The Patriot system is used to combat aircraft, various types of tactical ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The radar system of the anti-aircraft missile system detects the target and then is activated with computer support and friend-enemy evaluation. Soldiers at the control center receive a threat analysis and can confirm the computer’s suggestion and initiate the combat. This system is considered as one of the most advanced air defense systems in the US arsenal and was first used in the Second Persian Gulf War in 1991. It was also used during the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ukraine, which has demanded Patriot missiles to defend its territorial integrity, with the agreement of the United States, can now open a special account on this advanced and reliable system.

Limitations

As for the effectiveness of this system, the following points can be raised in general; among the factors examined within this index is the effectiveness of the system against the variety of Russian attacks, which will be limited. The firing of a large number of ballistic missiles from the depths of the earth, drone attacks and the variety of air attacks using Sukhoi aircraft have clearly caused serious damage to large parts of Ukraine’s strategic infrastructure, for example in the field of energy and electricity supply. Implementation of air defense fire and the combination of tactics and combat methods of Russian forces have shown a surprising confrontation. To neutralize the Patriot system, Russia can use cruise and ballistic missiles in different ranges, in addition to missile and drone equipment with new features, which can create a special balance against the advanced Patriot systems in terms of the geographical dimension or the sensitive dimension of military and strategic impact. Considering the size of the conflict zone, Patriot systems can only cover a limited area and effectively protect a specific region. Therefore, since the geographical dimension of the Russian military attacks is very significant, this system will be limited to fully cover large areas – for example, big cities like Kiev.

Another point is that according to a CSIS report in July, the Patriot is the most expensive weapon system that the United States has supplied to Ukraine. The cost is likely to be around 1.1 billion dollars; 400 million dollars for the system and 690 million dollars for the missile. Therefore, the provision of this system with the continuation of conflicts may face the exporting countries with economic inefficiency in using this advanced system. In other words, using this expensive system to shoot down a wide range of attacks, especially small and cheap drone attacks by Russia, does not seem cost-effective or perhaps wise.

Also, a significant number of experts will be required to set up and maintain the complex Patriot system. Therefore, one of the factors analyzed in this index is the manpower, which NATO and especially the United States will have to send their military advisers to that country at the invitation of the Ukrainian government or train Ukrainian soldiers in their military headquarters. Since Russia, according to its official announcement, may act as a legitimate defense principle by targeting those forces in accordance with international law, the presence of NATO equipment or troops in Ukraine – even with the consent and invitation of the host government – can provoke Russia and escalate conflicts. Recently, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov announced that the Patriot system will “definitely” be Russia’s target. Also, the Russian Embassy in Washington said that the possible transfer of that system was provocative and could lead to unpredictable consequences.

From the security and strategic aspect, with more than 300 days passing since the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine, today we can state the fact that the structures of the unified order of the European Union and NATO did not fail; on the contrary membership in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for Ukraine, the Balkan and Baltic countries can be attractive and guarantee the national security of the countries in that region. The European Union and NATO, like magnets, continue to attract new countries to expand their geopolitical spheres of influence. Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, the European Union and NATO have each taken a significant place in terms of strategic importance while increasing internal coordination. What is certain, at least at the declaration level, presentation of the Patriot system with high capability against ballistic missiles shows the strong role of support from Europe and especially the United States. But the important point is that the Ukrainian forces need to get the necessary training in the shortest possible time to use this system in different regions of Ukraine and, given the above-mentioned cases, this system does not change the equation of the war in a noticeable way. From the point of view of strategic and security studies, it is clear that the field of international relations is more based on the principle of mistrust and strengthening of power. The main lesson of the Ukraine war is that if a country neglects to build its deterrent power and strengthen its offensive capability, or relies on the security guarantees of foreign powers, it may suffer the fate of Ukraine.