Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Politics

Air defences on the brink: how the depletion of interceptors in the war with Iran raises risks for Ukraine

Politico and analysts warn: the widespread use of interceptors in the region is depleting a stockpile that could be used to protect our infrastructure. We examine what this means for security and which solutions could reduce the risk.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

March 12, 2026 · 2 min read

Air defences on the brink: how the depletion of interceptors in the war with Iran raises risks for Ukraine
Український військовий (Ілюстративне фото: Генштаб)

What happened

According to Politico, citing more than ten informed sources, the escalation in the Middle East has led to the mass expenditure of expensive interceptors for Patriot systems. Some of the munitions that could have replenished stocks for Ukraine are now being used to cover U.S. forces and their partners in the region.

Why it matters: PAC-3 interceptors are complex and time-consuming to produce. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that at current rates up to 1,000 interceptors have been expended; the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) previously pointed to roughly 270 Patriot missiles per year in pre-war years. That means replenishing stocks will take months, if not years.

"The U.S. has been distracted and is rapidly spending some of the weapons that Europe wants to buy for Ukraine. This is a very bleak scenario"

— an unnamed European official

Implications for Ukraine

Ukraine has already received about 600 interceptors from partners over the course of the full-scale war. President Volodymyr Zelensky warned of a shortage and calculated that during just three days of Iranian attacks in the region "some 800+" interceptors were used — more than what is needed for several months of the winter season.

"Some countries expended in three days more interceptors than Ukraine needs for several months"

— Volodymyr Zelensky, President of Ukraine

The consequence is a real operational risk: limited air-defense stocks reduce the ability to protect critical infrastructure and cities from missile strikes, and Moscow may try to exploit this strategic window to increase pressure.

What partners and experts say

The immediate reasons are straightforward: a surge in regional demand, high production complexity, and rising prices. Lockheed Martin has already agreed to triple Patriot missile production to roughly 2,000 units per year starting in 2025, but that decision carries a multi-year time lag.

Senator Richard Blumenthal called the prioritization question "confusing" — it remains unclear where U.S. priorities will lie between the Middle East and Ukraine.

"There is a lot of confusion about this question, what the priorities will be for Ukraine compared to the Middle East"

— Senator Richard Blumenthal

European officials also note a sharp rise in prices: some systems and munitions have nearly doubled in price, complicating rapid replenishment of arsenals.

Conclusion: what to do and what to expect

The fact is interceptor stocks are shrinking, and the logical consequence is already visible at the front. Solutions must act on three levels simultaneously: accelerated production in the U.S., diversification of supply, and clearer, contract-based planning by partners so that declarations turn into concrete deliveries.

For the reader this means: the security of our cities is now closely tied to allies' industrial policy and the speed of decision-making. Whether partners can boost production rates and redirect supplies without harming other regions is the key question on which Ukraine's ability to endure the coming months depends.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026