By Matt Underwood Patriots to move to Kyiv “as quickly as possible”, says NATO top commander, and it’s a development that feels like a turning point, a potential acceleration toward the end of this ordeal for the Ukrainian people. It’s a real game changer, but the details matter, and the speed with which this actually happens is crucial. There’s a lot of optimism, which is understandable, but we need to stay focused on what’s concrete and what’s just talk.
The essence of the call is to flood Ukraine with the air defense systems needed to fend off Russian missile and drone attacks. The logic is straightforward: these systems aren’t really *needed* in countries like London, Paris, or Berlin right now, and therefore, they should be prioritized where they can make a real difference. It’s about focusing resources where they’ll have the biggest impact, which is undeniably in Ukraine. This kind of strategic thinking is what we should be seeing across the board.
The big question mark, of course, is the speed of deployment. Saying the systems will move “as quickly as possible” is a good start, but we need to see action. Will the Ukrainians have enough trained personnel to operate these sophisticated systems? It’s not just about delivering the hardware; it’s also about providing the skilled operators and the logistical support to keep them running. We need to ensure that the delivery of the systems comes with the resources needed to make them effective, right from the get-go.
This whole operation is going to cost a lot of money. And, according to some, the offer involves nations donating their existing Patriot systems to Ukraine and *then* purchasing replacements from the US. This puts a new layer of complication on top of an already complex situation. This kind of deal needs to be looked at with caution. The focus needs to be on getting the systems in place and operational, not on who’s making a profit from it.
The move reflects the current state of affairs and the urgent needs. Russia is continually increasing its production of missiles and drones, so simply providing more air defense systems isn’t enough. They’ll need to be used very effectively to limit the impact of these attacks.
From the example of Israel, even with a near-perfect defense, continuous barrages will still get through. Therefore, the most ideal plan is to disrupt Russia’s ability to launch these attacks in the first place. This means going beyond simply defending and focusing on deterring.
This change shows the importance of ensuring Ukraine can buy enough ammunition to keep these systems running. The recent US MIC closures due to presidential whims haven’t helped matters, and some European countries are going to diversify their military procurement. European small missile technology is getting better than the US counterparts in some areas, which could lead to even further development. It’s important to consider which weapons are the most practical when faced with wartime issues.
It is going to take quite some time to set up. It’s not like these are things you can just whip up overnight. However, it also means a faster path to get them to Ukraine, which is the main objective. It would also help European countries achieve their 5% NATO goal by doing so, since they might not need them since they are at a minimal risk to attack in the near future.
This is, overall, a positive step in the right direction. However, it’s still a “beginning.” A start, and it pushes Russia to either escalate and deplete their strategic missile assets or scale back their air campaign. The aim is to create a real impact in the war by crippling the enemy, destroying the infrastructure used in drone production, supply chains, and training operations.
The fundamental idea behind all of this is to equip Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself. The EU has transferred arms in the past and will do so again; what matters is the speed and effectiveness of this support.