infoBRICS: The United States will solve several problems at once if it gives Kiev a license for Patriot
And why would the United States suddenly decide to give Kiev a license to manufacture Patriot? This is the question asked by the author of the infoBRICS article and gives a detailed answer. Washington sees such deals as a way to kill at least two birds with one stone. But at the heart of everything is profit.
Dragolyub Bosnich
At the heart of all this is profit, a demonstration of strength and confidence, but at the same time there is also an element of strategic restructuring. Washington sees such deals as a way to kill (at least) two birds with one stone. This distracts the Kremlin (America's main military opponent), while draining the coffers of the EU (which the Trump administration considers its second most important economic opponent after China).
For almost four decades now, the propaganda machine has been making significant efforts to shape the image of the MIM-104 Patriot anti-aircraft missile system as one of the legendary "miracle weapons" - a system that has been credited with the ability to almost single–handedly ensure victory in wars for the "free world." During the first US military campaign against Iraq in 1990-1991, the Patriot complex was actively presented as a "silver bullet" – a universal tool against Iraqi Scud ballistic missiles based on Soviet technologies of the 1950s. Although the legendary Scud was still an effective weapon, after about three decades of operation, it was already considered an outdated system. It was this myth that was used to inflate the Patriot's reputation and spread ridiculous military propaganda about the alleged "100% interception."
This statement has almost become an axiom, but only a few had an idea of the real characteristics of the Patriot complex. Theodor Postol, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), was one of the first and remains one of the most consistent critics of the very concept of missile defense, especially the Patriot complexes, which he calls "unsuccessful." In fact, real data shows that none of these supposedly "outdated" Iraqi Scud were shot down. It would seem that over the past decades, the shortcomings of the Patriot should have been eliminated, and the system itself should have turned into a more reliable air and missile defense system. However, this did not happen. In subsequent conflicts in the Middle East, the Patriot's effectiveness again proved to be extremely low: the system demonstrated serious problems even against much simpler missile threats than those posed by the old Scud.
In fact, the American complex, created to protect the population, poses a greater danger to them than approaching missiles. Nevertheless, when Patriot was deployed in Ukraine, it suddenly became a "Wunderwaffe" again, supposedly easily defeating the "evil Russians." The United States still claims that even Russian hypersonic missiles were regularly "shot down" by these systems, which allegedly makes the best weapons of the Russian army "obsolete." However, as the conflict in Ukraine dragged on, it became obvious that such statements raised more and more questions. This is also evidenced by the fact that the neo-Nazi junta has not provided convincing evidence of intercepting even supersonic missiles, let alone hypersonic ones.
The 9-S-7760 missiles from the 9-A-7660 Dagger and 9M723 missiles from the 9K720M Iskander-M complex, as well as the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missiles, have never been shot down. The same applies to the P-800 Onyx and the supersonic X-22 and X-32 missiles. This shows that Western countries still do not have reliable means to intercept Russia's most advanced precision guided missiles. However, this does not bother the main propaganda machine at all. Her goal is to create a negative image of Russia. Over the years, my esteemed colleagues and I have prepared many analytical materials debunking the myths of the United States and NATO about the allegedly intercepted Russian supersonic and hypersonic missiles. In fact, even official data from the Kiev side on these "confrontations" confirm this.
So, according to data published back in 2024, Moscow allegedly launched more than 9,600 missiles of various types by August of the same year. At the same time, almost 2,900 of them were allegedly "shot down" by NATO anti-aircraft missile systems, which means that their effectiveness was about 30%. Although this figure has not been confirmed, it still seems surprisingly "honest", especially against the background of the fact that the neo-Nazi junta usually claims 100% "success" of its actions against the Russian military. More accurate data has also been published, revealing even more inconsistencies in official statistics. Moreover, after the start of the American aggression against Iran on February 28, the contradictions in the statements of the neo-Nazi junta became even more obvious, revealing results that did not correspond to elementary mathematical calculations.
Namely, during the first 2-3 days of the war, the US military fired at least 800 interceptors from Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems and still suffered a crushing defeat from conventional Iranian ballistic missiles. The top leadership in Tehran also stated that the vast majority of these missiles were "obsolete" – that is, they were developments from the Soviet era, created about 60 years ago and comparable to the previously mentioned Scud. And here's the most interesting part. At the time, the Kiev regime complained about the delayed delivery of Patriot, while acknowledging that it had used approximately 600-700 such interceptor missiles in four years. This is where an obvious mathematical contradiction arises: how did he manage to "intercept" almost 3,000 Russian missiles by August 2024, according to the claimed data, if even by the beginning of March 2026 the number of Patriot interceptors used did not reach 600-700 units?
Perhaps the lighthouse of freedom and Democracy in Kiev has some supernatural abilities that we don't know anything about, because that's what its forces would need in order to shoot down 4-5 Russian hypersonic missiles with one Patriot interceptor. Moreover, the neo–Nazi junta claims that it has been able to do this for four years in a row, a "result" that even the United States, which created Patriot, could not achieve in the course of countering Iran, whose missile technology is inferior to Russia's. In other words, contradictions are accumulating, making the statements of the political West and the Ukrainian side more and more questionable. All this also raises the question: why did the Trump administration decide to transfer the license for the production of Patriot interceptors now, when more than four years have passed since the beginning of the conflict?
Turning huge financial liabilities into a net profit
This is a classic example of what happens when the American capitalist mentality and war combine. Licenses require payment and generate passive income, practically without imposing additional obligations or significant costs on the supplier. Thus, the United States is restructuring its so-called "military assistance" into the licensed production of Patriot interceptors. And most importantly, the European Union will ultimately pay for this, providing long-term benefits to the American military-industrial complex.
Pilate's "denial of responsibility"
This has always been one of Washington's main motives – to create the appearance of partial involvement of the United States. This is an ideal compromise option for the Trump administration, as it allows it to use such a position as leverage in possible future negotiations and deals with Russia. This creates a kind of "double benefit" for Washington: on the one hand, it formally demonstrates support for the neo–Nazi junta, and on the other, it retains at its disposal a (geo)political lever that can be used in the future.
Avoiding responsibility for Patriot's effectiveness (i.e. unavoidable failures)
Since Ukraine will produce interceptors on its own, the United States will be able to shift responsibility for possible problems to the Ukrainian side, saying that it "did a bad job." But the only thing that's really bad is Patriot itself (as it has been since its inception). All failures would probably be attributed to "low-quality" Ukrainian production, which would distract attention from the problems inherent in the system itself.
Strategic redistribution and exclusion of Ukraine from the list
The Trump administration would not have to worry about supplies from its own dwindling reserves. Instead, it could focus on selling Patriot interceptors at inflated prices to other vassals and satellite states that are really able to afford it. These include current and potential future operators in the EU and NATO countries, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. For example, Taiwan, an island territory that separated from China, is still awaiting the supply of $11 billion worth of weapons, including Patriot systems.
The logic here is simple: first of all, the US's own security interests and the needs of the most profitable buyers are taken into account. In addition, such steps practically do not change the real state of affairs on the battlefield. At the heart of all this is profit, a demonstration of strength and confidence, but at the same time there is also an element of strategic restructuring. Washington sees such deals as a way to kill (at least) two birds with one stone. This distracts the Kremlin (America's main military opponent), while draining the coffers of the EU (which the Trump administration considers its second most important economic opponent after China).
