NextFin News - Russia's defence-industrial boom is supposed to have peaked. Growth rates are slowing, the 2026 budget promises a cut in military spending, and factories are running into a historic labour shortage. Yet in the first quarter of 2026, Moscow spent 5.9 trillion roubles on the war - 30% more than a year earlier, and 46% of every rouble the federal budget disbursed. The gap between the "peak war economy" narrative and the cash actually flowing through the system is the story.
The central question is not whether Russia's defence industry faces constraints - it clearly does. The question is whether those constraints add up to a collapse, or merely to a slower climb. The evidence points to the second answer: a cyclical growth surge that is decelerating, riding on top of a supply base that has structurally rewired itself and is still expanding output.
The slowdown is real. So is the spending.
Start with the numbers that feed the pessimistic case, because they are genuine. Russia's federal budget for 2026 plans military expenditure of 14.9 trillion roubles, or 6.3% of gross domestic product - down from the roughly 16 trillion roubles, or 7.5% of GDP, that flowed through in 2025. Real-terms growth in military spending slowed from 38% in 2024 to 6.1% in 2025, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The official budget ended 2025 with a deficit of 2.6% of GDP, and the central bank has been running a tight monetary policy to cool an overheated economy.
Production statistics tell a similar story of deceleration rather than contraction. Output of fabricated metal products - the category that covers artillery and ammunition - rose 15.9% in the first ten months of 2025, roughly half the 31.6% pace recorded a year earlier. Production of computers, electronics and optical goods linked to military use grew 13.6%, down from 27.9%. In some defence-related sectors, statisticians recorded outright year-on-year declines in individual months.
But deceleration is not contraction, and the 2026 budget is a plan, not a record. The first-quarter accounts show what actually happened: 5.9 trillion roubles of military spending between January and March, against 4.5 trillion in the same period of 2025. Classified expenditure - of which an estimated 85% goes to the military - jumped 43%, from 3.4 trillion to 4.9 trillion roubles. If that pace holds, analysts who track the Russian budget put full-year war spending at 9% to 10% of GDP, well above the 6.3% headline plan. Budgets in wartime Russia have been amended twice inside 2025 already; assuming the 2026 plan holds is an assumption about politics, not arithmetic.
The mechanism here is straightforward: the fiscal brake exists on paper because the finance ministry needs one. Unemployment is at record lows and the central bank reports 73% of businesses short of staff; inflation is above target; the budget cannot absorb infinite increases without breaking. But the brake is applied to a vehicle that is still accelerating. Every time the official plan and the battlefield reality diverge, the plan has lost.
Ammunition: from stockpile war to production war
The clearest evidence of structural adaptation is in shells. Before the 2022 invasion, Russia held a strategic ammunition stockpile of roughly 20 million rounds. It burned through most of that reserve in the first two years of the war, and the industry had to replace stockpile drawdown with fresh production - or the front would have slowed. It did not slow.
An Estonian intelligence assessment for 2026, cited by defence analysts at West Point's Modern War Institute, estimates that Russian factories produced about seven million artillery, mortar, tank and rocket rounds in 2025 - up from roughly one million in 2022. The breakdown is telling: about 3.4 million howitzer shells, 2.3 million mortar rounds, 800,000 tank and infantry-fighting-vehicle rounds, and 500,000 rockets. That is roughly 19,000 rounds a day, against open-source estimates of Russian consumption at 10,000 to 15,000 a day. Production plus imports now outpaces expenditure - which is the definition of a sustainable wartime footing, not a stockpile drawdown.
Imports matter to this equation. North Korea and Iran cover a substantial share of Russia's artillery needs, and the Modern War Institute estimates that imports alone can cover up to half of artillery consumption. That dependency is a vulnerability - it is also proof that Moscow has built functioning supply channels around sanctions, and that its industrial window is wider than its own factory walls.
The ammunition build-out also explains why Western assumptions about a Russian "shell hunger" repeatedly failed. In 2022 and 2023, the expectation was that Soviet stocks would run dry and production could not fill the gap. The gap was filled - partly from old stockpiles, partly from new lines, partly from abroad - and the war's tempo never broke for lack of steel.
Drones are the new centre of gravity
If ammunition shows adaptation, drones show acceleration. This is the part of Russia's defence industry where the growth curve is still steep, and where the ceiling is furthest away. In an interview published on January 18, 2026, Ukraine's commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi gave a precise figure for Russia's current output of Shahed-type systems:
"At the moment, the enemy produces daily 404 'Shaheds' (Iranian-designed drones) of different kinds. And the plans are to increase that. The enemy plans to boost production significantly, up to 1,000 drones a day."
Ukraine's own military intelligence agency, working through independent analysts, projects a more gradual climb - from an average of about 142 long-range drones a day in January 2026 to roughly 455 a day by December, with a plan to manufacture about 110,000 long-range drones of all types across the year, split between roughly 60,000 strike systems and 50,000 decoys. Even the lower estimate implies a fleet that grows through 2026 rather than shrinks. FPV attack drones - the tactical weapon that has reshaped the battlefield - are being produced by both sides in the range of tens of thousands a month.
The strategic point is not just volume. Russia has localised the Geran family - its copy of the Iranian Shahed - and is now modifying it in the field: adding cameras, changing navigation, iterating designs quickly because the production line is domestic. A weapons system that can be redesigned between batches is a different industrial proposition from one that depends on imported kits. The drone ecosystem - airframes, engines, optics, electronics, assembly - has become the fastest-growing segment of the Russian defence base, and it is the segment least exposed to the legacy constraints that bind tank and aircraft production.
The structural rewiring that sanctions did not stop
The second-order question is why this happened at all. Western sanctions were designed to deny Russia the machine tools, microelectronics and precision components that modern weapons need. They raised costs and degraded quality, but they did not stop the flow. The United States Treasury acknowledged in January 2025 that entities in China continue to supply Russia with machine tools and microelectronics on the common high-priority list, using sanctions-evasion networks, and that these imports "fill critical gaps in Russia's defence production cycle."
Academic work on Russia's machine-tool industry reached the same conclusion: the defence sector acquired the equipment it needed, though not always of the highest quality. That is a meaningful qualification - lower-grade tools mean shorter tool life, more downtime, and products with tighter tolerances out of reach - but it is not a blockade. It is a tax on efficiency, and Russia has been willing to pay it.
The result is an industry that looks different from the one Western planners expected to strangle. It is less efficient, more dependent on a narrow set of foreign suppliers, and skewed toward systems that do not require the most advanced semiconductors. It is also larger, more state-funded, and more politically protected than it was in 2021. Sanctions changed the shape of Russian defence production; they did not shrink it below wartime requirements.
Armoured vehicles illustrate the mix. Ukrainian assessments put Russian capacity at up to 250 T-90M main battle tanks a year at Uralvagonzavod and up to 150 T-80BVMs at Omsktransmash, with more conservative readings at 150 to 200 T-90Ms annually. Independent tallies of the active inventory suggest the T-90M fleet grew from about 50 units in 2022 to roughly 200 in 2025, and the T-80BVM from about 100 to 280, even after combat losses. Meanwhile, the European Union's defence commissioner, Andrius Kubilius, told legislators that Russia produces around 3,500 infantry fighting vehicles a year against about 500 in the bloc, and roughly 900 ballistic missiles a year against effectively none. These comparisons are not a measure of technological parity - they are a measure of political priority, and of what a war economy can do that a peacetime one will not.
The two hard ceilings: labour and money
Here the pessimistic case is strongest, because these constraints are domestic, visible, and harder to circumvent than a machine-tool shipment. Russia's central bank has estimated that 73% of businesses are short of staff. A leading recruiter reported vacancies up 1.7 times over two years, and 2.5 times in industry. One economist described it as "the most severe labor shortage in history" for the whole Russian economy.
The defence sector is both the cause and the victim. It has pulled hundreds of thousands of workers out of the civilian economy with higher wages, and it is now competing for a labour pool that is also being drained by battlefield casualties and emigration. There are early signs the wage weapon is losing its edge: advertised salaries in the defence sector fell about 10% in August 2025 compared with a year earlier, the first decline since the invasion. Officials have begun to say openly that the defence-manufacturing boom is nearing its limit.
Money is the second ceiling. Even if factories could hire, the budget cannot fund unlimited expansion without consequences: a larger deficit, higher inflation, higher interest rates, and less left for everything else. The 2026 plan to cut military spending to 6.3% of GDP is the finance ministry's attempt to restore balance. It is a real constraint - but as the first-quarter numbers show, it is a constraint that has already been breached.
The counter-thesis: why the peak call still has teeth
The strongest argument against this reading is not that Russia's industry is collapsing - few serious analysts claim that. It is that the industry has already delivered what it can, and that the easy gains are gone. Growth rates are falling sharply. The stockpiles of Soviet hulls and barrels that fed the early surge are finite, and once they are gone the industry must rely entirely on new production. Analysts of Russia's defence industry note that Moscow remains unable to produce modern combat aircraft, modern tanks and advanced armoured vehicles at scale, partly because access to Western technology is denied. And the export side of the industry - once a hard-currency engine - has shrunk 64% since 2020, with its share of the global arms market down from 21% to 6.8%. India, long the largest customer, cut purchases by 37%.
This is a serious argument, and it correctly identifies the industry's fragility: it is now almost entirely a function of state war demand, with no diversified commercial or export base to fall back on. If the war ends or freezes, a large share of this capacity has no peacetime customer. That makes the boom cyclical in its ultimate driver, even where the production base is structurally adapted.
But "cyclical demand" and "cannot meet current demand" are different statements. The peak thesis requires the industry to be unable to supply the war at its present intensity. The production and spending data do not show that. They show an industry that is straining, decelerating, and still growing - which is precisely the dangerous middle ground that both optimists and pessimists tend to miss.
What to watch: the signals that would change the call
The judgment that Russia's defence industry remains a live threat rests on three observable conditions, and any one of them failing would overturn it. First, monthly industrial output in defence-related categories would need to print year-on-year declines for two consecutive quarters through 2026 - not a single soft month, but a sustained contraction. Second, military spending in the second and third quarters would need to fall back toward the official 6.3%-of-GDP path, which would confirm that the first-quarter overshoot was an accounting carry-forward rather than a new run-rate (the analyst who produced the first-quarter figures has himself flagged this possibility). Third, the daily rate of long-range drone launches and production would need to flatten or fall through 2026 despite the stated 1,000-a-day target.
Scenarios split cleanly by horizon. In the short term - the next two to three quarters - liquidity and labour dominate, and output growth will likely continue to slow without turning negative. In the medium term - through 2027 - the drone build-out and ammunition lines should keep the front supplied, with imports backstopping any domestic shortfall. In the long term, the industry's fate is tied to the war itself: a frozen or ended conflict would leave a large, state-dependent industrial base with no peacetime anchor, and that is when the write-down would finally be justified.
For now, the write-down is premature. Russia's defence industry is not the efficient, innovative machine Western planners feared it would fail to become - it is something less elegant and more dangerous: a slower, costlier, sanction-proofed production base that is still, quarter after quarter, finding a way to put more shells and more drones into the fight than it did the year before.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
