NATO and the EU urgently demand a stronger defense industry

Von der Leyen and Rutte speak as one

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte co-signed, on July 6, 2026, a joint op-ed in The Economist calling for an urgent strengthening of Europe's defense industry. Their message is unambiguous: "In this more dangerous world, a stronger European defense industry, able to produce at scale and at speed, is essential to credible deterrence," they wrote, according to Anadolu Agency.

The two leaders stress a central point: "It is our shared priority to ensure that the industrial base across Europe and North America delivers more, better and faster, because that is how we secure our safety." This joint statement comes on the eve of the NATO summit in Ankara, scheduled for July 7 and 8.

A Europe that can no longer outsource its security

Von der Leyen and Rutte argue that Europe has entered a new security era and can no longer afford to outsource a large share of its defense to other powers. They call for a rapid expansion of the continent's industrial capacity to meet growing military demand, demand fueled directly by continued support for Ukraine and by instability in the Middle East.

A worrying list of shortfalls

The two leaders publicly listed the gaps that remain despite efforts already underway: shortages of fighter jets, air defense systems, missile defense systems, drones, naval assets and military stockpiles. This unusual transparency, coming from both the presidency of the European Commission and NATO's secretary general's office, illustrates the perceived gravity of the situation.

According to their op-ed, current production capacity remains insufficient to meet demand, a finding that directly echoes the documented difficulties on the Ukrainian side regarding the shortage of Patriot interceptor missiles. Continued military support for Ukraine, combined with instability in the Middle East, is putting added pressure on stockpiles already under strain.

Factories opening, but not fast enough

Von der Leyen and Rutte acknowledge that NATO's European allies and European Union member states are increasing their defense spending, opening new factories and expanding production lines. Both traditional manufacturers and newer technology companies are ramping up production, notably in drones, unmanned ground vehicles and electronic warfare systems.

An axis of cooperation worrying the alliance

Von der Leyen and Rutte explicitly point to the expanding defense cooperation between Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. They state that Moscow has redirected its entire economy toward sustained war production, while China's defense industry and nuclear arsenal continue to grow unabated.

This convergence among four regimes hostile to the Western international order constitutes, according to both leaders, an additional and urgent reason to accelerate transatlantic cooperation on defense production and innovation, rather than delay it through bureaucratic or budgetary considerations.

Europe and North America have the means, not yet the speed

Both signatories state that Europe and North America possess the economic strength, the technological expertise and the industrial capacity needed to respond to this joint threat. What they still lack, by their own admission, is the speed of execution against adversaries who have already fully reorganized their production systems around wartime logic.

A quantified and documented imbalance

According to the SIPRI ranking cited by Anadolu Agency, the world's hundred largest arms and military services companies generated $679 billion in revenue in 2024. American companies, including Lockheed Martin, RTX, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and General Dynamics, account alone for $334 billion, nearly half of the global total.

Lockheed Martin alone generated $64.65 billion in military revenue in 2024, about 9.5 percent of all arms sales in the entire SIPRI ranking. European companies excluding Russia total only $151 billion over the same period, a gap that concretely illustrates the industrial imbalance denounced by von der Leyen and Rutte.

NATO's budgetary weight, a persistent dependence

Total NATO defense spending exceeded $1.4 trillion in 2025, of which about 60 percent comes from the United States against about 40 percent for European members and Turkey combined. This budgetary ratio, documented by Anadolu Agency from the alliance's official figures, sums up on its own why Europe is now seeking to rebalance its industrial, not just financial, contribution.

The UK, France and Germany lead the way

The United Kingdom counts seven companies in the SIPRI ranking, including BAE Systems, together generating $52.2 billion in arms revenue in 2024. France, with Dassault Aviation, Thales, Safran and Naval Group, generated $26.1 billion, of which nearly $11.8 billion came from Thales alone. Germany, driven by Rheinmetall and Diehl, saw its military sales jump 47 percent and 53 percent respectively in a single year.

Turkey deserves a special mention: five Turkish companies, including ASELSAN, Baykar and Turkish Aerospace Industries, generated $10.1 billion in 2024, an increase of 11 percent, a historic record for the country according to the SIPRI ranking cited by Anadolu Agency.

National spending still far from the shared target

As a share of GDP, the United Kingdom will spend 2.40 percent on defense in 2025, France 2.07 percent, Germany 2.03 percent and Italy 2.01 percent. These figures remain below the 5 percent of GDP target discussed during preparatory talks for the Ankara summit, according to Biz Chosun, which illustrates the scale of the budgetary effort still required.

An unprecedented proposal on Tomahawk and Patriot missiles

According to Biz Chosun, the German government has proposed to the United States a plan for joint production, on German soil, of Tomahawk cruise missiles and Patriot PAC-3 interceptors. The stated goal is twofold: reduce the burden on American defense companies while speeding up weapons acquisition in Europe itself, amid growing security uncertainty.

This initiative fits directly into the European rearmament momentum triggered after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It also addresses a concrete concern: instability in the Middle East could delay American arms deliveries to Europe, a risk Berlin is seeking to limit by physically moving production closer to the theater where it will be used.

Hundreds of billions in contracts announced at Ankara

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said, according to Biz Chosun: "Hundreds of billions of dollars in new defense industry contracts will be announced at next week's summit." Europe and Canada have already placed about $300 billion in orders with American defense companies, orders that support about 195,000 jobs in the United States.

Washington fears being shut out of the European fund

According to Biz Chosun, American and European interests do not fully align on this industrial question. The United States fears that a defense industry fund pushed by the European Union could be managed in a way that excludes American companies and non-EU countries, a fear that could hinder the transatlantic cooperation that von der Leyen and Rutte are nonetheless calling for.

An American administration official, Matthew Whitaker, summed up this logic in a blunt phrase: "Those who do more will get more good things," signaling that Washington intends to reward allies differently based on their actual level of defense investment.

European autonomy still largely theoretical

Europe is pushing toward autonomy for its defense industry while remaining heavily dependent on the United States for the most advanced weapons systems and technologies. This contradiction, documented by Biz Chosun, explains why the von der Leyen and Rutte op-ed places so much emphasis on cooperation rather than a full break with the American partner.

A stronger industry, a better-supplied front

This debate over Europe's defense industry is not a budgetary abstraction disconnected from the ground: every factory opened, every production line accelerated in Germany, France or Turkey potentially translates into more ammunition, drones and interceptors available for Ukraine, whose missile defense has remained critically strained since the attacks of July 2026.

Germany's proposal to co-produce Patriot PAC-3 interceptors on European soil directly illustrates this link: moving production closer to the theater of war shortens delivery times and reduces dependence on an already strained transatlantic supply chain, an issue documented by Ukraine's shortages on July 6.

A coherence test for the entire Western bloc

If von der Leyen and Rutte's call actually translates into contracts and faster deliveries, Ukraine could benefit directly in the months following the Ankara summit. If, on the other hand, this call remains a rhetorical exercise with no concrete follow-through, the contradiction between declarations of support for Kyiv and industrial reality will keep costing Ukrainian civilian lives every week.

An Ankara summit under heavy pressure

The NATO summit in Ankara, on July 7 and 8, will need to turn this joint op-ed into concrete, quantified commitments. Increased defense spending, joint purchase and production of American weapons, and the expansion of defense industry supply chains are among the central items expected on the agenda, according to Biz Chosun.

What history will remember of this appeal

Von der Leyen and Rutte are right to name the threat and demand an industrial acceleration, but their op-ed will remain a mere communications exercise if it does not translate, in the months following Ankara, into factories running faster and contracts turning into actual deliveries on Ukrainian ground and elsewhere in Europe.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.