Air terror as a means of deportation: how to protect Ukrainian cities

Source: Author’s Facebook page

Volodymyr Zelenskyy wrote a letter to Donald Trump. After another Russian strike on Kyiv – again on markets, shopping malls and residential areas – the Ukrainian president turned to his American counterpart with a request to help strengthen air defense.

So far, the answer has been only indirect – from US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Its content is simple: we will help in any way we can. But it seems that the possibilities are limited now. After the Middle East crisis, the US missile stockpile is depleted, and it will take time to restore it.

This logic can be understood. Theoretically.

But the people in Kyiv cannot wait for the Pentagon to replenish the warehouses. They are living – or not surviving – under Russian strikes right now. And we understand perfectly well that Putin is not going to stop these attacks. Aerial terror has become one of his main tools in this war. Moreover, the Russian president is trying to turn a territorial war into a demographic one. He continues to hope that with each strike, Ukraine’s population will shrink, and large Ukrainian cities will cease to seem safe even for those who have not yet left their homes.

And here a question arises, the answer to which does not sound very comfortable.

How is it that the most powerful army in the world, after several months of limited conflict in the Middle East, can no longer provide an ally with sufficient air defense? If one theater of war is so resource-draining, what will happen in the event of multiple simultaneous crises? And what will then remain of the notion of American military power?

But okay. Let’s assume that’s the case.
What should Ukraine do then?
The answer is there, and it’s not new. I just have to repeat it over and over again.

First, Europe. IRIS-T, SAMP/T, Patriot of European production – all of this exists. The problem is not that these systems do not exist. The problem is whether European countries are ready to transfer them to Ukraine quickly and in sufficient quantities. Sometimes such readiness exists. More often it has to be fought for after each new strike on Ukrainian cities.

Secondly, our own production. Ukraine already creates drones and missiles in wartime. This will not replace Patriot, but it is a reality that needs to be scaled up. This requires technology, components, investments, and production cooperation with allies. Not just words of support.

And finally – the most important thing.

The best defense for Ukrainian cities is to destroy Russian strike capabilities. Factories, warehouses, logistics hubs, launchers. These are the capabilities Ukraine has been asking its partners for for years. And this is what many in the West still fear – for reasons that look less and less convincing after each new strike on Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa, or the Dnieper.

The paradox of this war is simple and cruel. The West provides Ukraine with a shield – and not always in sufficient quantity – but at the same time often limits the ability to strike at the attacker. And then wonders why these attacks do not stop.

Zelensky’s letter was quite logical. Hegseth’s response was predictable. But letters and responses are a conversation, not a strategy.

The strategy begins where, after the next attempt to strike Kyiv, there is an opportunity to thwart it.

And preferably before the missiles fly towards Ukrainian cities again.

Also follow “Pryamim” on Facebook , X , Telegram , and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.