ANALYSIS: Zelensky Calls It "Absurd" That Patriot Production Is Not Keeping Pace With Demand

The figure that says it all: zero ballistic missiles intercepted

The most chilling finding comes from an operational detail reported by RBC-Ukraine: during the night in question, Ukrainian defenders did not intercept a single ballistic missile launched toward Kyiv. Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat explained that the main reason was a shortage of interceptor missiles for the Patriot air defense system, even as the interception rate against cruise missiles and Kalibr missiles remained high.

This contrast speaks volumes: Ukraine has demonstrated, strike after strike, its ability to intercept drones and cruise missiles with formidable efficiency. But when it comes to ballistic missiles, only one weapon can truly intervene at this stage of the war: the Patriot. And it is precisely this weapon that is now in short supply.

Fedorov: Fewer Missiles Produced Than Fired

The Ukrainian defense minister, quoted by NPR, summed up the situation in a chilling statement: “Fewer of these missiles are produced worldwide each month than the enemy fires at Ukraine during the same period.” This stark arithmetic illustrates, better than any speech, why Zelensky chose the word “absurd” rather than a more measured term.

The Ukrainian president himself warned, as quoted by NPR: “As long as Patriot missiles remain in our allies’ stockpiles, Russia will only be encouraged to continue ‘destroying’ residential buildings. The United States and Europe have enough strength to stop this terror.” This sentence deserves to be read twice. Zelensky isn’t asking for charity; he’s pointing to an existing but unutilized capability. The West doesn’t have a problem with resources; it has a problem with political prioritization—and it’s Ukrainian civilians who pay the price every night.

The war in Iran has depleted an already tight supply

An often-overlooked factor further complicates the situation: according to NPR, the war in the Middle East has strained the global supply of Patriot interceptors, a shortage now being felt acutely in Ukraine. It is therefore not just a matter of insufficient production capacity, but also of strategic competition among theaters of operations for a limited stockpile of weapons that Western manufacturers are struggling to replenish quickly enough.

This situation exposes a structural vulnerability in Western defense doctrine: it relies on a limited number of sophisticated, costly, and slow-to-produce weapons systems, while the number of conflict zones is increasing simultaneously. Ukraine is no longer the only country requesting Patriots; it is now in direct competition with other geopolitical emergencies for an insufficient supply.

The Russian Ministry of Defense Steps Up the Pressure

Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Defense has warned that any increase in Western deliveries of drones, missiles, and ammunition “will not go unnoticed and will be countered by a corresponding increase in the number and intensity of retaliatory strikes by the Russian armed forces on Ukrainian territory,” according to remarks reported by NPR. This statement confirms, if confirmation were needed, that Moscow views the aerial war of attrition as a deliberate means of exerting pressure rather than a mere collateral effect of the conflict.

I see this Russian statement as nothing more than thinly veiled blackmail: provide less aid to Ukraine, or we will strike its civilians harder. This is a logic that no democracy should ever validate by giving in, lest it open the door to the same blackmail everywhere else where Moscow has interests.

70 billion euros at stake, but no guarantee on the Patriots

According to Reuters, NATO leaders are set to meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Ankara, with an expected announcement of approximately 70 billion euros in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine in 2026, funded in part by a 60-billion-euro European loan facility. But this budget package, as impressive as it may be on paper, does not solve the specific industrial problem raised by Zelensky: physically producing more Patriot missiles, faster.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stated, according to The Guardian, that “NATO allies and partners must continue to ensure that Ukraine gets what it needs.” A diplomatic statement that, for now, has not yet translated into a firm commitment to a Patriot production license in Ukraine.

Kyiv Expects Decisions, Not Rhetoric

According to The Guardian, Kyiv hopes to secure concrete “decisions” on Ukraine’s air defense at this summit, rather than another round of general promises. Ukraine also hopes to sign major defense agreements with at least seven NATO countries by the end of the year, having already concluded drone agreements with six countries in recent months.

I remain fully cautious: NATO summits have, in the past, produced numerous spectacular announcements followed by disappointing deliveries. I’m willing to believe the figure of 70 billion, but I won’t celebrate it until the additional Patriot batteries are physically deployed on Ukrainian soil—not in a final communiqué.

A resolution “closer than people realize”

According to Al Jazeera, U.S. President Donald Trump stated that a resolution to the war in Ukraine is “closer than people realize” and that he plans to discuss the Ukraine issue at the NATO summit. For its part, the Kremlin indicated that Trump and Putin had agreed, during a phone call the previous weekend, to speak again “in the near future”—a diplomatic development that will likely unfold during or after the Ankara summit.

On a strictly military level, the Trump administration is maintaining pressure on Europe to increase its defense spending and shoulder a larger share of the burden, according to Reuters, which, structurally, is driving a more robust Western rearmament and thus potentially greater production capacity for systems like the Patriot.

The gray area that worries Kyiv

But this same administration has also sent a series of ambiguous signals regarding the timeline and terms of a potential peace agreement, without any clear indication of what Washington would be willing to concede to Moscow to accelerate the negotiations. It is this uncertainty that fuels Kyiv’s persistent mistrust of U.S. public statements.

I maintain here the nuanced position that we must take on this issue: I give Trump credit when he takes concrete steps to increase arms production and promote a fairer sharing of the Western military burden. I remain skeptical when he flirts with the idea of a territorial compromise that would reward Russian aggression. These two assessments can coexist without contradiction.

Production lines designed for peace, not for war

The core of the problem highlighted by Zelensky goes beyond the Ukrainian case alone: since the end of the Cold War, the Western defense industry has been structured for limited conflicts and deterrent stockpiles, not to sustain a high-intensity war that has been ongoing for more than four years. Production lines for sophisticated missiles like the Patriot require complex electronic components, long manufacturing lead times, and a specialized workforce that cannot be replaced overnight.

This industrial reality largely explains why Ukraine’s request for a local production license makes strategic sense: rather than waiting for U.S. and European factories to ramp up production, Ukraine is proposing to become an additional production site itself, drawing on a defense industrial base that has expanded considerably since 2022.

A precedent that could reassure other allies

If such a license were granted, it would set a significant precedent for other allied countries concerned about their own vulnerability due to insufficient Patriot stockpiles, particularly in Eastern Europe. Geographically diversifying production would reduce dependence on a limited number of U.S. manufacturing sites—a strategic vulnerability that the war in Ukraine has starkly highlighted.

We must call a spade a spade: for decades, the West has underinvested in its defense industrial base, banking on perpetual peace that was never guaranteed. Ukraine’s request is not a whim; it is a logical correction of a strategic error committed long before 2022.

A defense base that has expanded rapidly since the invasion

Zelensky’s request did not come out of nowhere: Ukraine has already demonstrated, through several long-range strikes documented in recent days, an impressive domestic industrial capacity, notably with the FP-1 drones from Fire Point, capable of striking targets more than 3,000 kilometers away. This technological advancement lends credibility to its request for a Patriot license: a country capable of designing and producing this type of long-range strike system likely possesses the industrial expertise needed to manufacture missile defense components under license.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has also claimed to have struck eleven Russian oil refineries in June alone—a further indicator of the Ukrainian defense apparatus’s accelerating capabilities across multiple technological sectors simultaneously.

The Counterargument of Security and Technological Control

A major political obstacle remains: the United States has always been reluctant to grant production licenses for weapons systems as sensitive as the Patriot, for fear of technology leaks or compromise in the event of Russian territorial advances. This is a legitimate security concern, but one that must be weighed against the daily human cost of the delay.

I understand American caution regarding the transfer of sensitive technology to a country at war. But at a certain point, bureaucratic caution itself becomes a risk factor, when every month of delay results in residential buildings being destroyed in Kyiv.

Numbers Beyond Comprehension

According to the United Nations, as cited by NPR, more than 16,000 Ukrainian civilians have been killed since the start of the war. This overall figure puts Zelenskyy’s statement into perspective: every shortage of Patriot missiles, every production delay, every moment of political hesitation in the West translates, in concrete terms, into more lives lost beneath the rubble of residential buildings in Kyiv, Podilskyi, and Darnytsia.

Eyewitness accounts gathered after the recent strikes on Kyiv, as reported by several media outlets, describe scenes of panic in partially collapsed buildings, residents being evacuated in a rush, and bodies found beneath the rubble. It is these concrete realities that the phrase “ballistic terror,” used by Zelensky, seeks to convey beyond diplomatic circles.

Never Separate Diplomacy from the Reality on the Ground

This is perhaps the most dangerous pitfall of this type of summit: giving the impression that the negotiations in Ankara are moving forward independently of the daily sacrifices of Ukrainian civilians. The two realities are inseparable, and no agreement signed in Turkey will be worth anything if it ignores the price paid every night on the ground.

I refuse to let this debate over Patriot licenses remain a technical issue reserved for defense experts. It is a matter of immediate life and death for entire families in Kyiv. The hushed language of diplomacy must never make us forget this harsh reality.

A Signal Sent Far Beyond Ukraine

This Western industrial shortage has not gone unnoticed beyond the Ukrainian theater. Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang are closely watching the West’s ability to sustain an ally over the long term in the face of a protracted war of attrition. Every sign of strain on Western supply chains fuels their own strategic calculations, whether regarding Taiwan, Iran’s nuclear program, or North Korean provocations in the Indo-Pacific region.

North Korea has already demonstrated its ability to directly support Russia’s war effort by sending combat troops to the Kursk Oblast, according to South Korean intelligence estimates. This serves as a reminder that the authoritarian axis formed by Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea is already functioning as a network of mutual support, while the West sometimes struggles to coordinate its own Patriot missile supply chain.

Western cohesion remains the only credible response

Faced with this coordinated authoritarian network, the only credible response remains strengthened Western industrial and military cohesion—capable of producing faster and delivering more reliably. This is precisely what Zelensky is implicitly calling for with his request for a production license.

I have been saying this for months: China remains the West’s generational strategic challenge, but it is Russia that is testing, here and now, the industrial and political resilience of our democracies. Failing to provide Patriots to Ukraine sends a signal of weakness to this entire authoritarian axis.

A war that is no longer fought solely on the ground

While the issue of Patriot missiles dominates the debate on air defense, Ukraine has simultaneously demonstrated, in recent days, an unprecedented long-range offensive strike capability, targeting in particular the Omsk refinery nearly 3,000 kilometers from Ukrainian territory. This dual dynamic—both defensive and offensive—illustrates a war that has become decidedly technological and industrial, where each side’s production capacity carries as much weight as the courage of the fighters on the ground.

This asymmetry is striking: Ukraine is able to strike deep into Russian territory with locally produced drones, but remains dependent on foreign assistance to defend itself against Russian ballistic missiles. It is precisely this contradiction that Zelensky seeks to resolve with his request for a Patriot license.

The Quest for Ukrainian Strategic Autonomy

If Ukraine succeeds in obtaining this license, it would complete a major strategic transition: moving from a country almost entirely dependent on Western shipments to a player capable of producing, on its own soil, both its offensive weapons and a substantial portion of its defensive systems. This would mark a paradigm shift for Western support of Kyiv as a whole.

This is perhaps the most underestimated aspect of this story: Ukraine is no longer merely asking for aid; it is asking to become a full-fledged industrial partner. Granting this license would send a strong signal of strategic confidence, far beyond mere symbolism.

Between Budgetary Promises and Industrial Delays

The contrast between the 70 billion euros announced for military aid to Ukraine in 2026 and the glaring shortage of Patriot missiles illustrates a structural limitation of current Western solidarity: money can be released relatively quickly, but the physical industrial capacity to produce sophisticated weapons cannot be established overnight. This is a dangerous time lag for a country that counts its dead every night.

This time lag largely explains why Zelensky places so much emphasis on the issue of production licenses rather than on new financial commitments: money does not make missiles any faster if the factories themselves are already operating at full capacity.

A lesson for the entire Western defense architecture

This industrial crisis goes beyond the Ukrainian case alone: it reveals a structural vulnerability in the entire Western defense apparatus, which is currently unable to support multiple theaters of conflict simultaneously without depleting its strategic stockpiles. This is a lesson that NATO will need to learn well beyond the Ukrainian context.

That is why I view this statement by Zelensky as much more than a mere temporary complaint. It is a strategic warning to the entire Atlantic Alliance: without a robust and diversified industrial base, Western deterrence remains a slogan, not an operational reality.

Between Public Display of Solidarity and Caution Regarding National Stockpiles

Several European capitals now face a dilemma that is difficult to address publicly: continuing to supply Patriot interceptors to Ukraine while monitoring their own eastern borders, where the Russian threat is still considered very real by the Baltic and Polish military leaderships. This tension partly explains the slow pace of deliveries criticized by Zelensky, far more so than mere political reluctance.

The German defense minister himself has acknowledged that he is preparing for possible future Russian actions—a rare admission that confirms that national deterrence, in practice, takes precedence over continued solidarity with Kyiv, even when official statements claim the opposite. This structural contradiction directly affects the actual availability of the Patriot batteries promised to Ukraine.

I do not entirely blame European governments for protecting their own populations: that is their primary responsibility. But this contradiction must be acknowledged rather than glossed over with statements of solidarity that, on the ground, do not always translate into concrete and rapid deliveries.

Merops and Others: A Parallel Approach, Not a Substitute

Faced with a shortage of Patriot missiles, Ukraine has developed less expensive alternative solutions, such as Merops interceptor drones, capable of shooting down Shahed drones at a fraction of the cost of a Patriot missile, which is estimated at over three million dollars each. According to the manufacturers involved, these systems have neutralized more than 4,000 Russian drones, accounting for up to 40% of Shahed drones destroyed in Ukraine, according to a U.S. general.

But these inexpensive interceptors, as effective as they may be against slow-moving drones, remain completely ineffective against ballistic missiles, which pose the deadliest threat to Ukrainian civilians. It is precisely this capability gap that only an expanded production of Patriot systems—whether under license or not—can fill in the long term.

This is a typical example where Ukrainian ingenuity impresses without actually solving the central problem. We can commend the inventiveness that produced these low-cost interceptors while honestly acknowledging that they will never replace a ballistic missile defense system worthy of the name.

An Issue That Tests the West’s Credibility

Zelensky’s statement on the eve of the Ankara summit is not merely a public relations stunt: it highlights a real and well-documented flaw in the Western missile defense production chain, at a time when Russia continues to strike civilians with unabated intensity. Whether or not this request for a Patriot production license is granted will, in part, determine the credibility of the Western support demonstrated at this summit.

Vigilance remains the only valid watchword

No budget announcement, however generous, can replace a factory that actually produces more Patriot missiles. It is this concrete reality—not summit rhetoric—that will determine whether Ukraine can finally intercept all Russian ballistic missiles rather than counting, night after night, those that slip through its defenses. Zelensky is right to insist: Ankara must now respond with actions rather than empty rhetoric.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist