The U.S. government has distanced itself from earlier suggestions that it might allow Ukraine to produce its own Patriot missile interceptors. It has also reportedly turned down Kyiv’s request for 300 interceptors to strengthen its air defenses. However, even if these options were available, they would not solve Ukraine’s most pressing issue: a critical shortage of anti-ballistic missile defenses to shield its cities from ongoing Russian attacks.
Constructing new interceptor manufacturing infrastructure would take several years, and the United States has shown no inclination to provide Ukraine with key components such as seekers, solid rocket motors, and guidance systems. This decision worsens an already difficult situation. The U.S. currently produces slightly more than 600 PAC-3 interceptors each year, and plans call for tripling that production in the years ahead. Yet, Ukraine could easily consume 150 to 180 interceptors in a single month under heavy Russian missile barrages. Additionally, U.S. stockpiles of Patriot interceptors have significantly declined, from over 2,300 before the Iran war to around 800 today, raising concerns about availability for allies and Ukraine.
Ukraine's Current Reliance on Western Supplies
For the near future, Ukraine must continue drawing from U.S. and allied stockpiles and rely on temporary defense measures, while also working to develop homegrown and European-based systems to replace the U.S. Patriots. The problem is not just Ukraine’s—it is a challenge that demands a larger conversation within NATO. Specifically, Western nations must think through how they would respond to massed ballistic missile strikes—not only in Ukraine’s case but also in future conflicts. President Zelenskyy has also made an urgent plea for other countries to send some of their Patriot missiles to Ukraine, arguing they shouldn't be stockpiled for "hypothetical scenarios." So far, no country has publicly pledged to send any more missiles to Ukraine.
This broader recalibration has been notably absent, even in the fifth year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Production rates in the West are not keeping pace with the missile capabilities of adversaries like Russia. As a result, political leaders must now ask themselves a more profound question: Are they ready to move from a passive defensive stance to one that proactively targets the source of the threat? In military terms, this shift is referred to as 'shooting the archer'—a strategy that targets the infrastructure allowing the adversary to fire missiles rather than just trying to intercept them. It requires new tools, new thinking, and carries a clear risk of escalation. That said, Ukraine has already embarked on such a path, using long-range drones and missiles to strike Russian supply lines, fuel storage areas, and key industrial sites far behind enemy lines.
Strikes Targeting Russian Missile Infrastructure
Notable among these attacks were the strikes on the Titan-Barrikady plant in Volgograd and the VNIIR-Progress plant in Cheboksary. Both facilities are central to the production of Russian missile components. The goal of these strikes is clear: to disrupt and eventually dismantle Russia’s ability to sustain its offensive operations, particularly the relentless missile attacks on Ukraine.
This strategy has drawn parallels to U.S. and Israeli actions against Iranian missile infrastructure. By targeting command centers and launch facilities, these operations limited Tehran’s capacity to follow up with additional attacks. In this way, strikes on the source of the threat can be more effective than simply trying to intercept every missile with a dwindling stockpile of interceptors. Israel’s experience with Iranian missile threats provides a telling case study. Reports suggest that Israel is facing a severe shortage of interceptors due to the frequency of Iranian missile launches. Ukraine is now grappling with a similar situation, with its interceptors being used at an alarming pace.
Support for a New Strategic Approach
The key issue remains whether the U.S. and its NATO allies are willing to support Ukraine in pursuing such a more aggressive, albeit riskier, strategy. With the backing of European and American intelligence, Ukraine has the potential to test and prove the viability of the 'shoot the archer' doctrine. This approach could alleviate the strain on interceptors and force Russia to rethink its tactics. However, it also carries the risk of prompting even more aggressive Russian retaliation. During last month’s NATO summit in Turkey, former President Donald Trump initially supported President Zelenskyy's request to give Ukraine the license to build its own Patriots but later backpedaled, stating, "We have to be very careful about letting somebody build them. You have to be very judicious, but you have to be very careful." Trump clarified that no agreement had been reached. Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican and former Air Force general, still supports allowing Ukraine to build its own Patriots, arguing that it could help relieve the interceptor shortage.
The stakes are high, and the window for strategic decision-making is narrowing. Western leaders must consider not only the immediate defense needs of Ukraine but also the long-term implications for their own security. The way they respond now could shape the future of NATO defense doctrines and the balance of power in the region.