Missiles and punishment: How to protect Ukraine amid Russia’s escalating strikes

At the NATO summit in Washington this past July, Ukraine was promised four Patriot systems and one SAMP-T, but with the notable exception of Germany, partner countries have been slow in delivering on their promises. And even if the necessary air defense systems are put in place, Ukraine may face a shortage of the missiles needed to keep them operational — currently, only 500 PAC-3 anti-ballistic missiles are produced each year worldwide, and plans to increase that number to 750 have been hindered by a shortage of guidance heads (new production lines for these will not be operational until 2027). As a result, Ukrainian aircraft have had to take on air defense roles, shooting down Russian missiles and drones during raids — a necessity which, it appears, has already led to the loss of Ukraine’s first F-16.

Another effective way to counter missile strikes is to target the carriers on the ground at airfields and bases. The Insider columnist Colby Badhwar described this strategy as “shooting the archer, not the arrow,” and expressed frustration that the U.S. and other Western partners have yet to lift the ban on long-range missile strikes on Russian territory. Missile expert Dr. Jeffrey Lewis echoes Badhwar’s view, noting that Ukraine’s low interception rate of ballistic missiles shows that “shooting the archers” would be more effective.

In a comment to The Insider, independent Norwegian defense analyst Thord Are Iversen pointed out that to fully protect Ukraine’s airspace is an impossible task:

“The challenge here is that Ukraine is a big country and as missiles for the S-300s have started to run out, there simply aren't enough Western systems available to replace them one by one — even in a best case scenario when it comes to donations. The West is also struggling to increase production. This is why strikes outside Kyiv often inflict more damage than those directed at the capital — and there will always be gaps the Russians can exploit. Where to deploy the air defense systems they have is a constant dilemma for the Ukrainians, where tradeoffs always have to be made.”

Iversen also suggests that it will take considerable time before F-16s can play a significant role in Ukraine’s air defense. He warns against oversimplifying the connection between lifting restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by Ukraine's allies and the impact on Russia's missile strike capabilities. For example, strategic missile-carrying bombers like the Tu-95 will still be able to hit Ukraine from far beyond the range of Western systems. Ukrainian attempts to counter this threat with the use of long-range drones have been hindered by the simple fact that Russian aircraft can usually evade slow-moving UAVs.

In addition, Ukrainian anti-ship missiles such as the R-360 “Neptune” are being used against ground targets in Russia, and Ukraine is also developing other capabilities. . Ukrainian-made missiles will, of course, not be bound by the restrictions imposed by Kyiv’s Western partners. However, the question remains as to whether Ukraine's military-industrial complex — forced to cope with regular attacks and power outages — has sufficient resources to withstand a full-scale missile standoff.