Ukrainians eventually overcame it and now produce entirely China-free drones apart from IR lenses (when they are needed), and magnets. If that was possible surely bigger countries can do it easily.
Only really hard-to-replace part is magnets for electric motors.
The US need long term replacement for Chinese parts, Ukrain needs short term intel.
The US have the bigger lever.
Ukraine can get intel from France, etc.: https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-military-intellige...
In practice, it may be that NATO desperately needs Ukrainian military personnel to personally share their experience with drone warfare, or risk being Blitzkrieg'd by an equally drone-experienced Russia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZL1KzV54Cw
Drones are too low and too slow to counter planes. If either side had an air superiority, drones won't matter as theatre isolation will make them irrelevant.
If drones look like some uber weapon these days it's an aberration coming from archaic nature of both armies otherwise, at least now after their stock of munitions have been expended. Surely if there was a war of Iran vs Iraq nowadays, drones will probably be just as relevant. But not US vs China as both sides have workable air forces. And navies.
Answer: because drones are cheaper and easier to produce.
That suggests that drones will be a significant factor in any future conflict that occurs over an extended period of time. Russia is a country of 143 million people under an authoritarian regime that has been able to switch the economy to a war footing. If Russia can’t produce enough artillery shells, probably no-one can.
The effects of attrition on air power are also hard to predict as there’s very little recent data to go on. How long would it take the US to run out of F-22s during an extended war against a capable adversary? Possibly not very long, unless those planes are absolutely everything that they’re cracked up to be.