Advisor to the Office of the President Dmytro Lytvyn confirmed to journalists that Kyiv received a response from the American side to Zelenskyy's letter to Trump and Congress. In short: "It is technical and in progress, we are not disclosing details". This phrase is not diplomatic courtesy, but an accurate characterization of the state of negotiations between allies, where publicity could harm the outcome.
What was in the letter — and why it was written at all
On May 27, Zelenskyy personally confirmed in an evening address that he had sent a special letter to Washington. According to Kyiv Independent, which reviewed the document text, it is primarily about the critical shortage of PAC-3 interceptor missiles for Patriot systems. Ukraine's Ambassador to the US Olha Stefanishyna personally delivered copies of the letter to representatives of the White House, Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, and several congressmen.
"When it comes to protection from ballistic missiles, we rely almost exclusively on the United States"
— from Zelenskyy's letter to Trump and Congress, the text of which Kyiv Independent obtained
The letter also directly addresses the problem with the PURL mechanism — a program launched by the US and NATO in August 2024 that allows allies to finance and transfer weapons to Ukraine through contributions to the Alliance. According to Zelenskyy, "the current pace of supplies through the PURL program no longer keeps up with the reality of the threat".
What Washington responded — publicly
Before the official technical response mentioned by Lytvyn appeared, American officials reacted differently. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on May 30 that the US would "find a way" to help Ukraine, while praising the efforts of European allies — a transparent hint: the Trump administration wants to shift the main financial burden onto Europe.
In parallel, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, who was visiting Kyiv on May 28, assured: "America will respond positively to this request". However, senators do not control the executive branch — and it is the executive that determines whether missiles will reach Ukraine.
Structural problem behind the specific letter
The letter and response to it are a symptom, not a separate event. Since his inauguration in January 2025, Trump has not approved any new package of direct military aid to Ukraine under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) mechanism — a tool actively used by Biden. Instead, the administration is betting on selling weapons through NATO allies.
- PAC-3 — the most acute shortage: these are exactly the missiles that intercept ballistic targets, the number of which is growing in Russian attacks.
- 19 countries in the world operate Patriot systems — all competing for the same production capacity pool.
- Supply pause has happened before: according to CSIS, after strikes on Iran in June 2025, the Pentagon temporarily stopped Patriot deliveries to Ukraine due to concerns about its own combat readiness.
Why a "technical response" is neither little nor much
"Technical" in diplomatic vocabulary means: not a political decision, but the working level — clarification of request parameters, logistics, financing through PURL or other mechanisms. It's better than silence, but worse than an approved package. Kyiv deliberately does not disclose details — public pressure on Washington at this phase could harm negotiations more than help.
Russia, meanwhile, is publicly threatening a new wave of strikes on Kyiv, calling "decision-making centers" as targets — a formulation that appeared precisely in the week when the letter was on its way to Washington. Coincidence or pressure — an open question, but the chronology is significant.
If the "technical response" does not convert into concrete commitments on PAC-3 deliveries within the coming weeks, Kyiv will most likely take the next step publicly — and then silence about details will become impossible.
