EU 'frustration' at failed defense industry ramp-up
The article centers EU and Ukrainian official voices (Kallas, EU officials) alongside corporate representatives from major defense contractors, presenting a collaborative, problem-solving narrative around defense production scaling. Language is measured and diplomatic ('frustration,' 'challenges'), avoiding charged rhetoric, and the framing emphasizes shared learning and institutional reform rather than systemic critique. The inclusion of industry perspectives that mirror official positions creates a consensus-building tone characteristic of establishment reporting on policy coordination.
Primary voices: elected official, state or recognized government, corporate or institutional spokesperson, media outlet
- This article does not address cost-benefit analysis or scrutiny of the €150 billion defense spending commitment relative to measurable outcomes
- This article does not include voices from peace advocacy groups, anti-militarism perspectives, or critiques of accelerated EU militarization
- This article does not examine potential conflicts of interest between defense contractors and the policy officials driving procurement expansion
Framing may shift if EU defense production targets are missed or if geopolitical tensions ease, potentially recasting current spending urgency as misjudged or excessive.
Government-sourcedEstablishment framingBoth-sides framing
The EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas expressed "frustration" that after billions of euros being deployed, Europe's defense industry is still not producing enough, following a meeting of defense ministers on May 12.
The slow progress of the EU's defense industry contrasts starkly with Ukraine, which has become a serious military-industrial power in just four years, is now able to export to others, help protect countries in the Middle East, and was identified by Kallas as a key source of innovation from which "we have a lot to learn."
The EU has not sat idly by during that time. It raised 150 billion euros ($170 billion) in defense loans on favorable terms in response to companies' criticism that they needed longer order pipelines.
Kallas noted that some specific lines of production have increased, naming ammunition and air defense among them.
At the same time, "the needs have also grown by the member states," she said, adding that a fragmented landscape of regulatory standards across EU countries continues to hinder scaling up.
Earlier the same day, Kallas outlined plans to strengthen the European Defence Agency to help improve defense innovation, joint projects and procurement processes for EU countries, areas in which she said much could be learned from Ukraine.
"The defense industry should also take this up," Kallas said.
Representatives from the EU's defense industry likewise agree that they can learn from their Ukrainian counterparts.
David Luengo from Spanish arms manufacturer Indra highlighted the "combat-proven" nature of Ukraine's equipment as an asset and its "competitive advantage" at a panel event organized by the Brussels Institute for Geopolitics on May 7.
He called on politicians to "consider how to include Ukraine in the supply chain," and stressed that even if Ukrainian companies might be competitors, he would "prefer to have Ukraine in my club, my EU, with my industry."
His counterpart on the panel, Mikael Isaksson of Swedish defense producer Saab, likewise praised Ukraine for its expertise in drones, "which has brought back a lot to the table."
For Isaksson, Europe's main challenge to ramping up production is now "time and culture, not money."
In particular, he described procurement processes as "burdensome" and "slow" and said "member states must change their modus operandi."
A senior EU official told the Kyiv Independent that this is being addressed, but ultimately, member states are responsible for their own procurement and NATO also plays an important role in procurement and standardization.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.
Sign in to leave a comment.