Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.