As the Pentagon scrounges among allies for more rockets to defend Ukraine, Kyiv demonstrates the offensive capability Washington has been denying it.

(Originally published Dec. 6 in “What in the World“) Ukraine upped the ante in its war to repel Moscow’s invasion yesterday by launching drone attacks on two military bases inside Russia.

While Ukraine didn’t officially take responsibility for the attacks, The New York Times quoted one anonymous Ukrainian official as confirming that they came from drones launched from inside Ukraine. One of the attacks struck an airbase housing nuclear-capable bombers that has been involved in missile attacks against Ukraine. Indeed, Russia responded by launching another missile barrage against Ukraine.

It wasn’t clear whether the drones were Soviet-era drones modified to extend their range, as the Kremlin claimed, or newly developed drones from Ukraine’s state-owned defense contractor.

But it’s attacks like this one that explain why the U.S. has reportedly been hobbling the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or Himars, it’s been supplying Ukraine so they can’t fire long-range, MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System missiles, or Atacms. Ukrainian forces have been using the Himars to destroy Russian supply lines. The Atacms would extend the range of Ukrainian strikes from 80km to 300km. While the U.S. has declined to provide Ukraine with Atacms, it worried that Ukraine might get them from some other country and hence the modifications. The concern in the White House was that Kyiv might be tempted to use that range to strike targets inside Russia and escalate the war.

The mad scramble for weapons to maintain Ukraine’s short game continues. The U.S. is now negotiating to shift some of Raytheon’s National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems, or Nasams, from their current homes in the Middle East to Ukraine where Washington says they’re more urgently needed.

The U.S. has already shipped Ukraine two Nasams, the sophisticated anti-missile systems also used to protect the White House. And the Pentagon has ordered up six more to the tune of $1.2 billion.

But Nasams aren’t Krispy Kreme donuts. They can take as long as two years to build after they’re ordered. And Ukraine can’t wait two years to block Russia’s continuing shower of missiles and drones. So, the Pentagon’s proposal is for countries in the Middle East—they won’t say who, but it’s believed Oman and Qatar—to hand over their slightly used Nasams to Ukraine in return for brand-new Nasams once they’re finished. Though the financing arrangements are unclear, since the Nasams have already certainly been paid for by their current owners and receiving newer Nasams will need to compensate them for going without for two years. But it appears to be a sort of lend-lease program for the U.S. and Ukraine, a trade-in deal for the Nasams’ owners, or a blast-it-forward policy for their governments as U.S. allies.

It isn’t only Nasams that are in short supply. Kyiv’s forces have already burned through the equivalent of 13 years’ production of Stinger surface-to-air missiles and five years of Javelin anti-tank missiles, according to their maker, Raytheon. The Pentagon has responded by doling out $6 billion in new defense contracts to replenish its stocks. The U.S. Army, for example, is doling out contracts to companies to triple production of 155mm artillery shells, including to General Dynamics Ordnance.

In a demonstration of its own ample supplies of ammo, North Korea on Monday blasted roughly 130 artillery shells into waters off the Korean DMZ. Russia has faced ammunition shortages of its own. But some of the cruise missiles thought to have been old, nuclear-armed models retrofitted to deliver conventional payloads turn out to be newly manufactured. That suggests that Moscow is somehow evading sanctions aimed at keeping it from getting the semiconductors and other sophisticated parts needed to build cruise missiles.

America’s need for new ammunition isn’t likely to stop in Ukraine. The rapid shift of missiles to Ukraine has also created a backlog of deliveries to Taiwan. And the U.S. is in discussions with the Philippines to revive their 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which would allow the U.S. to build and operate facilities on existing Philippine military bases and station personnel there for extended periods. The agreement was put on ice under former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, but his successor President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. (son of the dictator deposed in 1986), has thawed it back out to counter China’s more assertive stance in the South China Sea—and is even talking about letting the U.S. Navy back into Subic Bay.

The rising demands on America’s arsenals is making Pentagon officials increasingly nervous about Republican noises about blocking Congressional passage of its 2023 budget. Republicans are demanding greater oversight of where weapons to Ukraine end up, as well as an end to the mandatory vaccination of U.S. military personnel, among other things. If the bill isn’t passed before Congress adjourns Dec. 16, the Pentagon might have to get by on a continuing resolution, which would amount to $29 billion less to replenish America’s arsenals and keep Ukraine fed with missiles.