Understanding Russia’s Evolving Military Strategies

In the realm of military strategy, insight often emerges from unexpected places. Federico Borsari, a resident fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, recently communicated to Business Insider a compelling observation: “The Russians are adapting, and this is definitely something that NATO is noticing.” This candid acknowledgment sets the stage for a deeper dive into Russia’s ongoing military evolution, particularly concerning artillery production and battlefield tactics.

It’s worth considering the implications of Russia outpacing the West in artillery production. This increase raises an essential question: How will NATO deter an adversary armed with greater battlefield firepower? The evolving fleets of reconnaissance drones, critical for modern warfare, wind their way into this narrative. In this context, one can’t help but recall instances from history where technological advancements shifted the balance of power on the battlefield.

Russia’s Rough Start to the Conflict

The onset of this conflict was not smooth sailing for Russia. One of its glaring shortcomings was the sluggish pace of artillery and missile strikes. The time lapsed between identifying a target and launching an attack was alarmingly prolonged; it could take hours for indirect fire such as artillery and mortars to respond, and even longer for cruise missiles to strike.

Borsari’s earlier report from April sheds light on this issue, revealing that some Russian strikes were delayed by as much as four hours—an eternity on the battlefield. Imagine a scenario where troops had relocated before the strike could even commence. His comment regarding tactical ballistic missiles exemplifies this challenge: “Sometimes, it took even longer.” It begs the question: how could an army efficiently execute its strategies with such delays?

Analysts from the London-based Royal United Services Institute pointed out a troubling reality: Russian forces often found themselves missing targets due to inefficiencies in their killing chains, a system weighed down by excessive bureaucracy. Researchers noted that targets were sometimes bombarded too late to be effective. This raises a compelling discussion regarding the nature of military bureaucracy versus rapid response.

Theirs was a reconnaissance strike system rooted in aging satellites and a limited number of drones, incapable of keeping pace with the war’s rapid tempo. Early in the invasion, Russian surveillance drones were deployed, yet their numbers were too few to substantiate effective intelligence-gathering operations. This scarcity of resources led to misallocated efforts—tactical missiles wasted on small groups of Ukrainian infantry while extensive airfields received only a handful of cruise missiles. How do tactical misjudgments affect morale and the overall conduct of war?

Moreover, the rigidity of Russia’s early command and control system, marked by a top-down Soviet structure, introduced another level of chaos. Troops on the ground were often kept waiting for approval from higher echelons before executing strikes, compounding delays and confusion. A harmony of command across military ranks is vital; when that harmony frays, the consequences can be severe.

In instances where Russian units had access to modern targeting tools like the Strelets laptops, they often remained underutilized, gathering dust in storage. This illustrates a picture of potential unrealized—how many battles can technology win if it remains untapped?

How Russia Fixed Its Kill Chain

However, change is a part of evolution. Today, Russia employs an array of tactical drones to effectively gather intelligence on the battlefield. These observant systems collaborate to provide commanders varied viewpoints of the same target. A significant increase in drone production marks this evolution; in 2023, reports indicated a more than fifty-fold boost in Orlan drone supply.

This surge has pivoted Russia from initial scarcity to having drones form the backbone of its reconnaissance operations. The environment has also shifted in favor of Russian maneuvers, as deficiencies in Ukrainian air defenses offer wider latitude for Russian reconnaissance drones. This narrative seems to echo a continual lesson in military adaptability: can one truly maintain a strategic edge without evolving?

As the capabilities of Russian drones improved, they began utilizing precision strikes with short-range ballistic missiles and glide bombs, targeting high-value Ukrainian assets much more effectively than before. Additionally, a 2023 shortage of artillery ammunition pushed Russian tactics away from mass bombardments towards precision attacks. This marked a pivotal transition: how does necessity influence military strategy?

The Russian command structure has refined its methods, integrating multiple UAVs to work in concert with ground-level commanders, which augurs well for operational coherence. Notably, advancements in civilian technology—such as smartphones integrated into military functions—while expedient, come with their own complexities, such as the potential for intelligence leaks.

The Implications for NATO

As Russia’s adaptive military capabilities evolve, NATO must remain vigilant. Borsari emphasizes that Western forces anticipating the prospect of great-power conflict need to emphasize agility in their training regimes. “Since the full-scale invasion started, there has been an incredible higher emphasis on the need for more dispersed and disaggregated forces on the part of NATO,” he asserts.

In light of these developments, Sam Cranny-Evans, associated with the Centre for Historical Analysis and Conflict Research, warns of a more experienced and precise Russian military. “Western sanctions have, in a way, slowed down the procurement of components for that production. That would affect Russia’s ability to deploy at scale and sustainably,” he notes. However, the lesson here is profound: warfare is increasingly a race not just for resources but for knowledge, adaptation, and reactivity.

In this continuously evolving landscape, it’s vital to ponder: as technology progresses, will human ingenuity keep pace? The battlefield of the future might require not just firepower but also a profound understanding of the interconnected nature of warfare.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times International–Monitoring.