The war in Iran could cost Ukraine its defense

At stake is the supply of weapons, especially air defense systems, within the scope of the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), a NATO program financed by European allies to support Kiev, but whose weapons could be diverted to the conflict in the Middle East

It is another hard blow for Ukraine which, in recent weeks, has seen the world redirect its gaze to the Middle East. According to sources heard by the Washington Post, the Pentagon is evaluating the possibility of diverting weapons destined for Ukraine to the Gulf.

“We are always doing this. We have enormous amounts of ammunition, we have ammunition in other countries (…) and sometimes we take it from one country and use it in another”, admitted Donald Trump on Thursday, after being questioned by journalists.

The measure, justify the same sources, is due to the fact that the war in Iran is depleting some of the most important ammunition of the American armed forces. At issue is the shipment mainly of air defense systems, including interceptor missiles ordered under the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL), a NATO program financed by European allies to support Kiev. However, the decision raises not only legal but strategic doubts.

From a legal point of view, the issue is far from linear and depends, above all, on the conditions under which the material was acquired in existing agreements. Speaking to CNN Portugal, professor and specialist in international law Francisco Pereira Coutinho explains that “a purchase and sale contract is a purchase and sale contract”: “From the moment there is a purchase, the property is transferred.” In other words, if the equipment has already been effectively purchased, there may be a delivery obligation on the part of the United States.

“It is essential to understand the specific conditions of the agreement, especially if the material had already been purchased and if it was just pending delivery. In this case, we may be facing a violation on the part of the United States”, he adds, remembering that, “in a purchase and sale contract, from the moment the seller accepts the transaction, there is an obligation to transfer ownership”.

The diversion of weapons was also assumed in a notification from the Pentagon to Congress, in which it is stated that 750 million dollars of funding provided by NATO countries via PURL should be diverted to “replenish the inventories of the US armed forces”, instead of being sent to Ukraine.

“What is happening is that this war in Iran has involved an extraordinary consumption of critical military material. And it is critical for several reasons: it is expensive, it takes a long time to produce and, in many cases, only the United States can manufacture it”, highlights Major General Jorge Saramago to CNN Portugal. “We are talking about systems like the Patriot, the Tomahawk or high-altitude defense systems, vital for neutralizing ballistic missiles. All of these are scarce and slow to produce.”

According to POLITICO, the possibility was also admitted by the US State Department, which informed allies that deliveries, especially Patriot air defense missiles, could be interrupted, according to three European officials familiar with the negotiations.

“Nothing was diverted”, said Rubio this Friday, upon leaving the meeting with G7 foreign ministers, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen, he also admitted: “That could happen.”

A serious blow to Ukraine

More than legality, the impact on the ground raises immediate concerns for a country that has been fighting to defend its territory for more than four years. Ukraine currently relies heavily on these systems to protect infrastructure and the civilian population.

“These missiles are missiles that Ukraine will not have. The problem is not those already purchased, it is the future”, warns Francisco Pereira Coutinho, highlighting that “next winter will be very difficult”, as “Ukraine could face serious difficulties in protecting its populations”, as “it will take a long time for the Ukrainians to receive Patriot again, at a time when it is believed that they no longer exist in sufficient quantity to meet Ukrainian needs”.

“The problem was inevitable and sooner or later it would arise. There are two central challenges in the Middle East: on the one hand, the increase in oil prices generates revenue of around 150 million per day, allowing Russia to reinforce its war effort, including the hiring of fighters. On the other, the missiles used to defend the Gulf countries and Israel are exactly those that Ukraine will no longer have access to”, highlights the international law expert.

To reduce the risks caused by the possible end of the US supply of material, Jorge Saramago believes that the country should start taking measures. “Air defense systems will start to be managed in a more restrictive way, which means that Ukraine will suffer more impacts. Instead of using three missiles, as they would before, they will start using just one”, he states, lamenting that “these systems, especially the Patriot missiles, are being used intensively in the Middle East”.

“They are taking down drones and other low-value targets with Patriot missiles, when they could adopt the approach used by the Ukrainians: using helicopters, resorting to cheaper missiles or anti-drone systems. In other words, they are solving a minor problem with an exaggerated solution, it’s like killing a fly with an atomic bomb”, he ironizes.

PURL: the mechanism that is dependent on the USA

Much of this weaponry supplied to Ukraine is acquired through PURL, coordinated by NATO. The program allows allies to finance the purchase of US military equipment for Ukraine.

“The donor countries raise money, NATO gives it to the United States, the US provides the material to NATO, and NATO gives it whatever destination it wants. Formally, there is no explicit obligation, but everyone knows that the destination is Ukraine”, explains Saramago.

In practice, this is a model that is heavily dependent on North American production capacity. “Ukraine needs material that only the US produces. The allies finance a list of priorities defined by Kiev”, adds the major general.

The problem arises when supply does not keep up with demand. Many of these systems are expensive, scarce and take time to produce, which drastically limits their ability to respond in a context of accelerated consumption.

The solution is on Europe’s side

With a shortage of critical weapons coming from the United States, attention turns to Europe, where there is the capacity to compensate, albeit partially, for the lack of systems such as Patriot missiles.

“We cannot depend on the industry of other partners. We have to rely on our own industry. In the meantime, we need daily protection against Russian missiles. I am grateful to everyone who supports us through PURL, which is extremely important.” Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukrainian president.

After Zelensky’s appeal this week to European leaders, Major General Jorge Saramago emphasizes that “there are some European systems, French or German, that can compensate for the absence of Patriot interceptors”, even if “they are not the same thing”. However, the expert warns of structural limitations.

“European industry is very limited from a production point of view. For years, Europe disinvested in its defense industry. There is now a relaunch, but this is not pushing a button. You need to build factories, prepare assembly lines, train workers, and that could take years.”

This reality implies that Ukrainian air defense will continue to experience constraints. “It is natural that there is some shortage in Ukraine, and this makes it easier for Russia, which in recent weeks has had very little success in the country”, notes the major general, referring to the recent losses of Russian territory, especially on the southern front, in the Zaporizhzhia region, without significant advances in the Donbass.

As for when Ukraine will begin to feel the lack of weapons on the ground, “no one knows.” “It’s a very well-kept secret. If Russia knows where the air defense is positioned, it can attack infrastructure, power plants, ports and cities. Therefore, this information is kept completely confidential.”

NATO rules out the possibility, but allies are worried

Alerted to the possibility considered by the US, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte refused to comment on the Pentagon’s plans at a press conference on Thursday, but assured that essential military equipment “continues to flow” to Ukraine, accompanied by US military information.

The alliance leader assured that, since last year, PURL has been supplying Ukraine with important equipment, including 70% of the batteries used in Patriot systems, something he describes as “crucial” for Kiev.

In the same vein, the NATO spokeswoman also insisted that nothing has changed in American aid to date. “Everything that allies and partners have paid for through PURL has been delivered or continues to be shipped to Ukraine,” said Allison Hart.

Still, words were not enough to allay the fears of NATO members, with French President Emmanuel Macron arguing that the Iran war “should not distract from the support given to Ukraine”.

It is worth remembering that, in just three days of conflict against Iran, the Gulf countries used more than 800 Patriot missiles, “more than Ukraine received during the entire Russian invasion”, Zelensky highlighted.