The war in Ukraine has been a showcase of modern weaponry, and its increased lethality. However this new technology has not resulted in victory on the battlefield. War has always been a deadly business but due to advancements in weaponry it has become more deadly than ever.
The pursuit of peace between nations is now more prudent than ever. Further, if peace is not possible, regulation is necessary to limit the dispraportionate use of these new weapons.
Drones and other long range strike capabilities
The use of drones in the Ukraine war has been revolutionary. In combat they are being use more often than ever. Ukraine itself is manufacturing up to four million drones annually as of October 2024. These drones are of varying types, from the more traditional larger drones to the newer types of drones the size of a toy. Drones of this size have been used as a credible alternative to taking out tanks, gun emplacements and artillery with traditional weapons when more traditional means are not available. The cost of these drones are insignificant in comparison to more traditional weapons. For example the UK produced NLAW (Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon) costs approximately $33k per missile. Whilst such weapons are very effective at shorter ranges, this cost is significant for a smaller nation like Ukraine. A drone that could drop a grenade, or larger munition and have similar effects has been manufactured for as little as $400.
This cost to effectiveness ratio has made smaller drones one of the main options in the war for the Ukrainians, bringing a new type of lethality to the battlefield. These drones move quietly, quickly and are small, some only 12 inches wide. Another advantage to these drones is that they are much more accurate than artillery, with the operator able to guide the drone to the exact target up until the moment of impact.
However a problem with drones is the lack of effective countermeasures. They are almost impossible to hit with handheld weaponry such as assault rifles, are too small to be effectively detected by anti air munitions and are often too quick to be reacted to. This deadly mix of speed and accuracy shows how the proliferation of these drones has made it even harder for a soldier on the battlefield.
Other long range weapons are also having an affect on the battlefield, increasingly affecting supply and logistics. The use of long range munitions such as the American HIMARS systems have undoubtedly given Ukraine a tactical advantage, able to strike deep behind the Russian lines and neutralise Russian ammunition dumps, command posts and troop concentrations. These systems are incredibly effective at being able to destroy supplies and equipment whilst sowing chaos behind enemy lines. This severely limits the buildup of forces neccessary for a modern offensive effort. What these new weapons lack is the ability to affect direct offensive operations, not giving the Ukrainians an advantage when advancing, unable to significantly force the Russians back other than by reducing their supplies. The Ukrainians have been incredibly effective in reducing the rate of Russian advance using this method, however, have lacked the bite to strike back.
Cluster munitions
Cluster munitions are described as a form of air dropped or ground launched projectile that releases or breaks into smaller submunitions, one larger projectile separates into several tens or even hundreds of smaller munitions. In 2008 cluster munitions were banned under the convention on cluster munitions, this signed by over 100 countries, however neither Ukraine nor Russia are signatories to this convention and have used these weapons throughout the war.
These weapons and their consequent use in this conflict showcase the need for peace even more. With cluster munitions having a statistically high failure rate, these weapons can lay dormant for decades only to kill or critically injure a civilian years after the conflict has ended. These weapons have seen wide use, particuarly by the Russian forces. These attacks have often come on densely populated areas, for example on the 29th of April 2024 subunitions from a Russian launched cluster munition into Odesa, killing seven civilians and wounding 28. The United States has also supplied Ukraine with cluster munitions of various types supplementing Ukraine’s indigenous stockpiles left over from the Soviet Union, this has happened over several transfers, giving Ukrianians cluster munitions for use with both regular artillery units and ATACMS units.
The use of these weapons has had and will continue to have a devastating impact on Ukrainian civilians, with failure rates in Russian munitions as high as 40% the risk for the future only grows with each passing day; these munitions littering the landscape, making it difficult for Ukrainian farmers to use their land effectively and adding increased risk to future generations. Back in 2023 the beginnings of this crisis were already being seen with farmers clearing their recently liberated land by themselves of mines, unexploded ordinance and cluster munitions. Ukraine will suffer heavily from this in the future, with 40% of Russian cluster munitions not exploding on impact and able to lie unexploded for years. This will likely mean by the end of the war several thousand cluster submunitions will lie dormant, making the Ukrainian countryside dangerous for several decades to come.
This situation can be likened to the trail of munitions left by the United States in Vietnam, these munitions of which thousands are discovered every year have killed over 3,500 people since the end of the conflict, a situation similar in Ukraine could also kill thousands of individuals well after this war ends.
The brutal fighting, minimal gains for maximum losses
Since Ukraine’s failed offensive in the winter of 2023 the Russian forces have had limited success through what could be described as a slow and bloody advancement, leveraging superior firepower to drive the Ukrainian forces slowly back, but having an incredibly high death toll. The battle of Bakhmut showcases this clearly.
Described by the Institute for the Study of War as a Phyrric victory, with then U.S. President Joe Biden estimating Russian forces suffered 100,000 casualties taking the city, this type of slow advance is repeating itself throughout the battlefield, with slow advances and a lack of weaponry on either side forcing brutal human wave tactics that whilst effective in gaining ground do not account for the significant losses that follow. During these offensives it is estimated that 1,500 casualties per day are taken by Russian forces. These tactics derive from the nature of war itself, Ukraine with limited resources is putting up an effective defense in line with modern military principles, with the aforementioned small drones having a considerable impact and “constraining Russian mechanized maneuver“. This has reduced the Russian offensive capability considerably, making these human wave tactics one of the only options for an advance.
The new technologies may make disrupting enemy combatants’ offensive capabilities easier, but they do not give a significant strategic advantage on the offensive themselves. We have seen the Ukrainians use HIMARS and other long range weapons systems to great effect. What has emerged with these two countries which both lack overwhelming firepower to advance whilst minimising casualties are battle tactics that whilst effective do not protect the individual. The Russian “quantitative advantages in equipment, air support, and electronic warfare” has given them the strategic advantage, but not the ability to advance with impunity. Ukraine has consequently forced the armed forces of the Russian Federation to pay heavily for every inch of ground taken.
The Russian forces have been changing their tactics over the last few years to reflect the new technologies available; this has, according to the Ukrainian Southern Operational Command, resulted in the use of “human wave assaults“. These human wave assaults are not the human wave assaults of World War 1, with thousands of troops walking towards enemy machine guns, but with hundreds of troops slowly advancing against automatic weapons, ducking and dashing for cover in a landscape already cratered by shells. This type of offensive whilst effective, still results in considerable human casualties, with individuals unable to use armoured vehicles due to the fear of drones, and unable to use tanks due to highly advanced anti-armour weapons, means individuals are exposed to fire when advancing and consequently will struggle in doing so. Furthermore, this environment makes using tanks, armoured vehicles and other mechanised equipment harder on the defensive, with units unable to camouflage these against incoming offensive fire from drones, anti-tank missiles and other weaponry.
The losses taken in this conflict showcase the dire need for reform in the way we regulate warfare. The increased use of technology has once again put the individual at considerable risk. If this is to continue, with more automation and more powerful versions of this weaponry being introduced into combat all the time, the battlefield will become even more deadly, with individuals struggling to gain effective cover in this changing battlespace, casualty numbers will inevitably rise, with every inch of ground being paid for in bodies.
The need for peace
What this all clearly shows is that peace is more essential now than ever. We are now in an era of warfare that is deadlier than ever, even a small conflict can result in large casualty levels, with minimal gains. With these new technologies, warfare is now even less effective in gaining political objectives if the opposing force is well equipped. The Ukraine war is a great example of this, with limited gains after the initial advance resulting in considerable losses for both sides, but weighted heavily towards the Russian side.
The two examples of new weapons I have given in this article are not the only ones, but they do showcase how deadly new technologies can be in the hands of effective militaries. These new technologies deadly capabilities are only just being truly realised and may one day serve as a deterrent in their own right. However, now is the time to realise that war is never a good option, and that peace is the only way given technology’s rapid advancement.
New rules of war?
Whilst peace is of course the preferred option, if it is not possible something else must be pursued to stop the use of these new emerging weapons. In this case clear regulation of these weapons is needed, specifically when it comes to issues such as drone warfare and the latest AI driven weaponry. An addition to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons for instance covering drones and AI targeting systems would go a long way in limiting the damage caused, and the lives lost, by these technologies. This convention already stops the use of non detectable fragments, mines and booby traps, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and calls for the removal of leftover ordinance once a conflict has finished. The further provision of a sixth clause has precedent, with the fourth and fifth clauses being added in 1995 and 2003 respectively, it may now be time to regulate these new technologies, to ensure that soldiers of the future have a chance to survive on the battlefield. Warfare is brutal enough already. Lets ensure that more sons and daughters can come home.
