By Drago Bosnic

Global Research, July 12, 2026

 

For the last nearly four decades, the mainstream propaganda machine has been trying everything in its power to present the MIM-104 “Patriot” SAM/ABM (surface-to-air/anti-ballistic missile) system as one of the so-called “wunderwaffen” that were supposed to “win wars for the free world”. During the first US-led aggression against Iraq in 1990-1991, the “Patriot” was touted as the “silver bullet” against Iraqi “Scud” ballistic missiles, which are effectively a 1950s Russian military technology. Although by no means obsolete, after around three decades in service at the time, the legendary “Scud” was considered a largely “outdated” design. Precisely this myth was used to fan up the “Patriot’s” reputation and spread laughable war propaganda about the supposed “100% interception rate”.

The claim almost became an axiom, but very few people knew the actual data on the “Patriot’s” performance. MIT Professor Theodore Postol was among the first and remains one of the most consistent critics of the very ABM concept, particularly the “Patriot”, which he regularly calls a “failed system”. In fact, the actual data shows that not a single one of those supposedly “obsolete” Iraqi “Scuds” was ever shot down. Obviously, decades have passed, so you’d expect the “Patriot’s” shortcomings to have been resolved in the meantime, resulting in a more robust SAM/ABM system, right? Well, no. The “Patriot’s” performance was equally atrocious in more recent conflicts in the Middle East, where it failed miserably against far more basic missiles than the old “Scud” ever was.

 

In fact, the US-made system is a lot more dangerous for the civilians it’s supposed to be protecting than incoming missiles. And yet, when the “Patriot” was deployed to NATO-occupied Ukraine, it suddenly became a “wunderwaffe” once again, supposedly defeating “the evil Russians” left and right. The United States still insists that even the Kremlin’s hypersonic weapons were regularly being “shot down” by these systems, rendering the Russian military’s best weapons “obsolete”. However, as the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict dragged on, it became clear such claims are “a bit problematic”. This is confirmed by the fact that the Neo-Nazi junta failed to present a single shred of evidence that even supersonic missiles were shot down, let alone hypersonic ones.

Namely, the 9-S-7760 of the 9-A-7660 “Kinzhal” and 9M723 of the 9K720M “Iskander-M” systems, as well as the 3M22 “Zircon” hypersonic missiles have never been shot down. The same goes for the P-800 “Oniks”, Kh-22 and Kh-32 supersonic missiles. This demonstrates that the political West still lacks the means to intercept the most advanced Russian precision-guided weapon systems. However, this doesn’t matter to the mainstream propaganda machine. The most important thing is to make sure Russian weapons get some bad PR. Over the years, my esteemed colleagues and I have authored many analyses debunking US/NATO myths about intercepting the Kremlin’s supersonic and hypersonic missiles. In fact, even the Kiev regime’s official figures on these “showdowns” support this.

According to this data (published back in 2024), Moscow supposedly fired over 9,600 missiles of various types by August of that year. Nearly 2,900 of these were allegedly “shot down” by NATO-sourced SAM/ABM systems, meaning that their efficiency was around 30%. Although completely unsubstantiated, this figure still seemed surprisingly “honest”, especially given the fact that the Neo-Nazi junta tends to go over 100% “success rate” when reporting on its performance against the Russian military. The exact figures were also published, revealing even more inconsistencies in the official data. What’s more, after the US launched its aggression on Iran on February 28, the discrepancies in the Neo-Nazi junta’s claims became even more apparent, demonstrating mathematically impossible results.

Namely, in the first 2-3 days of the war, the US military fired at least 800 “Patriot” interceptors and still failed miserably against regular Iranian ballistic missiles. The high command in Tehran even stated that the vast majority of those were older weapons (in other words, 60-year-old Soviet-era ballistic missile technology equivalent to the previously mentioned “Scud”). Now, here’s the definite kicker. At the time, the Kiev regime whined about the delayed delivery of these interceptors, admitting it fired approximately 600-700 of them in about four years. This is where the impossible math equation comes into play – how exactly did the Neo-Nazi junta forces manage to “intercept” nearly 3,000 Russian missiles by August 2024 if they haven’t even used 600-700 “Patriot” interceptors by the beginning of March 2026?

Perhaps “the beacon of freedom and democracy” in Kiev has some supernatural abilities that we don’t know about, because that’s what it would take for its forces to “shoot down” 4-5 Russian hypersonic missiles with a single “Patriot” interceptor. Worse yet, the Neo-Nazi junta claims to have done so consistently for four years, a “feat” that even the US (the country that made the “Patriot”) failed to do against Iran, which still doesn’t have missile technologies as advanced as Russia’s. In other words, the illogic keeps piling up, making the political West’s and the Kiev regime’s claims all the more laughable. All this also begs the question of why the Trump administration decided to transfer the production license for “Patriot” interceptors, especially now that it has been well over four years late(r)?

Turning a massive financial liability into pure profit

This is a textbook example of what happens when you combine the American capitalist mindset and warfare. Namely, licenses need to be paid for and generate passive income with almost no liability or underlying costs for the provider. Thus, the US is restructuring its so-called “military aid” into licensed production of “Patriot” interceptors. And the best part? The European Union will be the one paying for it anyway, ensuring long-term profits for the American Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Pilatian “plausible deniability”

This has always been one of Washington DC’s primary motivating factors – making it seem like the US is not fully involved. This is the perfect “middle ground” for the Trump administration, which believes it can still use it as leverage at a later stage in potential negotiations and deals with Russia. It creates a “double win” for Washington DC, which formally shows support for the Neo-Nazi junta while retaining a (geo)political card to play later.

Avoiding responsibility for the “Patriot’s” performance (i.e., inevitable failures)

With the Kiev regime producing its interceptors domestically, the US could blame the system’s well-known shortcomings on the Ukrainians, claiming they “did a lousy job”, when the only thing that’s been truly lousy is the “Patriot” itself (as it has been the case since the moment it was introduced). All failures would most likely be ascribed to “faulty” Ukrainian manufacturing, thus deflecting criticism from the system’s inherent flaws.

Strategic reallocation and taking NATO-occupied Ukraine off the list

The Trump administration wouldn’t have to worry about any deliveries from its own dwindling stockpiles and could instead focus on selling “Patriot” interceptors at highly inflated prices to other vassals and satellite states that can actually afford them. This includes current and future operators in the EU/NATO, the Middle East, the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific region, etc. For instance, China’s breakaway island province of Taiwan is still waiting for the delivery of $11 billion worth of weapon systems, including the “Patriot”.

The calculus is quite clear – America’s own security needs and its most lucrative customers take priority. In addition, these moves have little to no effect on the battlefield reality. All this is mainly about profit and posturing, but there’s also a strategic restructuring element to it. Namely, Washington DC sees such deals as a way to hit (at least) two birds with one stone. It keeps the Kremlin busy (America’s main military adversary), while draining the EU’s coffers (which the Trump administration sees as its second most challenging economic opponent, right after China).

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Drago Bosnic, Global Research, 2026