In March this year, Ukraine asked its European allies for a quarter of a million shells per month. Then-Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov said his full battle plan required at least 350,000 troops. At the time, Ukraine was rationing itself to just 110,000 per month and needed Europe to make up the difference.

The European Union has pledged one million shells within a year – a third of what Ukraine had requested. The time had come at the end of November delivered 300,000 from the stocks of European armies. It has four months to make up the difference, but further supplies will have to come from new production, said Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief.

Surprisingly, after almost two years of war on European soil, the EU has not taken stock of continental production capacity. “We want to know today where we stand and what the production rhythm for this second track can look like,” Borrell said on November 14 at a meeting of EU defense ministers.

Russia has also fired more shells than it can produce and asked North Korea for help in September. Within a month, North Korea had done so 1,000 containers delivered White House spokesman John Kirby said it was munitions. Colonel Ants, head of Estonian military intelligence stone back said that was equivalent to 300,000 to 350,000 shells – the same amount as what the EU delivered to Ukraine, but in one month instead of eight.

An analysis of satellite photography by The Washington Post suggested the number was higher because ships had been plying the route between the North Korean free trade zone port of Rason and the Russian port of Dunai since August.

Russia may have received additional North Korean shells by rail. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said satellite images showed rail traffic between North Korea and Russia had increased “dramatically” since Russian President Vladimir Putin met North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in September.

“Much to the West’s surprise, Russia proved more adept at securing what it wanted from outside, including from China,” said Yiorgos Margaritis, professor emeritus of history at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, who oversees the artillery balance , told Al Jazeera. “The amount of shells promised by North Korea – 10 million – is outrageous. And they have already provided a tenth of that.”

“[Russia] is well equipped, does not care about the amount of losses and has third-party support of which there is no doubt. All three of these elements are not the same on the Ukrainian side,” Jens Bastian, a fellow at the German Institute for International Politics and Security, told Al Jazeera.

The EU must look for an answer. Borrell has suggested that the defense industry is failing to honor its contracts with overseas customers, who currently buy 40 percent of their production.

The US response was quicker and more dynamic. In February, it was decided to increase the production of artillery shells sixfold – a level not seen since the Korean War – in order to replenish supplies sent to Ukraine, provide Ukraine with more and build up stocks for future conflicts.

According to a New York Times report, the U.S. Army was purchasing 14,400 grenades a month in September 2022, tripling that number, and doubling it again to 90,000 in January 2023. But it will take until the end of next year for U.S. defense contractors to reach that production capacity.

What’s wrong with Europe?

The EU says it will meet U.S. orders of about one million rounds of artillery ammunition, including rockets, per year by spring.

“I am responsible for the production capacity of ammunition and can therefore confirm that the target of producing more than one million cartridges annually can be achieved,” EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton is reported to have said at a meeting of EU defense ministers. Meeting on November 14th

For that to happen, governments have to give orders, he said.

“It is the member states that have to order this ammunition, produce it and ensure that it is manufactured primarily for Ukraine. “All of this is in the hands of the member states,” Breton said.

But as of December 6, EU member states had ordered only 60,000 of the one million shells they had promised Ukraine, Reuters news agency reported. It takes a long time for the orders to be executed, so it is doubtful whether the EU will enforce even the few orders that have been placed by March. For example, German steel and weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall announced on December 3 that it had received an order for grenades worth 142 million euros ($156 million) for Ukraine, but that they would be delivered in 2025.

According to experts, there are many reasons for the deplorable state of EU coordination in the defense sector.

Unlike areas such as banking, the green energy transition and transport, where EU member states pursue closely coordinated policies led by Brussels, defense and foreign policy remain national competences.

“We do not have an integrated European defense industry or an integrated European defense policy, and Ukraine has been emphasizing this for two years,” Bastian said. “Mr Borrell makes it clear that the failure at EU level is also a failure of individual countries that do not have the capacity to produce on a large scale within a certain period of time,” he said.

The lack of coordination in foreign policy is equally problematic. “We don’t have a defined, common threat perception and therefore countries have different priorities,” said Minna Alander, a research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

“Not everyone shares the view that Russia poses an existential threat to Europe,” she told Al Jazeera.

Europe’s withdrawal from heavy industry, including metal production, which peaked during the COVID-19 pandemic, contributed to a tight supply of raw materials for weapons.

“If you want to build a bridge, 80 percent of your steel will come from China, India and one or two other countries in the East. The same applies to weapons production,” Margaritis said. “If you want to increase steel production, you have to make huge changes,” he said, including providing cheap energy and abundant labor.

If Europe does not maintain at least some self-sufficiency in heavy industry, it risks its own security, experts say.

“Europe needs an epochal shift in political thinking, coupled with significantly increased defense spending and a determined effort to redefine public perceptions of the need for strong defense,” said Bastian Giegerich, director general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies think tank, and Tim Lawrenson, a defense industry consultant, wrote recently.

“None of these requirements appear to be secured at this time. However, if they are not adhered to, NATO’s vaunted deterrent effect could falter. Russia may feel that Europe no longer has a credible defense and be tempted to attack a NATO member.”