Patriots "Cage Replacement": It is Not Easy to Implement Trump's Plan

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration has recently adjusted the distribution strategy of the U.S. Patriot missile system, with the core being to accelerate military aid to Ukraine through an "old-for-new" mechanism, while shifting the pressure of inventory replenishment to allies.

Nations that provide Patriot systems to Ukraine (such as Germany) can prioritize receiving newly produced systems from the United States to fill the gaps caused by the transfer of equipment. This mechanism was first practically applied in the Pentagon's coordination of weapon transfers to Ukraine.

Germany has agreed to transfer two Patriot systems to Ukraine, and in exchange, the United States has promised to replenish its inventory in the coming years. However, the Wall Street Journal pointed out that the U.S. Army's procurement plan may last several years starting from fiscal year 2026 and requires congressional appropriation. Although the U.S. Army plans to increase the procurement of Patriot missiles from 2,047 in fiscal year 2024 to 13,773 in fiscal year 2026 (a fourfold increase), actual delivery depends on congressional budget approval. For example, of the 224 missiles requested for fiscal year 2026, only $946 million in budget has been approved, with the rest needing further negotiation.

The United States currently holds only about 25% of its PAC-3 MSE intercept missile inventory, some of which have been consumed due to the Middle East situation (such as supporting Israel). Rebuilding the inventory takes time, and the production of intercept missiles is shared between Lockheed Martin and L3 Harris, with limited capacity.

Trump has clearly stated that the cost of the Ukrainian Patriot system is paid by NATO allies, not American taxpayers. Germany has pledged to purchase more systems to replenish its own inventory and transfer them to Ukraine, but the German Ministry of Defense admitted that it currently has only six available systems (some unable to operate due to maintenance issues).

European countries, although required to bear defense costs, face insufficient defense budgets (the EU originally planned to invest 80 billion euros by 2030 to enhance military equipment, but actually only prepared 15 billion euros). Countries like France, which advocate "European strategic autonomy," have conflicting views on relying on U.S. weapons.

Through NATO coordination, Ukraine can obtain existing systems from Germany, Israel, and other countries more quickly (such as the 17 systems mentioned by Trump, which may come from Israel), but Ukraine still has doubts about the specific quantity and configuration.

Ukraine currently deploys only six complete Patriot systems, while experts believe at least ten are needed to effectively counter Russian air attacks. However, the inventory and production capacity of the United States and its allies may be difficult to meet this demand.

By transferring weapons to pressure Russia and strengthening NATO internal dependency relationships, forcing Europe to bear more defense costs. Over-reliance on the "old-for-new" model could lead to internal NATO conflicts (such as the dispute over military equipment distribution between Germany and Poland) and exacerbate the military resource squeeze between the U.S. in the Middle East and Europe.

The Trump administration's adjustments have accelerated the enhancement of Ukraine's air defense capabilities in the short term, but the long-term reliance on allies' funds and production capacity under the "transfer model" may intensify the divergence of defense responsibilities between the U.S. and NATO. The contradiction between Ukraine's actual needs and the global shortage of Patriot systems remains the biggest challenge facing this policy.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1838147291288588/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.