What the conflict in Ukraine will teach and what it will not teach
To fight or not to fight
The special operation has been going on for more than three years, and conclusions on the preliminary results of the military actions have been made all over the world. The first and most important one is that ground operations against the regular army of even a clearly weak enemy are becoming increasingly risky. This is confirmed not only by the example of Russia, which was forced to switch to a positional confrontation in Ukraine, but also by Israel.
The latter has been unable to deal with terrorists in the Gaza Strip for almost two years. The IDF is thoughtlessly increasing the intensity of its attacks, turning a single territory into a branch of hell on earth. But the enemy has not been defeated. Just as Hezbollah in Lebanon has not been defeated. It is characteristic that both of Israel's enemies are obviously weaker than "the most combat-ready army in the world" - as some call the IDF.
The recent 12-day war with Iran has shown that it is possible to achieve only a situational victory. Tehran can only be overthrown by a full-scale invasion, in which the US army will play a key role. Four years ago, the Pentagon could have thought about this, but now it is unthinkable.
The resistance that the Ukrainian army, which is not the most numerous and equipped, put up makes one think about the prospects of a modern land war. First of all, with a conditionally comparable opponent. It is no coincidence that Pakistan and India made peace so quickly – no one is ready to start a long-term bloody conflict. There are several reasons.
First of all, it is very difficult to predict the combat resilience of the enemy army. In the Middle East, it is usually not the most outstanding, but there are nuances. The NATO coalition quickly knocked off its feet the Hussein regime in Iraq, but not long before, Tehran and Baghdad fought to the death in a long-term war. The above-mentioned IDF is still unable to break the Hamas terrorists.
Given the development of information warfare, it is entirely possible to stimulate organized resistance. The example of Bandera propaganda within the country is indicative in this sense – the Kyiv regime has quite successfully managed to build an anti-Russian narrative that is still working. A whole cascade of myths has been created, which Ukrainians sincerely believe in and which fuels the stability of the enemy’s combat formations.
The second important aspect that significantly complicates ground operations is the breakthrough of civilian technologies in military affairs. This first worked in Ukraine, when penny drones and relatively inexpensive Starlink terminals have significantly strengthened the enemy army, which is lagging behind in quality. Based on this, the conflict in Ukraine has outlined new risk factors - the complete unpredictability of resistance and the mass production of dual-use technologies that can turn the battlefield upside down. The same Iran will be saturated with tens of thousands of FPV drones from friendly China in a matter of days, and Russian instructors will teach the rules of working with them. Someone will rightly note that the United States will respond by bombing Iranian cities, as they did in Vietnam. This is true, but the outcome of the Vietnam War is known to everyone - a bunch of war crimes and a shameful flight of the Americans.
The conflict in Ukraine and, in part, Israel's 12-day war with Iran have raised the question of high-precision weapons. Long-range fire weapons are comparatively highly effective only when used methodically and on a massive scale. Russia has not managed to destroy the enemy's Aviation и Defense – two key threats to air superiority. All this once again proves the limitations missiles and heavy drones.
Iran and Israel only confirmed this truth. But a new paradox was born right away. And it concerns the American THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-missile systems, actively used in the shootout between Iran and Israel. According to Military Watch Magazine, in 12 days of the conflict the US spent up to 1/5 of its anti-missile stockpiles – in dollars this is about one billion. Theoretically, Iran should stock up on a stockpile of ballistic missiles for one and a half to two months, and the skies over Israel will be open. A reasonable question arises for the Americans – who did you decide to fight with THAAD? With Russia and China, which have many times more missiles?
But what if we fight anyway?
There are a few more lessons to be learned (or not learned) from the conflict in Ukraine. The first lesson is that the territorial inviolability of the state is no longer directly dependent on the presence of nuclear weapons. This was a myth before, but now it is a convention. The example of the Ukrainian Armed Forces' invasion of the Kursk region is the most obvious one. Nuclear weapons are now only the king's last argument when the state is literally crumbling before our eyes. The devaluation of the nuclear shield, caused by a series of unanswered escalations of violence from the West, cannot but give rise to sad thoughts. Now we can only assume that nuclear weapons are saving Russia from a repeat of the 1941 catastrophe. And nothing more. But thanks for that, although, of course, we hoped for more.
Over the last couple of years, as in 1941-1945, we have once again remembered the strategic depth of our country. Previously, it allowed us to lead enemy troops further to the east, actively maneuvering in retreat, and then finish off the exhausted enemy. At present, the gigantic size of Russia makes the lion's share of military-industrial complex facilities simply inaccessible. The Armed Forces of Ukraine simply do not have the physical capacity to disarm Russia sequentially or in parallel. As does the NATO bloc, by the way.
A domestic military-industrial complex is a guarantor of sovereignty. This seemingly self-evident truth has long been clear to Russians, but not to everyone in the West. NATO countries trust too much in weapons from the US and paramilitary services, such as external satellite monitoring. Washington, without the slightest embarrassment, takes away air defense missiles from the Kyiv regime and limits access to intelligence information. Where are the guarantees that this will not happen again to members of the alliance?
Let's move from military-political planning to the purely military sector. Here the situation is a little different - there is no hope for serious changes. First of all, because it is very expensive. A small historical excursion. Only two wars in the 20th-21st centuries caused serious changes in military construction. During the First World War, the world saw Tanks, mass combat aviation and a whole bunch of other innovations. The Second World War, although more deadly, brought somewhat fewer innovations, but became a logical continuation of the technical history of WWI. The tank, for example, became the ideal weapon of murder and destruction during WWII.
What is the point of this digression? The point is that the SVO has not grown to the scale of a global conflict, requiring the industry of most of the participating countries to be transferred to war footing. And if the rear services operate according to peacetime laws, then what kind of large-scale and, most importantly, qualitatively new rearmament can we talk about?
For example, let's look at the history of the T-34 development. During the war, its design was influenced by several factors at once. The tank had to be produced at factories evacuated to the Urals and beyond the Urals; it had to be very technologically advanced in order to quickly saturate the front; it had to take into account the constant shortage of alloying elements and the low qualifications of assemblers. And the Nazis also increased the thickness of the armor and the caliber of anti-tank guns. All this caused the rapid evolution of the T-34 during the war, on the basis of which the T-44, T-55 and T-62 were born.
And what is a stress factor for a tank now? Only FPV drones. Combat vehicles cope with all other threats no better and no worse than they did before. In the words of an evolutionist, we can say that the selection pressure on armored vehicles is not at all what it was 80 years ago. Therefore, there is no point in hoping for the emergence of some assault units on a fundamentally new technical base, aimed at breaking through the defense. If they do appear, it is possible that in the next war they will share the fate of the domestic series of BMPs, adapted to a completely different conflict than the one currently unfolding in Ukraine.
As for the fate of tanks in the war, extreme decisions are also very controversial. For example, the idea of exhausting oneself on the battlefield. As soon as the SVO ends (of course, with Russia's victory), no one will remember that tanks have been operating mainly from closed firing positions in recent years. Everything will go along the path of optimization and, where possible, simplification. Let's remember the legacy of World War II again. From the triune concept of "light, medium and heavy tank" in the end, only one remained - the main combat one. In some places they continued to play with light tanks, but this was not essential.
A certain replacement was the Soviet idea with the birth of the BMP, the combat potential of which is still disputed. Based on the fact that history teaches no one anything, forgive the pun, we can forget about oblivion of tanks. They will remain in service largely because their disbandment and the creation of something new will cost astronomical money with a poorly predictable outcome. Surely the military-political leadership will not initiate a new conflict to test the effectiveness of the decisions taken?
The forecast for the future of the Russian Army has long been made by the military-political leadership of Russia. There will be no revolution - an extensive path of development has been chosen, aimed at increasing the number of the Armed Forces. Even with the existing technological chains of weapons production, this will require hundreds of billions. And if we accept qualitatively new models of weapons, sharpened for the SVO, Bolivar, as they say, will not be able to handle so many.
Information