picture together for yourself is to think of an abstracted idea of an armored brigade combat team with supporting drone, air and naval assets.
Armored Battalion (×2) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Tank Company (×2) Mechanized Infantry Company Mechanized Infantry Battalion (×1) Headquarters and Headquarters Company Tank Company Mechanized Infantry Company (×2) Cavalry Squadron (×1) Headquarters and Headquarters Troop Tank Troop (×2) Cavalry Troop (x2) Field artillery (fires) battalion Headquarters and headquarters battery Target acquisition platoon M109 155 mm self propelled howitzer battery (×2) Brigade engineer battalion Headquarters and headquarters company Combat engineer company Engineer support company Signal company Military intelligence company Brigade Support Battalion Headquarters and Headquarters Company Distribution Company Field Maintenance Company Medical Company Headquarters Platoon Treatment Platoon Medical Evacuation Platoon Forward Support Company (Cavalry) Forward Support Company (Combined Arms) (×3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_combat_team
Consider all the primary equipment needed for a wholistic “unit” of an equivalent fighting force along with drones, aircraft and navy if applicable. Don’t forget bridgelayers and logistics! In general, considering the largest militaries in Europe such as the German military then ask the basic question what is the state of that countries equipment for those major roles? What is the state of Germany’s Infantry Fighting Vehicle and Main Battle Tanks?
That is relatively easy to google and get good information on, it is easy to establish for example that the Lynx and Leopards are extremely advanced fighting vehicles that have undergone many series of modernizations. You can compare this to the UK whose Ajax IFV vehicles are so broken that they vibrate too violently for the soldiers inside to not be injured by it. From this perspective of evaluating the state of equipment programs things are much more accessible.
Poland and Germany are two easy to point to European nations that have massively increased the power of their military. Poland alone with its orders of K2 and Abrams tanks, piles and piles of AH-64 helicopters and plenty of ground based missile and tube artillery now represents an extremely intimidating military power. I suppose it might not all be deployable tomorrow, but the longterm trajectory is definitely not a slow, limping subdued reaction. Both HIMARS type rocket artillery and traditional cannon artillery are crucial types of equipment to consider as well and Europe has thoroughly rearmed itself with both and will continue to do so into the indefinite future I imagine.
Lastly consider fighter aircraft programs as they are a strategic asset, here is easiest you can find lots of news about the increase of fighter aircraft production and modernization in European militaries. The fact that Canada would even consider purchasing European fighter aircraft instead of US equivalents even as it is neighbors of the US, yes even given the political situation right now, says a lot in itself. I also think the ability of France to donate Mirage 2000-5F aircraft to Ukraine reveals a depth and breadth to Europe’s sophisticated fighter-bomber aircraft stock demonstrating a serious increase in strength. Military airlift is the other big aviation asset (especially considering the future dominant role of Rapid Dragon type systems) that people always overlook and there again Europe is in a stronger position than ever with the Airbus A400M.
Thank you for that long write-up! I’m glad to see more progress. I’ll keep an eye on defense news
Russia still outproduces all of NATO in artillery shells, tanks, etc. And most European countries only have enough stocks to survive an Ukraine style war on their own for a few months without help (if they can fight as efficiently as Ukraine which is not a given). That’s why unity and further ramp up is so important. Most of the really impressive production is happening inside Ukraine. But it’s also generally not up to Russian rates. It will be some time before Europe is really prepared to go it alone and that’s only if they really start producing now, which I wouldn’t say is really happening yet.
Without a qualitative measure, those numbers are nearly meaningless. It’s also worthwhile knowing how much of that materiel actually gets to the front lines. Command economies are notorious about claiming to hit production targets, yet nothing actually changing downstream. Nobody wants to tell the boss they missed their production quota, since doing so can lead to defenestration.
They are certainly of lower quality, but in the words of Stalin, “Quantity has a quality of its own”.
Just note that you can not calculate like that. At war the whole economy switches over, instead of only a tiny fraction.
The question then is when Europe will realize it’s at war and start producing like it.
The EU is not at war.
I disagree. We are being attacked on a regular basis.
A state, let alone a union of lots of states, are not at war because you feel like it. wiki: war
So what makes you think the EU is at war and why are all the implications that would have missing?
Note that “being attacked” is something different than being at war, as per above, but I am not going to start a new discussion before we have not finished this one.
Call it a covert war or what you want, but the EU is under attack by Russia and has been for some time. Just because one side has started a war campaign against the other and the other hasn’t responded in kind doesn’t make the war not real.