By Matt Underwood It’s quite striking to hear that Germany has essentially run out of air defense missiles to send to Ukraine. This isn’t to say they have zero missiles left in their entire arsenal, but rather that their readily available stocks, the ones they could pull from their own warehouses, have been depleted for Ukraine’s needs. This situation really highlights the immense and sustained demand for these crucial defensive systems in the ongoing conflict.
What this also points to is a fundamental issue with preparedness. One might wonder, why weren’t stockpiles larger to begin with? The seeds of this vulnerability, it seems, were sown much earlier. The situation in Donbas back in 2014, with the emergence of “little green men,” should have been a wake-up call, a signal to bolster defenses. Then, of course, the full-scale invasion in 2022 amplified that need exponentially.
The production of these sophisticated Patriot missiles, for instance, isn’t a switch that can be flipped overnight. These are complex systems, and their manufacturing lines require significant investment and time to scale up. While production rates have been increasing year by year, the reality is that these facilities can’t simply be conjured into existence. This shortage effectively shines a spotlight on vulnerabilities that were perhaps long known but conveniently overlooked due to the substantial costs and infrastructure investments required to address them. In a strange way, one could argue that the United States has inadvertently done Europe, and Canada, a favor by forcing a confrontation with the real cost of defense.
Announcing such a depletion of critical defensive assets publicly certainly raises eyebrows. It’s an admission that feels inherently risky, potentially signaling a weakness to adversaries. While it’s clarified that Germany still possesses its own defensive capabilities, the inability to provide further air defense missiles to Ukraine is a significant development. This situation, however, also prompts a deeper reflection on the very nature of this conflict and its underlying causes, moving beyond simplistic explanations.
From a perspective shaped by internal Russian experience, the war’s origins are often presented as grand, almost inevitable historical forces. Yet, the reality, it’s argued, is far more personal and, perhaps, tragically mundane. It stems from a single individual, an aging security-service bureaucrat steeped in Soviet indoctrination, lacking a conventional humanities or civic education. His worldview, forged in Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the habits of the security apparatus, was left with a void after the USSR’s collapse. This void, coupled with resentment, fueled a need for control and a sense of grievance.
The accumulation of power, largely by chance in a period of weak Russian institutions and fragile democracy, allowed for a gradual consolidation. This unchecked ascent led to the amassing of wealth and leverage through the state. The natural consequence of such a trajectory is the removal or sidelining of any dissenting voices, replaced by loyalists, creating an insular world where truth is a threat and obedience is paramount. This mindset, detached from contemporary reality, can even be observed in seemingly minor admissions, like the celebrated eschewing of smartphones, an indication of being mentally tethered to a previous century.
The outcome isn’t some grand, epic narrative of fate, but rather the consequence of choices made by one flawed individual, supported by a cohort of enablers, and a populace either disempowered, demotivated, or conditioned to believe in their own powerlessness. Authoritarian systems, over time, cultivate this learned helplessness, where politics is perceived as dangerous and futile, leading most to withdraw and attempt to survive by keeping their heads down. The most disheartening aspect of this entire scenario is its avoidability. The invention of complex theories attempts to imbue the catastrophe with a sense of destiny, but it was, in fact, a product of human decisions. A different leadership choice in the late 1990s, for instance, could have charted an entirely different course for Russia and its relations with Ukraine and Europe.
It’s psychologically more comfortable to believe that such immense conflicts are driven by impersonal forces. However, sometimes, enormous evil arises from reasons that are almost insultingly simple: an unchecked, archaic individual in a nascent, institutionally weak democracy, surrounded by sycophants, ruling over a society conditioned to feel helpless. This situation also brings into sharp relief the disproportionate cost of modern warfare. The expense of comprehensive defensive systems often outweighs the cost of the threats they are designed to counter, especially when an adversary’s strategy is to simply inflict damage indiscriminately.
This predicament underscores the broader challenge facing global security. The capacity to produce munitions and defensive systems needs to be commensurate with geopolitical realities. The current situation necessitates a serious re-evaluation of defense spending and production capabilities across NATO and the EU. This isn’t solely a German problem, but a collective challenge for the alliance.
The question of how Russia sustains its military operations despite economic challenges and perceived weaknesses is a complex one, prompting debate and speculation. However, the immediate concern stemming from Germany’s announcement is the impact on Ukraine’s ability to defend itself and the wider implications for European security. The long duration of the conflict, now nearing its fourth anniversary, amplifies the strain on resources for all involved.
Ultimately, this situation serves as a stark reminder that military preparedness isn’t static. It requires continuous investment, foresight, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about vulnerabilities. The declaration that Germany has no more air defense missiles to spare for Ukraine is a significant moment, prompting crucial questions about past decisions, current capacities, and the path forward in ensuring collective security.