Follow us on social

Patriot-missile

Reports: Biden making plans to send Patriot missiles to Ukraine

Experts say these systems are expensive, take months of training, and will not give Ukraine the full air cover they want.

Analysis | Europe

Reports are circulating that the Biden administration is poised to send Patriot missile systems to Ukraine. The Patriot is a sophisticated U.S. designed and manufactured (Raytheon) system whose primary function for the U.S. military is for tactical surface-to-air anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capability.

According to Raytheon:

Global Patriot™ Solutions is a missile defense system consisting of radars, command-and-control technology and multiple types of interceptors, all working together to detect, identify and defeat tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, advanced aircraft and other threats. Patriot is the foundation of integrated air and missile defense for 17 nations.

Since its use in the first Persian Gulf War, the United States has sold/shared Patriot systems to the armed forces of the NetherlandsPolandGermanyJapanIsraelSaudi ArabiaKuwaitTaiwanGreeceSpain, the United Arab EmiratesQatarRomania and Sweden. President Trump took two Patriot missile batteries out of Saudi Arabia during his term reportedly over an oil production dispute, but the move came as the U.S. military was shifting other assets to Iraq and Syria as our troops were coming under fire there.

The plans to send the Patriot to Ukraine is a big deal. While military experts I spoke with were skeptical that the system would be the cure-all for the Ukrainians' need to gain cover and air superiority over Russia — which has been pummeling it with cruise missiles and drones daily, wiping out critical infrastructure including heat and electricity — it may send a distinct signal of escalation to Putin. Whether that is deliberate or not, the Russians have already responded, with the Kremlin's spokesperson reportedly saying the Patriot will be considered a legitimate target. 

Until now, the administration has been hesitant to send long range missile systems to Ukraine and for good reason, say experts, who note that the training on the Patriot takes about six months. In the U.S. Army, a "line battery" of upwards of 90 soldiers are required for the ongoing control and command of the system, which gives you an idea of how complex it is. The cost for each system is around $1 billion, not including the missiles. When the United States sent a system, with missiles, to Bahrain in 2019, it cost the Gulf country $2.5 billion. According to this report, Poland's first procurement of the Patriot missile system was $4.75 billion. Mark Cancian, former military officer, now an analyst at CSIS, says that sending it to Ukraine is a big decision for the administration:

“This is going to be the most challenging piece of equipment that Ukraine has received to date... . If the Ukrainians had a year or two to absorb the Patriot, that would not be a problem. … My guess is that the Pentagon is very nervous about this.”

Cancian said the Pentagon is “taking quite a risk here” in deploying the Patriot system. “I think they decided that because the need for air defense was so great, that they were willing to take a risk that was not the case in the past.”

Questions abound. Have Ukrainians already been trained on Patriot missiles, like in Germany? The Washington Post reports that training has not taken place yet and the "parameters" of such a training are being worked out and will "likely" take place in Germany. So when will the system be sent?

From my colleague George Beebe, director of Grand Strategy for the Quincy Institute:

Ukraine has been asking for Patriots for many months, but the U.S. had been reluctant to supply them largely because it had concerns that the Ukrainians could not operate them effectively. Washington has grown more confident the Ukrainians can handle the Patriot, and they help to relieve political pressure in the West to do something to defend against Russia's large-scale strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure. Although the Patriot may help on the margins against these strikes, it is a very expensive and not very efficient means of defending against drone attacks.  

Some experts say that while Patriot systems are "the gold standard" of air defense, they can only protect upwards of 68 kilometers of area, so multiple systems would be ideal to provide the overall protection that Ukraine is looking for.

"The Patriot is a point defense system which means that a single battery can defend an area of a few blocks rather than an entire city. The battery also needs to be oriented in the proper direction since its radar system is static. It works well when the target approaches within the search range, but will miss anything that isn't. To establish an effective all-around defense of a particular area, you would need multiple Patriot systems to provide the coverage necessary to watch all avenues of approach," one military expert tells me on background.

In addition, NASAMs which the U.S. already provides, are better for countering drones and cruise missiles, according to retired Army Col. Doug Macgregor. That is what the Russians are using now to attack Ukrainian infrastructure.

However, if the Russians start getting ballistic missiles from Iran and using them — which has not happened yet — Patriot missiles would be better to counter them.

The Defense Department told the Washington Post that the administration will not sign off on the plan until "the Pentagon has answered all questions about training and maintenance, the legalities of a transfer, and its effect on U.S. military readiness." But an announcement is expected as early as Thursday.

UPDATE 12/15 4p.m. ET:

According to the Associated Press Thursday, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in a weekly briefing that if Washington follows through with reported plans to send the Patriot Missile system to Ukraine that it would be “another provocative move by the U.S.” that could prompt a response from Moscow, and that the U.S. had “effectively become a party” to the war in Ukraine.


An MIM-104 Patriot missile is fired by members of Battery B, 8th Battalion, 43rd Air Defense Artillery. (US National Archives)
Analysis | Europe
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.