Kyiv seeks to reduce reliance on Washington amid shortage of sophisticated air defence systems
Joe Barnes is The Telegraph’s Diplomatic Editor based in Brussels. He focuses on European politics and defence, and has covered the Ukraine war and its peace negotiations extensively. He has also covered the US elections from Washington, DC.
Published 09 June 2026
Britain will help Ukraine build an alternative to the Patriot air defence system to reduce Kyiv’s reliance on the US.
Kyiv is increasingly struggling to intercept barrages of ballistic missiles fired by Russia because of a shortage of sophisticated air defence systems.
Russian forces have attempted to take advantage of the shortfall by increasing the number of targeted attacks on Ukrainian cities.
Volodymyr Zelensky had appealed to Donald Trump to ramp up deliveries of the system’s Pac-3 interceptors, which have been in scarce supply since the beginning of the US president’s war on Iran.
But in response to the mounting crisis, Mr Zelensky has proposed plans for a European alternative to the US surface-to-air missile system.
After talks with Sir Keir Starmer, the Ukrainian president said: “E3 countries [France, Germany, and the UK] will help us with anti-ballistic capabilities. By the way, I hope that we will manage to develop a European anti-ballistic system together with the UK. We are working on it. We need it, and the UK needs it.”
He used talks with Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary-general, to convince the alliance to play a coordinating role in its development.
Ukrainian sources have told The Telegraph that Kyiv’s plan is for its own domestic defence industry to produce the interceptor missiles for the European system.
These would be coupled with radar, tracking and guidance systems that have been developed by European firms.
“Ukraine’s role is to produce anti-ballistic interceptors, and we’re already testing them,” a person briefed on the coalition’s plans said.
“It’s not an idea for the future, but we need radars, we need seekers from our allies to put this together to create a European Patriot, but much cheaper and with the ability to scale up production.”
In its coordination role, Nato has convened meetings with industry leaders, national security advisers from the alliance’s member states and other planning officials.
It is not clear how long it will take to produce an operational system capable of matching the interception rate of the Patriot system’s Pac-3 missiles.
Since the initial US-Israeli strikes on Iran in February, Ukraine has increasingly struggled to secure supplies of the American-made missiles.
Mr Zelensky has previously claimed that about 800 Pac-3s were used across the Middle East during the first three days of fighting – more than Ukraine had used in almost five years of war.
The global shortages of the interceptors have been made worse because 750 are expected to be manufactured this year.
Similarly, the European Aster missile, which is also capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, is being produced at a rate of one a month, an industry insider told The Telegraph.
While work is under way on a European alternative to the Patriot, Kyiv and its allies are expected to continue to lobby Mr Trump to release supplies to the war-torn country.
A total of 92 per cent of the interceptors donated to Ukraine have been purchased through Purl, Nato’s weapons procurement initiative for Ukraine funded by European countries.
The UK, France and Germany are expected to make the case to the US president that more money is available during next week’s summit of G7 leaders.
Kyiv is also hoping the E3 countries will use the gathering to convince Mr Trump to back a fresh push for a diplomatic end to the war with Russia. It appears he has become less focused on persuading Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire because he is concentrating on securing a peace deal with Iran.
Mr Zelensky held talks with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the presidential peace envoys, earlier this week before the summit in Evian, France.
“I am grateful for their readiness to work as actively as possible in the coming weeks to reinvigorate diplomacy aimed at ending Russia’s war against Ukraine,” Mr Zelensky wrote on social media.
“We understand how much of the world’s attention is focused on the situation around Iran. But our shared goal of peace in Europe remains on the agenda.”
Local reports in Ukraine suggested that Mr Witkoff and Mr Kushner could make their first visit to Kyiv in the coming weeks.
Ukraine and its closest allies hope that renewed pressure on Putin, driven by his forces’ setbacks on the battlefield, will persuade him to finally agree to a ceasefire.
There is an expectation that if Kyiv can convince Mr Trump that it has the upper hand in the war, he will lean on the Russian president to come to the negotiating table.
Comment from :
GRAHAM REEVE
Good move. More of this. Personally, I think we should go even further– I am coming to believe the UK should withdraw from the NPT and share our nuclear weapons technology with the other democracies of the world. Clearly the NPT is already dead or Ukraine would still have its :
“…independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).”
Looking at the “guarantors” of the NPT, the tyrants and totalitarians are taking it over. The US clearly can’t be relied on to side with democracy anymore so that just leaves Britain and France. We can’t do it alone– we need to share the burden. We share the burden by sharing the technology.
Daniel Kay
An alternative is to buy a ready system from South Korea. The Cheongung-II (M-SAM) compares to the Patriot (PAC-3) as a highly capable, cost-effective alternative that excels in specific operational niches, particularly regarding affordability and supply chain speed. Cost and Production Efficiency
The most significant advantage of the Cheongung-II is its economic efficiency. Each Cheongung-II interceptor costs approximately $1.1 million, roughly one-third the price of a Patriot PAC-3 missile, which costs about $3.7 to $4 million. This disparity allows for a much more sustainable defense during prolonged saturation attacks; defending against 100 ballistic missiles would cost an estimated $100–200 million with Cheongung-II versus $400 million with Patriot. Additionally, South Korean manufacturers can accelerate production to deliver missiles within 9–12 months, whereas Patriot production faces lead times of 3–4 years due to complex global supply chains. Performance and Combat Record
In its combat debut in the UAE in March 2026, the Cheongung-II achieved a reported 96% interception rate against Iranian missiles and drones. This performance matched or slightly exceeded the Patriot PAC-3’s estimated 90% success rate during the same conflict. Both systems utilize a hit-to-kill kinetic mechanism, but the Cheongung-II has proven exceptionally reliable against the specific threat profiles (ballistic missiles and UAVs) common in the Middle East, challenging the assumption that US systems are inherently superior in effectiveness.
Ron Thompson
A European version of Patriot would be a good idea, especially if Ukraine can help us cut through the usual sloth-like development cycles and also make them cheaply.
M F Cragoe
The balance of this story is strange (this isn’t a criticism of the author btw). But you’d think that Eueope, faced with an aggressive Russia and a no-longer-reliable America would be absolutely busting a gut to produce precisely these kinds of weapons; instead, the story (perhaps inadvertently) gives the impression that the only country injecting any urgency into the situation is Ukraine. Am I right to despair at the length of time it’s taking to turn rearmament rhetoric into tangible gains – or is it happening and I’m just not seeing it?
LLinos Gass
So the UK and other Europeans are going to help build interceptors to Ballistic missiles, do we actually have anything ourselves to do this besides anything on Type 45 destroyers that are unable to go to sea?
Ron Thompson
Reply to LLinos Gass
“do we actually have anything ourselves to do this besides anything on Type 45 destroyers”
No.
Which is why working with Ukraine to develop this capability is a very good idea.
Kyiv more or less has the missile engine already.
It needs our input for guidance systems.
R Pointer
Needs somebody to remind Zelensky that agreeing the terms of any settlement can only begin with an end to the conflict.
GRAHAM REEVE
Reply to R Pointer –
An end to the war is all on Putin, not the defender. War is only a choice for the aggressor.
Excellent comment :
alan cartwright
Western democracies should cease to believe in the logical proposition that Putin will come to the negotiating table; logic suggests that, but what Putin has done is not logical, it is illogical; it is militaristic expansionism; and the rational mind long ago rejected military measures being productive in the long term; indeed, Ukraine has proven that they are just as unproductive in the shorter term. Putin will not behave logically or morally; he is an old fashioned despot. Best to realise it if you haven’t. Hence, joint air defence development and procurement is essential. And best not forget: Trump isn’t moral or logical either.
“Mr Zelensky held talks with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the presidential peace envoys, earlier this week before the summit in Evian, France.
“I am grateful for their readiness to work as actively as possible in the coming weeks to reinvigorate diplomacy aimed at ending Russia’s war against Ukraine,” Mr Zelensky wrote on social media.”
He’s got to say that hasn’t he?
He knows they are just useless putler-rimming crooks and bastards.
“There is an expectation that if Kyiv can convince Mr Trump that it has the upper hand in the war, he will lean on the Russian president to come to the negotiating table.”
To negotiate what?
Krasnov has already made his hatred of Zel, hatred of Ukraine and love for the child murdering nazi crystal clear.
I hope this cooperation will work better than the one between the Germans and the French with their next-generation fighter jet that was cancelled. The Europeans have shown two things: their lack of unity and their lack of determination.
As for Mr. Kay’s suggestion to use S. Korean version of Patriot, I wouldn’t count so much on this country for military materiel. South Korea has been very wobbly and weak in this regard. Europe and Ukraine developing their own missile defense system is essentially a vital element to their protection and independence from other countries, whose loyalty cannot and should not be relied on.