On December 2, the website of the Financial Times published an article entitled "The Ukrainian conflict exposes the" harsh reality "of Western weapons production capacity". The authors are John Rathburn and Sylvia Pfeiffer. The full text is excerpted as follows: Nearly 10 months after the outbreak of the Russian Ukrainian conflict, as the conflict continues to consume ammunition stocks, Western allies supporting the Kiev war are increasingly troubled by increasing ammunition production capacity. What is at stake is not only the question of whether the West can continue to provide Ukraine with the weapons it needs, but also the question of showing the military industry foundation to its opponents, so that they can feel that they have the ability to manufacture enough weapons to effectively defend against possible attacks. William Laplant, the Pentagon's head of arms procurement, said: "Ukraine has turned our attention to the really important issue. That is production. Production is really important." After providing Ukraine with more than US $40 billion in military assistance (mainly from existing weapons stocks), NATO members found that the long dormant weapons production line could not be put into operation overnight. Increasing production capacity requires investment, which in turn depends on obtaining long-term production contracts. Defense officials and business executives said that there are two main reasons why Western countries are difficult to obtain arms supplies. The first is the structure. Since the end of the cold war, these countries have been enjoying the peace dividend. They have been able to reduce military expenditure and the scale of national defense industry, turn to streamlining and "on-demand" production, and reduce the inventory of ammunition and other products. Because fighting insurgents and terrorists does not require the kind of heavy weapons needed in high-intensity ground warfare. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has changed this assumption. According to a report by the Royal Institute of the Armed Forces, a London think-tank, according to the rate of ammunition consumption in the Russian Ukrainian conflict, Britain's inventory may only last a week, and Britain's European allies are no better. Mick Ryan, a retired Australian general, said: "The problem in the West is that the capacity of the defense industry is limited. If the Western countries want to rebuild their design and capacity, and store a lot of ammunition, they need large-scale industrial expansion." The second factor is bureaucracy. Governments all over the world have expressed their desire to increase defense budgets. However, under such high economic uncertainty, governments have been slow to provide multi-year procurement contracts for the defense industry to accelerate production. A senior European defense official said: "Without long-term contract guarantee, no company is willing to invest in the construction of a second production line. Will Russia still be a threat in five years? If not, will the government still buy weapons from these companies?" Executives say this lack of certainty exists on both sides of the Atlantic. Swedish Saab, which produces the next generation of light anti tank weapons and "Gripen" fighter jets, said that it had been negotiating with the governments of many countries to sign new orders, but the progress was slow. Mikel Johansson, an executive of Saab, said: "There are few orders directly related to Ukraine, and there will certainly be, but the progress is quite slow." British Aerospace Systems also said that it was "negotiating" with the British government on the issue of increasing arms production, while various defense companies in the United States also expressed dissatisfaction that Washington did not give a clear "demand signal".