WASHINGTON DC – The US must overhaul its cumbersome defense acquisition system and embrace decentralized manufacturing to compete in modern high-intensity conflicts, leading security experts warned Wednesday.
Speaking at a joint forum hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), analysts said the war in Ukraine has exposed the West’s slow, “artisanal” approach to arms production as dangerously outpaced by battlefield realities.
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
Math of attrition
The panel highlighted a growing mismatch between Western procurement cycles and the rapid consumption of munitions in Ukraine.
“The consumption rates in modern warfare are not matching the production that we have annually,” said Dara Massicot, senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. “We need to move beyond admiration and start fixing this math.”
Massicot noted that while the US excels at high-end systems, it lacks the production depth for a prolonged great-power conflict: “Sole suppliers and single production sites are a huge national security risk. Most of our ammunition comes from a handful of facilities, leaving us vulnerable to disruption.”
Silicon Valley vs. command economy
Russia’s war in Ukraine has become a clash of industrial philosophies: decentralized, startup-driven innovation versus centralized, state-led production.
Ukraine has bypassed red tape to procure and update drone technology rapidly, while Russia has relied on its Soviet-era production model to scale key systems despite quality and casualty issues.
“Ground combat robots may be the next area they scale up,” Massicot warned.
Bill Greenwalt, senior fellow at AEI and former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for industrial policy, described US acquisition as a “crazy Stalinistic system” that bars innovative commercial firms from defense work.
“We have a Soviet-style acquisition process that has created incentives for a dedicated industrial base similar to Russia’s,” he said.
Greenwalt called for a wartime acquisition system prioritizing speed and budget flexibility. “Stockpiling just a month’s worth of munitions is not a real strategy.”
Trump pushes massive defense boost
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump weighed in forcefully on national defense spending, calling on Congress to increase the US defense budget for fiscal year 2027 to $1.5 trillion – up from roughly $901 billion – in what he described as “troubled and dangerous times.”
In a social media post, Trump said the larger budget would allow the US to build its “dream military” and keep the country “safe and secure, regardless of foe.”
He added that tariff revenues, boosted by his administration’s trade policies, make the expanded spending feasible.
Trump’s proposal comes against the backdrop of recent US military action that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, part of a broader security posture that has also included discussions about the strategic acquisition of Greenland.
Some defense industry leaders have reacted with uncertainty to Trump’s budget push, as well as to his calls for greater production output and threats to restrict practices such as stock buybacks unless firms increase defense manufacturing.
Bracing price tag
Experts at the forum echoed the president’s sense of urgency – but stressed that systemic reform, not just bigger numbers, is necessary to close the gap with peer competitors.
Greenwalt warned that modernizing the US arsenal and building necessary stockpiles will require a major shift in federal spending strategy.
“We may need a trillion-dollar reconciliation bill to build up the stockpiles we actually need,” he said.
Massicot concluded that the strategic cost of inaction is even higher: “Without addressing the industrial deficit, we cannot support our allies strategically.”