This is widely understood, at least in Europe and Ukraine.
Ukraine has been a fantastic test bed for all sorts of weaponry, and it's been developing partnerships with a number of allies to develop new and more economical systems and increase production of existing ones, both inside and outside Ukraine.
Experience during the war in Ukraine has led to refinements and upgrades in the Patriots' capabilities, and it surprised the Americans when Ukraine proved that Putin's supposedly unstoppable Kinzhal "hypersonic" missiles could be taken down by Patriots. That's the Patriots' best application - countering ballistic missiles at longer ranges and higher altitudes. Counter-developments by Russia, such as increased and more unpredictable manoeuverability, have led to adaptations that seem like they'll keep pace. Ukraine is developing its own missiles that can be used with the Patriot system, so it's not reliant on US supplies and production limits. Meanwhile, Franco-Italian SAMP/Ts have proven even more effective than Patriots.
For more run-of-the mill weaponry and drones, Ukraine has various defensive options, and the number of them is constantly growing. The German Gepard systems are very effective and use relatively cheap rounds, there have been recent reports of near 100% success by missile systems mounted on French Mirage fighters, the UK and other partners have chipped in with AMRAAMs and various other systems, including more recently the UK’s Terrahawk Paladin, which uses a chain gun, and Ukraine has around a dozen systems under development and at various stages of deployment that it's been working on itself. Its Sting drone interceptor has proven deadly, particularly against Shaheds, which were the main spur for its development, and aroused much interest among allies.
The problem with all these is sufficient supply, given Russia's reliance on saturation attacks, by far the majority on civilian targets, on a nightly basis. But Russia has its own problems. Lack of foresight and a deliberate long-term campaign by Ukraine to deplete Russia's anti-aircraft batteries have left it scrabbling to re-deploy what systems survive to what it considers more important targets, such as Moscow, leaving many of its airfields and production and deployment sites relatively unprotected.
That's probably the key to Ukraine surviving this onslaught in the near and medium term - targeting the manufacturing and deployment sites for Shaheds etc., along with key logistic means and routes, going for the archers rather than the arrows. Its success in provoking a severe Russian fuel shortage will also play an increasingly important role.
Like it or not, this recent surge in militarization to counter the very real threats from Russia has led to many innovations and major expenditure in Europe and the other alied countries. Ironically, by withdrawing supplies or making them more unreliable, Trump is creating a situation where the US may miss out and be left as a less wealthy and desirable relation in defence terms, and one that's relying more and more on dated technology.
= new reply since forum marked as read