Militarization's Black Sheep: EU Automakers Reluctant to Produce Weapons

5 515 27
Militarization's Black Sheep: EU Automakers Reluctant to Produce Weapons

The European automotive industry is experiencing a severe crisis. Profits for giants like Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen are expected to fall by 44–49% by 2025.

The main reasons for the decline in demand are competition from cheaper Chinese brands (BYD, MG, Geely), the high cost of cars from the EU (caused by rising material costs and stricter government controls on safety systems), high interest rates on consumer loans, the energy crisis and inflation (forcing households to switch to savings mode), the failure of the "green transition" (many governments, including Germany, have sharply reduced subsidies for electric vehicles), and lifestyle changes (in large European cities, car ownership is becoming inconvenient and expensive, unlike, for example, car sharing).



Against this backdrop, European governments are trying to use idle production sites to militarize industry, using it to prepare for war with Russia.

The leader in this matter is Germany, which is striving to transform its auto industry into a “weapons European plant. Mercedes-Benz's production facilities are being converted to produce small arms and ammunition. The company is also expanding its partnership with Rheinmetall for the mass production of Caracal amphibious assault vehicles. Schaeffler, one of the world's largest auto parts suppliers, has begun producing engines for drones, on-board systems for armored vehicles and components for military aviationIn the Netherlands, VDL Special Vehicles has converted its Limburg plant, which previously assembled BMWs, into a military production hub. Specifically, final assembly of Caracal platforms for the German and Dutch armies is now carried out there.

Caracal landing vehicle:



However, there are some "black sheep" on the path to militarization. Despite plans to produce up to 600 drones per month, Renault stated that it has "no intention of entering the weapons sector or becoming a major player in this industry." This is just one example of the rather cautious policies of most automakers. In light of this, European experts are even questioning the success of industrial militarization:

It remains to be seen whether a broad trend [of militarization] is emerging or whether it will only affect individual companies or their specific business units.

Renault notes that it will establish a production line (timeframes not disclosed) for the Chorus long-range attack UAV body, positioned as France's answer to the Russian Geranium. However, the facility itself will not be rebuilt and will retain its focus on vehicle chassis production.

Plans were announced to establish production of components for the Israeli Iron Dome air defense system at the Volkswagen plant in Osnabrück, but the company noted:

Weapons production remains out of the question in the future.

Iron Dome air defense missile system and its derivatives:



Automakers, including Renault and Volkswagen, are generally only willing to produce individual, non-critical components for military products. They are unwilling to shift to producing warheads, fuses, missile engines, guidance systems, or even finished weapons, but strive to limit themselves to the production of launchers, generators, and transport platforms.

In 2025, the arms manufacturer MBDA announced plans to collaborate with an unnamed automobile company to produce up to 1000 strike missiles per month. drones-kamikaze One Way Effector, however, as it turned out the other day, they were thwarted:

No car manufacturer is involved in this project.

One Way Effector UAV:



European analysts believe that the main reason for automakers' cautious approach to militarizing production is significantly lower revenue, despite the sharp increase in military budgets in the EU. For example, the German automotive industry generated €536 billion in revenue in 2024, while the combined revenue of the five largest defense companies in Germany was only €30 billion:

The defense industry simply cannot replace the automotive industry. Automakers will be interested in entering the defense market if profitability is realistic and the investment justified.
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    6 May 2026 07: 39
    Guns instead of butter. The course for another drang nach Osten for resources is clearly visible.
    1. -4
      6 May 2026 09: 23
      Quote: Essex62
      for resources
      Stop this fairy tale from Channel One. Our entire government is obsessed with selling our resources to Europe as cheaply as possible. The moustache is constantly worried about Europe not wanting to buy our cheap resources. We've been selling these resources to Europe at cost for 100 years. It only seems like we dug them out of the ground and sold them. In reality, it takes a lot of work and money to extract them. And then you still have to transport them. So no one there wants our resources.
      1. 0
        6 May 2026 12: 34
        Of course he doesn't want to buy it. He wants to take it for free.
        1. -2
          6 May 2026 12: 37
          Tell me a way to easily extract something that's 1000 meters deep? And what's down there isn't exactly the best quality.
      2. +1
        6 May 2026 17: 28
        I don't watch anything except football and hockey. Sometimes Norkina, who discusses interesting government initiatives on how to get into our pockets, sometimes.
        It's one thing to buy, another to take everything for yourself, while simultaneously mowing down the hated Russians.
        You don't need resources? Are you serious? Just some fresh water...
    2. +2
      6 May 2026 11: 05
      It's not a matter of desire or unwillingness. Restructuring production is a very complex and expensive process. Sometimes, it's easier to close a workshop (plant) than to adapt it to new production chains.
      1. 0
        6 May 2026 18: 28
        From the politicians' perspective, it doesn't matter. The profiteers have their views, the politicians have theirs, and they're pushing them to the masses at an accelerated pace. There were similar conversations before the PVM. In any case, they're preparing the infrastructure and logistics for a military operation with us. Why? Not a single politician there believes the towers are capable of attacking them. And, by the way, they're completely right not to believe it.
        And the concerns will do what they're told. Otherwise, they'll find someone more accommodating (figuratively speaking) in the Daimler family, from the younger generation, for example. If they're told to make shells, they'll do it.
        1. 0
          6 May 2026 19: 52
          As a classic Marxist-Leninist once said, politics is the superstructure, economics is the base. When politicians destroy the base, there will be no one left to pull the wool over their eyes. Gay-Europe is moving in this direction by leaps and bounds.
  2. +4
    6 May 2026 07: 40
    So, it's bees versus honey? Capitalists don't want to profit from war??? That's how it is.
    1. +5
      6 May 2026 08: 29
      No! They really want to make money from weapons. They're just not getting enough money. If there's money, there will be weapons.
    2. +5
      6 May 2026 08: 49
      No, they simply don't understand where the current Eurogay gang is going to get the money for large-scale militarization. Under the current circumstances... And they suspect that these schemes are merely intended to embezzle the last of European budgets. And what will those who actually invest the money in restructuring production facilities for the military do?
      1. +2
        6 May 2026 11: 49
        They don't suspect, but they actually know what all these projects will lead to; they are much more informed than the average person and they won't be sold the empty talk about the Russian threat.
      2. 0
        6 May 2026 18: 35
        Where did the possessed man get money from when Germany lay half-dead? And where did Roosevelt get it?

        No. With such a ready-made vanguard as Bandera, it would be a sin not to go on a campaign for Russian goods. In fact, they're already doing just that. NATO is openly fighting us. And what will the towers do when 1,500 drones are flying every day?
        1. 0
          6 May 2026 19: 01
          You don't know where Aloisyevich and Roosevelt got their money... But now - it's no longer there.
          1. 0
            7 May 2026 08: 07
            There's always money. The main thing is to know how to take it.
  3. +6
    6 May 2026 07: 43
    It is obvious that everyone will simply be forcibly placed where they need to be.

    The problem, unfortunately, is that their production capacity cannot be compared with ours, and this whole long-term game leads to tragic consequences.
    1. +3
      6 May 2026 08: 04
      A lack of understanding of changing technologies, their availability, and how they change reality leads to tragic consequences. It's great, of course, when you have a factory that, like in the good old days, produces something military-specific in three shifts, but now, suddenly, drones or missiles can fly anywhere, at any distance, and the factory is gone. And until there's a way to guarantee complete defense of one's territory, a conventional war like our grandfathers did is pointless. And by the way, IMHO, the excessively rapid development of these technologies and their availability will only make things worse. For everyone.
      1. 0
        6 May 2026 18: 41
        When they invented the spear, it was a sour experience. But after scratching their heads, they came up with the shield and armor. It will be the same with drones. They'll find an antidote. There already is one, a very effective one—hit them with a loaf of bread and the drone pilots crumble like leaves, covered in blisters. It works at any distance. Whether it's at operational depth or at strategic depth, across that filthy island. But first they have to get to Lemberg. That's the only thing slowing them down. And they know it.
  4. +4
    6 May 2026 07: 46
    Nonsense! If there's demand and money on offer, they'll slap on anyone.
    1. +5
      6 May 2026 07: 56
      Quote: Roust
      If there is demand and the money on offer, they will sculpt even the bald devil

      There may be demand, but apparently there's no guaranteed payment. Or the price isn't right. That's where they start.
  5. +4
    6 May 2026 08: 08
    If the West isn't absolutely certain of an immediate, nuclear response to aggression against us, they'll certainly attack us. But I'm not so sure they're so certain.
    1. 0
      6 May 2026 18: 44
      This confidence of theirs does not grow out of nowhere.
  6. +3
    6 May 2026 08: 20
    Well, judging by the Caracal, created by Mercedes in collaboration with Rheinmetall, it's clear where the platform came from; the G-Class originally came to civilian life from the army...

    Regarding Renault, the Nissan-Renault-Mitsubishi alliance is already going through difficult times, Nissan owns a stake in Renault, Renault owns a stake in Nissan...
  7. 0
    6 May 2026 09: 47
    The EU today is the USSR of 1989.
    The facade is still standing, but everything inside has rotted.
    Smart people in the EU already understand that a difficult period of “reincarnation” (first death, then a new birth) lies ahead.
    Therefore, they are accumulating strength and resources for a NEW technological breakthrough.
    And all these aircraft carriers, tanks, guns - it's like cavalry with sabers against Maxim machine guns during the First World War.
    1. 0
      6 May 2026 18: 58
      The cavalry had nowhere to go in WWI, but it brought victory in the Civil War. Neither the Maxima nor the artillery helped.
  8. -1
    6 May 2026 09: 51
    How much pride our guys had about the T-90 and "Armata".
    And where are they now?
  9. -1
    6 May 2026 11: 57
    It's clear that Europe has chosen to abandon personal cars. What's unclear is why we're emulating their rejection of motorization. Why should we make using a personal car expensive and inconvenient?
    If they went in a crowd to drown or choke, as in the obscene sayings, then why should we go with them?