Once, a journalist from the U.S. came to visit us and asked what weaponry we had that we could be proud of.
I scratched my head. I didn’t want to offend him, but in my brigade—which, mind you, has been holding the front line in the toughest direction for three years—the only American thing we had was Starlink…
In the imagination of ordinary people, and even politicians, there are many things that have long ceased to reflect reality. The situation on the battlefield changes very quickly, and what was considered the “god of war” yesterday is no longer at the top of the military pantheon today.
So, to understand the consequences of a possible halt in U.S. aid to the front, let's analyze where we are truly dependent on the U.S. today.
The first and foremost isn’t even weapons, but communication. Starlink! If it goes down, problems will start immediately: infantry in strongpoints, reconnaissance, drone crews, artillerymen, brigade and battalion headquarters—all use Starlink.
With WhatsApp, you can easily call the frontmost position and talk to a soldier via video call. After any target is destroyed by an FPV drone, we instantly send the video to headquarters, allowing commanders to understand the battlefield situation in real time.
If Starlink is shut down, disorganization in command could begin within the first hour. Additionally, some drones that operate exclusively via satellite may stop working…
To be honest, I don’t think Starlink will be cut off. That wouldn’t just be a suspension of aid—it would be a blatantly hostile act in favor of russia. It’s unlikely that the new administration would dare such an openly hostile move against the Ukrainian people.
But we must be prepared for it. We should have started working on alternative communications solutions yesterday.
For example, the enemy has created an alternative communication system—Wi-Fi bridges—a wide-range Wi-Fi network that provides internet access.
We have time. No panic. But we must use this time effectively because problems can arise very unexpectedly.
The second major area where we are critically dependent on the U.S. is air defense. Specifically, the Patriot system and its missiles. We must urgently seek alternatives—both in terms of supply and new systems. Otherwise, Ukrainian cities will be left defenseless. This should be one of the top priorities in negotiations with Europe.
Now, the good news. There’s a reason this war is called the "first drone war"—it means that the majority of strikes are carried out by drones of various types. And most of these drones are not from the U.S. However, I know that through various channels, including non-governmental ones, the U.S. is funding certain projects.
Initially, the drones were Chinese. Now, there are FPV drones that are almost entirely (including components!) produced in Ukraine.
Approximately 80% of all strikes are carried out by drones.
The use of artillery has decreased tenfold compared to the barrage seen in 2022, even on the enemy’s side. Artillery systems are worn out, shells have become much scarcer, and they lack precision. Now, artillery is used for specific high-priority tasks, or as a backup for UAV functions when weather conditions are bad for drones.
As for drone munitions, we have a "shadow defense industry" that is nearly impossible to destroy, no matter how hard one tries.
In thousands of basements and rural homes, various types of munitions are being produced. Old Soviet mines are dismantled, explosive materials are processed in slow cookers, and the necessary ammunition is assembled—ranging from high-explosive to thermobaric. Of course, this is a simplified description. In reality, we’ve built an entire self-sustaining industry for drone munitions.
Additionally, around fifty official manufacturers of ammunition are already in operation.
It is this combination of the "shadow" and official defense industries that has provided us with the munitions responsible for destroying 80% of enemy targets in the past year.
I’m writing all this to emphasize that HIMARS or the M777 howitzer haven’t been the kings of the battlefield for a long time. The drone reigns supreme!
Speaking of HIMARS. Unfortunately, the enemy has long figured out ways to spoof our shots by altering coordinates. The missiles still hit—but not where they should… HIMARS effectiveness has, unfortunately, declined.
I don’t know if the Americans realize this, but here’s the harsh truth: systems that cost hundreds of millions of dollars sometimes fail to deliver adequate results. They should have been used aggressively to destroy everything in the first year of the war. But at that time, we had a limited number of shells. The window of significant opportunity was missed.
Next—the Javelin anti-tank system. Of course, it’s an important tool. It saved us in the first months. But now, it’s far from being a decisive weapon on the battlefield. If a few successful Javelin hits occur per month across the entire front, that’s considered good. By comparison, drones carry out over 10,000 verified strikes per month.
Now, about Pentagon intelligence. This isn’t my area of expertise, but I assume that the U.S. shares strategic information on enemy plans, troop movements, and satellite imagery. And, of course, any intelligence on the enemy is valuable.
It’s hard to say whether Europeans or anyone else could become an alternative source of such intelligence. Maybe it will make it harder for us to hit targets inside russia.
But one thing I can say for sure: platoons, companies, and brigades have never systematically relied on Pentagon data to destroy specific enemy positions on the front line (or if they did, it was within special operations as an exception).
Modern battles are highly maneuverable and dynamic. If a tank fires from a position, that location is relevant for only a short time. After firing, the tank quickly moves and covers its tracks.
So, in terms of direct combat effectiveness, stopping intelligence sharing shouldn’t have a significant impact.
Honestly, I see more threats to the front line coming from issues within our own infantry rather than from the cessation of external aid. But that’s our responsibility to solve.
I’ll say right away—besides what I mentioned, the U.S. funds many other programs, including non-military ones. But right now, we’re talking about what’s critically important.
Also, I don’t want to downplay the role of any type of weaponry. In warfare, diversity matters.
This text isn’t about saying “screw everyone, we can fight russia alone without support”. It’s easier to beat the enemy when you have allies. But if it suddenly happens that we are left without U.S. support, or even under pressure from a Trump administration, just know this: we, the Ukrainian people, have come a long way and accomplished a lot over these years. And fortunately, in military terms, we’ve become far less dependent on partners.
We need to understand that our true friends and main allies today are drones. And the golden hands and brilliant minds that build them. And they won’t change sides.
So yes, if it happens, things will be difficult without U.S. support. Sometimes, very difficult. The war won’t "end in 24 hours", and Ukraine will pay an even greater price for Europe’s peace than it otherwise would have. Let that rest on the conscience of certain politicians, not the American people. But we will endure. If we stand together. Just like in those first days…
By Yehor Firsov, Platoon Commander