​​BERLIN, June 19 (Reuters) - Germany's armed forces only have around 20,000 high explosive artillery shells left, magazine Der Spiegel wrote on Monday citing confidential defence ministry papers prepared to convince the budget committee of the need for urgent purchases.

Countries like Germany have rushed to send supplies of 155m artillery rounds used by howitzers to Ukraine in the wake of its invasion by Russia in February 2022, running down stocks for their own defence.Germany's military needs to build up an inventory of some 230,000 shells by 2031 to comply with NATO goals to have enough artillery to withstand 30 days of intensive combat, Der Spiegel wrote.

The defence ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The ministry aims to present the budget committee with nine contracts for the accelerated purchase of artillery and tank ammunition in coming months, Der Spiegel wrote.

​​​​​

In military terms, Sweden is a non-entity. The war in Ukraine has made clear that warfare is now dominated by artillery rather than aircraft; it is production that truly counts when modern industrial nations go to war against each other. In this area, Sweden has nothing to offer. At one time the Scandinavian nation had hundreds of artillery pieces; today, it boasts around 20 howitzers. Ten years ago, Gen. Sverker Göransson, who was at the time the supreme commander of the Swedish Armed Forces, stated that Sweden could defend a single point in the country (such as a city or an airport) for at most a week before other countries would have to intervene and carry on the war on in Sweden’s stead.

“The defense of Europe is becoming an unfunded mandate.”

At this point, the defense of Europe is becoming an unfunded mandate: something everyone agrees is necessary and good but that nobody is actually paying for. The problem isn’t even that Swedish politicians are genuinely convinced that Washington would send in the 101st Airborne at a moment’s notice if Swedish territorial integrity were threatened; it’s that everyone now simply seems to hope that things will somehow magically work themselves out.

Last year, plans were announced across Europe for massive rearmament; in 2023, all of those plans have turned out to be a mirage. The reality of political discontent from high energy prices and spiking inflation, and the looming specter of deindustrialization, have combined to destroy any ability for Europe to make real budgetary commitments to rearmament.

Meanwhile, the one country with real military heft in the alliance—the United States—is increasingly preoccupied with concerns in Asia, and American elites are coming to recognize that American power can’t be everywhere, do everything, and subsidize everyone all at once. But as this happens, there is no commensurate effort for any European country to meaningfully share the load. On the contrary, to Swedish officials, NATO membership means that, if push comes to shove, someone else will pay the costs of war. But that someone else isn’t realistically going to be Spain or Germany, much less Lithuania or Montenegro. Nor does there seem to be a clear conception in Washington of who that someone else might be, other than a creeping realization that it won’t be—can’t be—America.

Back in 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron warned that “what we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO.” As the Ukraine war got underway in 2022, this prediction was soundly mocked, as people flocked to proclaim that NATO was back and not going anywhere. Today, Macron’s diagnosis seems more apt than ever. Even as the alliance keeps expanding, nobody can answer the basic question of who will put up the soldiers, the ammo, the blood, and the treasure required to actually fight.

Mr. Ellwood highlighted the significant reduction in the UK’s military capabilities since the Gulf War in 1990, emphasising the need for investment and upgrades to the armed forces. “It is a grim state of affairs when our armed forces are not shaped to meet the threats, but trimmed to meet the budget,” he said.

A detailed comparison was given, showing that at the time of the Gulf War, the Royal Navy had 51 frigates and destroyers, whereas now it has only 18; the RAF had 36 fast jet squadrons, now just seven; and the British Army’s capabilities have significantly diminished.He specifically called out the Treasury, saying, “It is the Treasury that needs to appreciate this,” acknowledging that the Defence Ministers understand the gravity of the situation.

Notably, Mr. Ellwood mentioned the cuts to the Type 32 frigate programme, the reduction in the E-7 ISTAR planes, and the decrease in the armed forces’ manpower from 82,000 to 72,000. He called the current state of the armed forces “a real kick in the teeth.”

“Sadly, we are neither ready for war, nor any longer able to project a viable conventional deterrent to maintain the peace,”Mr. Ellwood concluded, emphasising that while the Navy and RAF have seen some investment and upgrades, the British Army has been left behind.