Patriot Games. Can Ukraine replace the crucial weaponry the Trump administration has stopped supplying it with? — Novaya Gazeta Europe
Multiple NBC News sources in the US Congress and the Pentagon said that Ukraine would no longer be receiving Howitzer munitions, Hellfire missiles, precision-guided missile systems, Stinger surface-to-air missiles, AIM air-to-air missiles or grenade launchers. Experts consider these weapons to be crucial for Ukraine's defence against Russian missiles.
'I don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but the list of weapons seems to contain the munitions that are hardest to replace elsewhere,' military researcher Kirill Mikhailov told Novaya Gazeta Europe. 'First and foremost, we're talking about GMLRS missiles, which can destroy targets with a high level of precision up to 60 kilometres away, and Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missiles, which are the only ones in the Ukrainian arsenal capable of shooting down ballistic missiles,' he added.
'Suspending the supply of Patriot missiles is effectively an invitation to the Russian army to strike unprotected Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles.'
Even if these munitions can be partially replaced by European supplies, some shortfall is inevitable, Mikhailov believes. But when it comes to air defences, most Russian airstrikes use drones, which can be successfully shot down by European air defence systems, aviation and interceptor drones, which Ukraine is actively investing in, he notes.
The Pentagon's decision appears to concern the final supplies approved during the Biden administration, military expert and reserve Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) colonel Roman Svitan told Novaya Europe, noting that the AFU was 'really counting on this batch … of mainly defensive weapons'.
'It will weaken Ukrainian defence and air defence capabilities,' Svitan asserted. 'Suspending the supply of Patriot missiles is effectively an invitation to the Russian army to strike unprotected Ukrainian cities with ballistic missiles — only the Patriot system can shoot down Russian Iskander and Kinzhal missiles and Korean KN-23s,' he stressed.
F-16 fighter jets fly over a Patriot air defence system, Ukraine, 4 August 2024. Photo: Efrem Lukatsky / AP Photo / Scanpix / LETA
'European air defence systems can only shoot down cruise missiles,' Ivan Stupak, a military analyst and former Ukrainian secret service official, agreed.
Svitan believes European countries still have stockpiles of Patriot missiles, which Ukraine now hopes they will deliver. EU countries can also provide the AFU with artillery shells.
Besides the Patriot systems, other interruptions in supply are not as critical, Stupak believes. In recent years, Ukraine has increasingly replaced artillery shells and anti-tank grenade launchers with drones, he notes. Drones fly further than munition, and are much more accurate. Anticipating an interruption in US aid, Ukraine ramped up production of its own shells, while also buying up Soviet-era shells, which are still widely used by the AFU.
'The fact that supplies haven't been cancelled, only suspended, may mean this is a bargaining chip in a bigger game.'
'Stopping supplies will directly lead to the death of Ukrainian servicemen and civilians, of course, but not to the immediate collapse of the front or the destruction of cities in the Ukrainian hinterland,' Mikhailov said.
'I think we have just witnessed a deal. Donald Trump received a promise from Putin not to meddle in the conflict between the US and Israel and Iran if the US stopped supplying weapons to Ukraine,' said Svitan. 'Ukraine is being sacrificed for a solution to the problems in the Middle East.'
Trump may also be trying to put pressure on Kyiv again, forcing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to surrender, Svitan suggested. 'The fact that supplies haven't been cancelled, only suspended, may mean this is a bargaining chip in a bigger game,' he continued. 'Trump still hopes that he can achieve peace by sacrificing large parts of Ukraine.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Novaya Gazeta Europe
2 hours ago
- Novaya Gazeta Europe
Satellite images show 12 air defence systems deployed around Putin's Valdai residence — Novaya Gazeta Europe
Vladimir Putin and an Orthodox monk are pictured at the Smolensk Skete in the historic Valaam monastery in Karelia, Russia, 1 August 2025. EPA/GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/KREMLIN POOL Satellite images of the area around Vladimir Putin's Valdai residence in the Novgorod region of northwestern Russia have shown at least 12 air defence systems — mainly Pantsir-S1 complexes — deployed on the site, Radio Svoboda, the Russian-language service of RFE/RL, reported on Tuesday. A year ago, there were just two on the same site, Radio Svoboda said. The first air defence system on the site was discovered in January 2023, while a second system was revealed six months later. According to Radio Svoboda, there are only five times as many air defence systems in the whole of Moscow and the Moscow region as at the Valdai site, even though they have a combined population of 20 million. Previously, the investigative journalists at Proekt discovered that the Valdai site also now housed a separate residence for Alina Kabaeva, 42, a Russian politician and former gymnast widely believed to be Putin's partner. Furthermore, an investigation by the non-profit investigative outlet Dossier Centre revealed in September that Putin's two sons from Kabaeva live in these residences. The residence has previously sought to employ tutors from South Africa, while Olesya Fedina, Kabaeva's cousin, introduces herself as the boys' mother to outsiders and personally meets any prospective employees. Putin, 72, is famously guarded about his private life. He divorced his wife Lyudmila in 2014. Their two daughters have also largely managed to avoid the public spotlight.
Novaya Gazeta Europe
2 hours ago
- Novaya Gazeta Europe
Kyiv open but unhopeful on ceasefire ahead of Trump-Putin talks in Alaska — Novaya Gazeta Europe
Ukraine is willing to consider an aerial ceasefire with Russia, Mikhail Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, has told Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera in an interview ahead of Friday's talks in Alaska between US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Podolyak said that while Washington was proposing an all-out ceasefire, including an end to missile strikes and drone attacks, 'neither of those scenarios was accepted by Russia. Air strikes are key for Moscow as it attempts to exert psychological pressure on Ukraine.' Russia was 'unlikely to want to give up on airstrikes and the mass use of drones', Podolyak said. However, Ukraine was willing to consider the scenario and 'sees it as the first stage in realistic negotiations,' Podolyak said. Podolyak's comments follow a report by The Economist on Saturday, in which sources said that Putin had suggested a 'limited ceasefire, in the air and sea' during the talks with Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff last week. However, the views on what could be deemed a satisfactory outcome of peace negotiations seem as far apart as ever in Kyiv, Moscow and Washington. On 5 August, Zelensky said that he fully supported Trump's proposal of an immediate ceasefire. 'We have already tried many ways … to bring about a ceasefire and stop the killings. We have offered Russia an aerial ceasefire and an end to missile and drone strikes on civilian and energy infrastructure. All of which was rejected by the Russians,' Zelensky explained. On Wednesday, European leaders and Zelensky are due to hold a video conference with Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, where they are likely to discuss Friday's meeting in Alaska.
Novaya Gazeta Europe
a day ago
- Novaya Gazeta Europe
The B team. A veteran diplomat explains how the upcoming Trump-Putin summit is amateurish and politically driven — Novaya Gazeta Europe
A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin is set for 15 August, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will not attend, barring a last-minute change. The Conversation's politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University's Fletcher School, to get his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it's likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal. Donald Heflin Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University TC: How do wars end? DH: Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: one side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, 'Yeah, we're ready to come to the peace table'. And then the third is — we've seen this happen in the Mideast — outside forces like the US or Europe come in and say, 'That's enough. We're imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.' What we've seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory. So the fighting continues. And the role that Trump and his administration are playing right now is that third possibility, an outside power comes in and says, 'Enough'. Now you have to look at Russia. Russia is maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it's got nuclear arms and it's got a big army. This is not some small, Middle Eastern country that the United States can completely dominate. They're nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don't want to? I kind of doubt it. A t-shirt featuring portraits of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on display at a gift shop in Moscow, Russia, 16 May 2025. EPA/MAXIM SHIPENKOV TC: How does this upcoming Trump-Putin meeting fit into the history of peace negotiations? DH: The analogy a lot of people are using is the Munich Conference in 1938, where Great Britain met with Hitler's Germany. I don't like to make comparisons to Nazism or Hitler's Germany. Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust and killed 30 or 40 million people. It's hard to compare anything to that. But in diplomatic terms, we go back to 1938. Germany said, 'Listen, we have all these German citizens living in this new country of Czechoslovakia. They're not being treated right. We want them to become part of Germany.' And they were poised to invade. 'History would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low.' The prime minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, went and met with Hitler in Munich and came up with an agreement by which the German parts of Czechoslovakia would become part of Germany. And that would be it. That would be all that Germany would ask for, and the West gave some kind of light security guarantees. Czechoslovakia wasn't there. This was a peace imposed on them. And sure enough, you know, within a year or two, Germany was saying, 'No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.' And thus World War II started. TC: Can you spell out the comparisons further? DH: Czechoslovakia wasn't at the table. Ukraine's not at the table. Again, I'm not sure I want to compare Putin to Hitler, but he is a strongman authoritarian president with a big military. Security guarantees were given to Czechoslovakia and not honoured. The West gave Ukraine security guarantees when that country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We told them, 'If you're going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we'll make sure you're never invaded.' And they've been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn't step up. So history would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low. Rescuers work at the site of a Russian strike on a nine-storey residential building in Kyiv, Ukraine, 31 July 2025. Photo: EPA/SERGEY DOLZHENKO TC: What kind of expertise is required in negotiating a peace deal? DH: Here's what usually happens in most countries that have a big foreign policy or national security establishment, and even in some smaller countries. The political leaders come up with their policy goal, what they want to achieve. And then they tell the career civil servants and foreign service officers and military people, 'This is what we want to get at the negotiating table. How do we do that?' And then the experts say, 'Oh, we do this and we do that, and we'll assign staff to work it out. We'll work with our Russian counterparts and try to narrow the issues down, and we'll come up with numbers and maps.' 'The US national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team — at best.' With all the replacement of personnel since the inauguration, the US not only has a new group of political appointees — including some, like Marco Rubio, who, generally speaking, know what they're doing in terms of national security — but also many who don't know what they're doing. They've also fired the senior level of civil servants and foreign service officers, and a lot of the mid-levels are leaving, so that expertise isn't there. That's a real problem. The US national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team — at best. US President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance (C), and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (R) salute during the National Memorial Day Observance in Arlington, Virginia, USA, 26 May 2025. Photo: EPA/JIM LO SCALZO TC: How will this be a problem when Trump meets Putin? DH: You have two leaders of two big countries like this, they usually don't meet on a few days' notice. It would have to be a real crisis. This meeting could happen two or three weeks from now as easily as it could this week. And if that happened, you would have a chance to prepare. You'd have a chance to get all kinds of documents in front of the American participants. You would meet with your Russian counterparts. You'd meet with Ukrainian counterparts, maybe some of the Western European countries. And when the two sides sat down at the table, it would be very professional. 'People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable.' They would have very similar briefing papers in front of them. The issues would be narrowed down. None of that's going to happen in Alaska. It's going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented. TC: Could a peace deal possibly be enforced? DH: Again, the situation is kind of haunted by the West never enforcing security guarantees promised in 1994. So I'm not sure how well this could be enforced. Historically, Russia and Ukraine were always linked up, and that's the problem. What's Putin's bottom line? Would he give up Crimea? No. Would he give up the part of eastern Ukraine that de facto had been taken over by Russia before this war even started? Probably not. Would he give up what they've gained since then? OK, maybe. Then let's put ourselves in Ukraine's shoes. Will they want to give up Crimea? They say, 'No'. Do they want to give up any of the eastern part of the country? They say, 'No'. TC: I'm curious what your colleagues in the diplomatic world are saying about this upcoming meeting. DH: People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable. It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won't. This article was first published by The Conversation.
