An often remarked aspect of the War in Ukraine has been how much the battlefield looks like World War 1. Trenches and mines have been revealed to be very effective just as they have always been. They are effective not because they can’t be beat, but because the cost of beating them is all out of proportion to the cost of making them. It cost next to nothing dig a trench or make a mine, but to defeat a trench or remove a mine is a very expensive deal.

From what I can tell, short range consumer grade drones have only reinforced that logic. I think this is because the attackers have to move away from their electronic warfare assets and towards the enemies electronic warfare assets. Since range impacts how effective electronic warfare is, this means the attacker is moving to a place where his drones are less effective and the enemies drones are more effective. When you add that to the fact that people and equipment on the move are more vulnerable to drone attacks and the defenders advantage is only reinforced.

That is why I don’t think all the talk about short range drones changing warfare is really correct. It has been a truism in military thought that the defenders have the advantage since at least von Clausewitz wrote “On War”. All short range consumer type drones are doing is reinforcing something about war that we all take for granted. The defender has an advantage.

But all the talk about stalemate and how World War 1 has come again has obscured the big change in warfare that has made it so that the attacker has the clear advantage. Continue reading →