Three years of conflict between Ukraine and Russia has left hundreds of thousands dead, a nation's infrastructure nearly destroyed and the security make-up of Europe turned upside down.
It has also taught us that modern warfare has changed. Fighter pilots, warships and tanks may be redundant, with drones having the most dramatic impact for future conflict, experts have told The National.
“We’re almost seeing the death of the manned fighter jet,” one analyst said, while others point to the extraordinary drone development that could banish some traditional manned weapons from the battlefield.
But some age-old features of warfare are unchanged. Trenches and heavy fortifications remain, with infantry still key in taking ground, supported by artillery, along with any armoured vehicles that can get past the threat of drones.
How long the war might continue remains unclear following the seismic diplomatic events of the past week, with America significantly changing its stance in supporting Ukraine.
But what is unalterable is that Russia’s invasion of its neighbour before dawn on February 24, 2022, unleashed a series of developments and innovations that will influence future wars for decades.
Three years of war have been costly.
Casualties have been high on both sides. According to Ukraine, 198,000 Russian soldiers have been killed and 550,000 injured. According to US figures, 57,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and 250,000 injured.
Spending has been exceptionally high. On average, Russia now spends more than $500 million a day, with a total spend estimated at more than $250 billion.
Aid to Ukraine has seen $200 billion come from America and Europe. Ukraine has spent $120 billion of its own money.
Tank losses by Russia have been exceptionally high, losing 11,900 armoured combat vehicles, which includes more than 4,000 main battle tanks.
Nato has expanded to 32 countries, with the admission of Finland and Sweden, expanding Russia’s front line with the alliance to 2,300km.
Defence spending transformed with Europe increasing by almost 12 per cent last year, that included a 23 per cent German uplift. But Russia outpaced this with a 42 per cent increase, now spending $146 billion, equivalent to 6.7 per cent of GDP.
Fighter pilot’s demise
Today, it is almost impossible for even small numbers of soldiers to move around the front line undetected, such is the prevalence of cheap and available drones, with Ukraine producing four million in the past year.
Already their impact is being seen elsewhere. In part, Hayat Tahrir Al Sham’s lightning advance on Damascus in December was put down to its troops' proficiency in drone use.
In Ukraine the proliferation has been dramatic, with the country now building four million kamikaze, surveillance and anti-drone systems that have relegated many conventional weapons of the past century.
For fighter pilots this has increasingly meant less work in a battlespace brimming with air defences and electronic jamming, as long-range drones attack at great distances, with assaults on oil refineries and airfields.
“What has been slightly surprising is the lack of air power as you would have thought fighter jets would be a big thing but really, they're not,” said military analyst Col Hamish de Bretton-Gordon. “It’s almost as if we're seeing the death of the manned fighter jets.”
For militaries who wanted to conduct “deep strike” in the future, the question was “do they still want to do it in manned aircraft or with missiles and one-way attack drones?” said Brigadier Ben Barry, of the IISS think tank.
While he conceded that in the future manned aircraft might take a back seat to drones, Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at the Rusi think tank, did not believe the end of the fighter pilot was imminent.
He argued that air power could be making a comeback in the war, noting how Russia’s air force launched 700kg glide bombs from about 60km behind the front line that obliterated Ukrainian positions.
“Whether or not it says you don't need pilots any more is open to question, but drones are often smaller aircraft and you need big jets to launch these bombs because they are heavy,” Mr Savill added.
With Moscow stockpiling 70,000 glide bombs, their continued use is inevitable, he said.
Sitting duck tanks
Col de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of the Royal Tank Regiment, questioned whether armoured vehicles might go the same way as fighter pilots.
Ukraine had shown that $5 million tanks can be taken out with $10,000 missiles or even cheaper drones, making them economically unviable unless new defensive systems are invented.
“Tanks are still a crucial part of the battlefield, but they need to evolve with the environment they're operating in otherwise they're sitting ducks,” he said.
But to defend against the new threats a tank will need a potential further $2 million spent on defensive equipment.
The Russians’ cheaper option of erecting cages over vulnerable turrets have only gone so far, with the prevalence of kamikaze drones married to their highly capable FPV (First Person View) operators attributing to the destruction of more than 4,000 tanks.
That is why, according to one Ukrainian FPV soldier, when the lumbering vehicles appear “it’s like dropping a plate of food in front of a table of hungry drone operators”.
The tank will certainly undergo a revolution, argued Mr Savill, as their manoeuvrability and powerful direct-fire weapon will always be needed, especially if bad weather grounds air power.
“So stand by for an evolution in how heavy tanks are made, or the weapon they have, but a ground vehicle that is a threat to armour is still a requirement,” he said.
Sunken fleets
Using locally made sea drones and anti-ship missiles, Ukraine has managed to sink an estimated 21 Russian navy vessels of various sizes, the most notable being the flagship missile cruiser, the Moskva.
For a country that has virtually no navy, Ukraine has been able to, with western military advice and assistance, not only take out the Black Sea fleet but establish secure sea lanes to export its vital grain crops.
The successful maritime campaign “suggests that actually this is the most the most radical and profound change we've seen in the character of conflict”, said Brig Barry.
The impact is being felt across western navies, with some in the Pentagon now urging for a step-change in warship procurement feeling that a 90,000 tonne aircraft carrier is too big a target and that the stealth of submarines is the way forward.
But “physics still matters at sea”, said Mr Savill, stating that “having a large floating airfield is still enormously advantageous” and the possibility that jets could be replaced by heavy long-range drones.
Cloud punchers
Anti-aircraft gunners were once nicknamed “cloud punchers”, due to their inability to hit aircraft, but now, according to one former artillery officer, they have “gone from the lowest of the low to the highest of the high” in military prestige.
Ukraine’s extensive air defences protect front line troops while defending its vital economic centres, energy sites and key cities such as Kyiv.
The array of missiles, from US Patriot systems to British medium range Starstreak surface-to-air missiles alongside German Gepard gun systems, have been capable of shooting down Russia’s mass rocket and drone attacks.
Air defence’s effectiveness has also been demonstrably important to Israel, fending off Hezbollah rockets but more crucially fending off Iran’s two mass missile attacks last year.
Mastering bandwidth
Electronic Warfare (EW) was also once in the same dull category as the “cloud punchers” but now demands the highest respect, especially for its ability to nullify the bandwidth drones operate in.
And this is all before AI has yet to make a meaningful contribution, largely beyond analysing data and Russian soldiers’ social media posts, although a Ukrainian system has had some success in picking out tanks camouflaged in woods.
“Ukraine has proved in spades that if you do not have some understanding and mastery of the electromagnetic spectrum, you are in a world of pain,” said Mr Savill. “You will get spotted or jammed and attacked before you can communicate.”
Artillery power
An old lesson relearns is the need for deep resources, with the shortcomings of Europe’s defence industry exposed by its inability to produce enough 155mm artillery rounds for Ukraine. Three years into the war the EU hopes to make one million shells a year but this contrasts poorly with Russia’s ability to make three million.
The pervasive presence of drones also means that precision weapons can now be given almost instantaneous precise co-ordinates.
This has put artillery back in the forefront “playing a vital role,” said military analyst Sam Cranny-Evans. “The ability of either side to advance or defend often depends on the availability of artillery ammunition. Large unit movements are now pretty rare because they are likely to get hit hard.”
Artillery, written off by many western armies, has clearly made a comeback, said Mr Savill, albeit heavily complemented by drones. “People understand that you can't obliterate an area with a drone, you need high explosive shells.”
Train hard, fight easy
Unlike the more eye-catching battlefield developments, there are some key tenets of warfare that remain unchanged.
Training is seen as vital for western armies to maintain an edge on enemies, such as Russia, who are unafraid of high casualties, with estimates putting their killed or severely wounded at more than 800,000 in Ukraine.
That suggests that “mass” still has a quality despite technological advances, if an army is willing to use it.
“Russia is still in the game because of massive manpower and equipment,” said Col de Bretton-Gordon. “But when you're not concerned about casualties that doesn't really matter, however technically advanced you are.”
Leadership has also played a key role. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s stoicism and determination in the face of looming defeat, both in the early days and more recently, has largely held Ukraine together.
Three years of war in Ukraine – in pictures
Likewise, President Vladimir Putin, despite taking Russia into a conflict with extreme costs in blood and treasure, has shown unrelenting zeal in pushing his troops forward and a ruthlessness in dealing with detractors.
But just one leader could influence the outcome of the entire war. Without American money, firepower and military support, Ukraine could very rapidly lose huge swathes of territory to Russia. Given his mercurial nature, whichever side President Donald Trump finally decides to support will almost certainly succeed.
