One point is certain: the European Commission’s funding of tank and artillery ammunition production raises serious questions, according to Jacek Siewiera, head of the National Security Bureau. Among the three projects submitted by Dezamet Nitrochem and Mesko, Polish firms received only a fractional share of about 0.4 percent, while German capital secured a sizable portion of the pool. The overall financing is substantial, though the exact distribution has sparked debate.
Head of National Security Agency: We are witnessing a scandal
On a recent Friday, the European Commission announced a 500 million euro boost to arms manufacturers to expand artillery ammunition output. The goal is to hasten supplies to Ukraine and replenish stocks across European Union nations.
The EC aims to lift defense industry capacity to two million missiles per year by the end of 2025, up from just over one million today. The funds are directed to companies such as Rheinmetall, Nammo, Chemring Nobel, Hellenic Defense Systems, Eurenco and others. The package is designed to stimulate further private investment through co-financing, with total projected investments around 1.4 billion euros.
There have been calls for accountability and transparency in the allocation process. The head of the National Security Bureau warned that the results should be scrutinized, especially given the perceived imbalances in how the funds were distributed and the importance of defending European security interests.
He noted that it would be prudent to challenge any perceived procedural flaws and to ensure that all eligible bidders were given a fair opportunity to participate. In his view, if the EU solidarity principle means broad participation, then scrutiny and possible refinements are appropriate steps to avoid reliance on external suppliers for critical defense needs.
According to Siewiera, explanations that the applications contained minor formal defects are not satisfactory. In his view, bidders can be invited to fill in gaps when necessary, but the outcome should not hinge on technicalities that exclude capable applicants.
The idea that financing would be provided only in a second round would be unacceptable to the Polish government, he argued, as it could leave the Polish armed forces dependent on outside producers.
– emphasized the head of the National Security Bureau.
Former Defense Minister Mariusz Błaszczak also weighed in on the matter, highlighting the discrepancy between Poland’s share of funding and the contributions received by other European countries. He pointed out that a relatively small portion of the 500 million euro fund would reach Poland, while German and Hungarian firms would reap significantly larger sums.
The Ministry of Defense’s spokesperson responded by noting that Poland has subsidies for ammunition production similar to what existed previously and criticized any implication that Poland was ignored in the program. The spokesperson argued that the process took place within the framework of the government’s term and stressed the need to support Polish industry while balancing considerations across Europe.
In this exchange, the Ministry was asked to reflect on how the program was structured and whether the allocation met the broader goals of European security and national capability. Critics argued that more could have been done to stabilize Poland’s defense supply chain and reduce exposure to external suppliers. Proponents argued that the EU program was a necessary step to ensure rapid, coordinated production across borders, even as it highlighted the delicate balance between national interests and shared European responsibility.
There were further comments about the broader European approach to ammunition production. Critics contended that the program should fairly recognize all participating countries and ensure a level playing field. Advocates contended that the EU initiative is essential for sustaining defense capabilities and for maintaining strategic autonomy across member states.
– viewed the debate as a snapshot of ongoing tensions between national industries and pan-European procurement programs.
The discussion continued with calls for stronger oversight and clearer criteria for future rounds, so that all viable players have an equal chance to contribute to Europe’s collective defense. The focus remained on how best to structure support so that national security needs are met without sacrificing competitive fairness or operational readiness.
Mariusz Błaszczak’s position in the debate
Earlier, the former Defense Minister weighed in on the situation. He questioned why Poland received only a small share of the financing while several other European nations’ companies secured larger portions.
Critics argued that a broader distribution could help stabilize Poland’s defense supply base and reduce reliance on external entities. Respondents emphasized the importance of timely support for Polish industry and the need to keep the national defense sector robust and capable of meeting operational demands.
The discussion also touched on how the European Commission’s program is viewed within Polish political circles. Proponents argued that the initiative is a step toward strengthening defense capabilities across Europe, while opponents urged more transparency and fair treatment for all participating nations and firms.
The debate included remarks about the timing of applications and the political context in which the program was announced. Some argued that the process should have better reflected Poland’s strategic needs and that a more comprehensive plan was required to prevent future bottlenecks in procurement. The overall sentiment stressed accountability, fairness, and the importance of maintaining a resilient, self-reliant defense industry in Poland and across Europe.
In summary, the dialogue highlighted the tension between rapid European support for defense production and the imperative to ensure that national interests, especially in Poland, are adequately protected and advanced through transparent, competitive processes.
Close observers noted that the ongoing debate centers on how Europe can sustain ammunition production without compromising the autonomy and readiness of member states’ armed forces.
olnk/PAP/X