Ukraine has exposed serious weaknesses in Russia’s conventional military by relying on drones, electronic warfare, and rapid technological adaptation to offset Moscow’s advantages in manpower and equipment. The world’s second most powerful military could be able to carpet-bomb Ukrainian positions, then follow through with a massive surge of troops and tanks all the way to Kyiv. However, the development of new technologies has changed that calculus, making it increasingly costly to deploy expensive aircraft or risk large numbers of troops and tanks.
Ukraine demonstrated that rapid innovation, such as FPV strike drones, decentralized command, and real-time intelligence sharing, could inflict disproportionate damage on a larger conventional force. At sea, Ukraine effectively neutralized much of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet using domestically produced Neptune anti-ship missiles, one of which sank the flagship Moskva, and explosive sea drones, forcing the Russian Navy to retreat from Crimean ports.
However, the war is far from over. There are no noticeable signs that Russia is on the brink of surrender, and those saying that the paradigm of war has changed permanently, or that this war proves traditional staples such as infantry, tanks, and aircraft have become obsolete, are premature at best, if not misguided.
David Eubank, a former U.S. Special Forces officer, has more than 30 years of experience on the front lines of conflicts around the world, leading the humanitarian organization he founded, the Free Burma Rangers (FBR). FBR brings help, hope, and love to people on the front lines of conflicts in Burma, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, and South Sudan.
A constant student of the wars that threaten innocent lives, Eubank believes that the Ukraine conflict and its widespread use of drone warfare represent the latest development in thousands of years of war rather than a dramatic departure from traditional warfare.
On the road, after several days at the front in Sloviansk, Eubank explained, “Warfare really hasn’t changed since rocks. You’ve got a rock, I don’t have a rock. I’m in big trouble until I find a rock.”
He explained that drones work the same way. If one side has drones, it will have an advantage, but eventually both sides will have drones, which is where the Ukraine war stands now.
“Warfare has not changed in that sense. In World War I, when the biplanes first came over and bombed them from the air, no one ever did that. The planes weren’t even flying. No one even saw a plane.”
Eubank posited that the soldiers must have said, “Oh my gosh, what are we going to do?” But he explained that the biplane wasn’t the end. “You have to develop new tactics, offensively and defensively.”
Eventually, armies developed those new techniques and adjusted to biplanes, and later to jets.
Just two days earlier, the Free Burma Rangers team had barely averted disaster when a drone exploded in the 20-meter gap between vehicles.
“Drones are scary,” confirmed Eubank, “but having been in a lot of combat, a lot of combat is scary. You know, I’ve had close calls just like that, with a guy shooting an AK at me.”
He recounted experiences of RPG rounds landing right beside his position, killing or wounding other Rangers. Eubank himself has been hit on multiple occasions but attributes his survival to the hand of God.
“Well, I should be dead. … Well, that’s no less dangerous than a drone, right? And so to me, I’m scared. I’m not overawed by it. I think there’s ways around it. It stinks. A lot of things stink.”
Eubank described drones as simply the latest weapon system, requiring armies to develop better ways to use them and better defenses against them. “They’re just another weapon on the battlefield.”
Drones can be inexpensive and yet very effective. They can threaten expensive aircraft and tanks, and they can kill troops without risking casualties. On the other hand, an airplane can still drop a dramatically larger payload and do more damage. The same is true of tanks and other traditional weapons. And infantry will always be needed.
So far, Putin has not risked his aircraft because modern air defense systems are too effective and many planes would be lost. “They get shot down by the Ukrainians. Shot down because of the air defense systems,” explained Eubank.
Tanks have not played as large a role as one might have predicted. Eubank pointed to “the terrain being soft in many places,” as well as Russia’s lack of air superiority. “He didn’t have air superiority to provide covering fire for the tank columns. They were destroyed. And so he hasn’t found a solution. It’s hard to do an air-to-land battle when you have no air. Except now they have drones. But that’s not enough of a protective screen.”
Experts have asked whether improvements in air defense systems mean aircraft will play a smaller role in warfare. Eubank’s answer is a definitive no. “I think they’re always going to play a role, but it’s a matter of deciding when and how to employ them.”
The rapid development of drone technology and counter-technology is an obstacle, not an end. The speed of that development will dictate how quickly forces must adapt. “If the changes keep coming, it’s harder to adapt effectively,” Eubank said.
For most of the American Civil War, 1861–1865, U.S. military forces relied primarily on muzzle-loading artillery and single-shot shoulder arms, most of which were rifled muskets rather than smoothbores by that point, along with horse-mounted artillery and cavalry. During the war, revolvers came into use, as did repeating rifles such as the Spencer and Henry, breech-loading small arms like the Sharps carbine, and limited numbers of imported breech-loading, rifled artillery pieces such as the Whitworth and Armstrong guns. However, muzzle-loading rifled artillery remained the standard for both armies.
The Pancho Villa Expedition (1916–1917) in Mexico remains one of the last major U.S. military operations in which cavalry regiments conducted mounted combat. Cavalry units were deployed during World War I, but most served as military police and escort troops rather than conducting mounted charges against German positions.
By the time the U.S. entered World War II, nearly all weapons were breech-loading with rifled barrels and metallic cartridges, many were automatic or semi-automatic, and the cavalry had largely given up its horses for armored vehicles.
Eubank and many others see drones in a similar way. They are the next innovation, providing an advantage until every army has them and every army adapts. During the process of adoption and adaptation, war continues as it always has since the earliest recorded human history.
The post Drone Warfare in Ukraine and the Changing Nature of Combat appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.