When All You Have is a Drone

Ukraine and Russia to a lesser extent rely on battlefield drones as their primary tactical hammers. And so see every problem as a nail that must be pounded into the ground no matter how many blows it takes. What if either used another tool?

This is interesting:

An up-armored Leopard 1A5 tank belonging to the Ukrainian army’s 5th Heavy Mechanized Brigade shrugged off 52 first-person-view drones in a daylong bombardment, according to a new report from Ukrainian publication Defense Industry.

Every time I read about one of these mass FPV suicide drone attacks I wonder why an anti-tank gun or anti-tank missile wasn't used. With a tank optimized to stop small drones, wouldn't a direct-fire anti-tank weapon drill through the drone protection? The basic Leopard I is a very thinly armored tank. Even well-armored tanks are weaker away from the frontal arc.

I understand that if the tank is being attacked well behind the front "line" that direct-fire weapons can't be used. But I just get the impression that Ukraine and Russia use the FPV drones because that's what they have and not because it is the best weapon in the combined arms kit for the particular mission. 

Without a static front line with a very wide No-Man's Land, how could armies rely on firing so many drones at a single armored vehicle? Shouldn't direct fire be more in the mix?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo from the essay. 

The Winter War of 2022 Asks Oligarchs What They Can Do For Putin

Sh*t got real in Russia. Putin is asking for "voluntary" contributions to the war effort from Russia's wealthy class. Once powerful centers of power, these rich people are now just cows to be milked. Is revenue a secondary objective to destroying the potential of oligarchs to fund rival centers of power to oppose Putin?

The war goes on. Ukraine's strategic air campaign seems to be working better than Russia's air campaign. And the battlefield seems to have shifted perceptibly in Ukraine's favor.

And the war must be funded. Ukraine gets money:

The European Council (EC) adopted on April 23 the final piece of legislation underpinning the EU’s 90 billion euro (roughly $105 billion) interest-free loan to Ukraine, which the EC initially approved in December 2025. 

And Ukraine only has to repay it if it gets reparations from Russia. 

Putin, on the other hand, is scrounging for kopecks in the couch cushion. Putin made an offer that Russia's wealthy can't refuse: 

Even as he promised to take all of Ukraine’s Donbas region, he invited the assembled gathering of wealthy businessmen to contribute voluntary aid to the war effort.

The notion of shaking down business in a problematic time for the country originated with the Rosneft director, who proposed the issuance of war bonds as the fundraising process. Since he was not a major shareholder in the company he runs, he will be spared the questionable honor of contributing his own money.

Others, though, responded immediately, offering $1.1 billion. Another sanctioned businessman agreed to contribute when asked.

These men had little choice. It is beyond belief that Russia’s major billionaires would refuse, and that’s closely linked to why these men should no longer be called oligarchs. Decades ago, they could impose their will on Russia, manipulate the legislature, and bend or subvert the law: they were oligarchs in the true sense of the word.

Ask not what Putin can do for the rich men formerly known as oligarchs--ask where the money is.

That’s certainly interesting. Just before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 I read that Putin got financing for military efforts from oligarchs and repaid them with contracts resulting from gains in the military action:

How ... feudal: "[Russia's small wars] are financed by members of Putin’s inner circle. They don’t come directly out of state budgets. ... The oligarchs who funded the annexation of Crimea, for example, received a multibillion-dollar contract to build a bridge connecting that peninsula over the Kerch Strait to Russia." This means of finance requires short and/or small victorious wars. Which the Russians hope their nuclear weapons can enforce after achieving gains.

It was all very feudal, no? And while Putin could have success in short and glorious special military operations, that method can't possibly scale up to sustain a war of attrition.

Yet the oligarchs lack the power to resist Putin's invitation to help. Will Putin squeeze these former supporters until they are impoverished? Will they seek new champions outside of Putin's orbit to survive this war?

Interesting times, indeed, for Russia. Could Putin be trying to destroy these men to prevent them from conspiring against him?

NOTE: ISW updates continue here. 

NOTE: Also, I put war-related links and commentary in the Weekend Data Dump on Substack. You may read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved.

NOTE: Image obviously from JFK speech, with modifications.

Weekend Data Dump

The Weekend Data Dump is a compilation of short entries about the previous week’s defense and national security news that I found interesting. I couldn’t possibly comment on everything in my news flow or delve into everything that interests me. So most news that interests me doesn’t make the cut for a post. The rest go in the data dump. Enjoy!

HOP ON OVER AND READ IT! On the bright side, you can comment on Substack!

In case you missed it on Substack: Creating Good Jihadis

In case you missed it on Substack: The Taiwan Question

In case you missed it on Substack: Looking at Small Drone Dominance Through a Different Lens

In case you missed it on Substack: America Should Remain in NATO

Help me out by subscribing on Substack and by liking and sharing posts. I occasionally post short data dump-type items (or not-so-short) on my Substack "Notes" section.

Lebanon is Trapped in Its Fragility

I'm skeptical that the Lebanese government has the interest or capability to suppress Hezbollah, no matter how much Western help it gets.

Could Lebanon ask for Western help to defeat Hezbollah?

If Lebanon makes such a request, the West must answer.

For the U.S., Europe, and key Arab states — above all for NATO — this would present a clear and consequential choice to help a sovereign government restore control over its own territory. It is precisely the kind of international engagement that would be both justified and effective.

The Lebanese government has had the support of UNIFIL for decades without leveraging that to weaken Hezbollah--which reflects the force's role to shield Hezbollah from Israel. Western states have armed and trained the Lebanese military for decades and it remains incapable of remaining intact if it must fight internal enemies.

Sadly, no level of outside support can help the Lebanese government disband Hezbollah because the government is a fragile coalition of frenemies that includes Hezbollah.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Image from the article.

UPDATE: Forgive the apostrophe in the title. Why that wasn't a screeching alarm until I looked at it later Sunday is beyond me. 

South Korea's Horizon Expands Beyond the DMZ

South Korea has emerged as an industrial and military power perched on the edge of northeast Asia.

Winning: 

For China, South Korea has become a crucial trading partner and dangerous regional naval power. 

As the TDR ouija board foretold:

As long as Chinese power projection didn't reach out much beyond about 50 miles from China's coast, this wasn't an issue. But South Korea is a major trading power with shipbuilding industries thriving on foreign orders. They just launched a large Aegis-equipped destroyer for their growing fleet. 

With a large GDP reliant on trade, South Korea now has the need to have open access to the sea. With a large GDP, South Korea has the means to protect those sea lines of communication. And with China heading out to sea, South Korea has the impetus to build a fleet capable of defending those sea lines of communication. 

China is surrounded by actual enemies or potentially hostile neighbors and I'd never trade places with them. As China builds up, others are reacting. Like any communists, they don't understand that there is no free lunch. Not ever.

Nineteen years later, China faces more opposition to its ambitions. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: I made the image with Bing.

Plugging Drones into NATO Fleets

Drones are one more weapon to plug into fleet intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities rather than a replacement for the more expensive and capable weapons that rely on the ISR.

Absolutely exploit the quality of cheapness that many air and sea drones provide fleets:

NATO is working to integrate emerging technologies like uncrewed surface vehicles and fixed-wing unmanned aerial vehicles into crisis planning through its latest major exercises in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas.  

My issue has always been that the expensive ISR capabilities that NATO provides make Ukraine's air, surface, and undersea drones effective in the Black Sea. And the drones seen so dreamy because Ukraine has to rely on such cheap weapons rather than expensive Western weapons to fight the Russian navy there.

Cheap drones have mass going for them. But they can't replace the capabilities of the expensive weapons. Now what about using drones for point defense?

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: Photo from the article.

A Larger Military Uses Up Inadequate Ammunition Faster

Right now, expanding America's defense industrial base is a critical need. 

It is prudent to pay attention to this issue:

Congress has expressed interest in the status of the U.S. military’s inventories of munitions (e.g., ammunition, bombs, missiles, torpedoes, anti-aircraft weapons, missile interceptors). Since the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28, 2026, some Members of Congress have sought information on the stockpiles and availability of U.S. weapons from the Department of Defense (DOD, which is “using a secondary Department of War designation,” under Executive Order 14347 dated September 5, 2025). Some Members have raised concerns about potential shortfalls in munitions, while other Members have said munitions are not an immediate concern. President Donald J. Trump has said U.S. munitions are “virtually unlimited.” DOD officials have said sufficient munitions are available, while maintaining that the status of U.S. stocks is considered “an operational security matter.” In these comments, officials have not differentiated between stocks of air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions versus missiles and missile interceptors. 

If we had the ability to supply multiple wars at once, we would not only have sufficient to wage a war with a margin of error, but we'd still be adding to our war reserve stockpiles while also helping allies.

Don't you dare warn me about the military-industrial complex. We would in fact again be the Arsenal of Democracy. 

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

The Brown Skies of the Air Littoral

I have often raised a skeptical hand when drone purists throw panties at cheap, plentiful First Person View (FPV) drones for recon and strike. Yet I'm no denier, having raised the alarm back in 2018 about the small Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) threat to forward American combat units at the tip of the spear. I'm just asking for a little restraint on, ah ... enthusiasm ... for the new weapons.

In Army magazine I called for fighter drones to cover the forward Army ground units in contact with the enemy in a new zone of vulnerability outside of traditional weapons systems. I recognized that Air Force air supremacy would have no effect on that drone threat. I suggested an adaptation of the Navy categorization of the blue, green, and brown waters (at sea, closer to shores, and so close that dirt colors it at the shore and in rivers):

The Army should adapt the Navy continuum to the air domain to better improve air defense for Army ground troops in light of the problems the Air Force has in moving away from the blue skies where air supremacy has been fought for traditionally. The Air Force could lose the black skies of space to a potential independent U.S. Space Force. The brown skies low over the battlefield where dust, smoke and fog dominate the air domain are a challenge to the Air Force's ability to fully protect the Army from aerial threats. If the brown skies above Army units are effectively an extension of the ground domain, how does the Army control that air space for delivering firepower via small UASs and for preventing enemy forces from using rapidly deployed UASs flying low to bypass the Air Force command of the blue skies?

So when I urge caution in over-estimating cheap aerial drones, it isn't that I reject them. I just want them considered one more part of a combined arms fight. Especially as drone counter-measures proliferate--including interceptor drones.

NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here. 

NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it. It's the right thing to do!

NOTE: I made the image with Bing.