Imagine a triangle of military might; strategic, relentless, and daunting. In the lexicon of British military analysts, this “offensive triangle” plays a pivotal role in the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Composed of infantry, drones, and that much-discussed entity known as the glide bomb, this triad presents a lethal challenge that Ukraine struggles to counter. This gives rise to a broader question that echoes across NATO meetings: should they be concerned about this strategic trio?
While Russia’s recent maneuvers with these tactics haven’t drastically altered the battlefield, they continue to churn out incremental, albeit costly, successes. Ukrainian forces are being worn down, increasingly beleaguered as the relentless push from Russian strategies tests their resolve and resources. The situation is further complicated by factors such as US policy shifts, which have seen freezes on arms shipments and reduced intelligence support.
According to the esteemed Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), this strategy unfolds in a tripartite manner: Pillar one sees the Russian Armed Forces (AFRF) pinning down Ukrainian troops with both infantry and mechanized forces. Over a sprawling 600-mile frontline, Russia’s numerical superiority manifests vividly. Then comes the drone and artillery barrage – a second pillar – employing first-person view drones (FPVs), Lancet drones, and artillery that rains down with high-explosive shells and scatterable mines.
The third and perhaps most intriguing pillar is the burgeoning usage of UMPK glide bombs in Ukraine’s defensive territory. These kits, transforming unguided bombs into precision-strike assets, force the Ukrainian military into a strategic conundrum: immobilize in fortified positions to reduce artillery damage, or maintain mobility to evade the devastating punch of glide bombs?
Russian airpower, which has been underwhelming in the past due to effective Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems, now reemerges with an unexpected ally – the glide bomb. Unlike the complex aerial warfare many imagined, Russia resorts to rudimentary tactics. By equipping old iron bombs with wings and GPS via UMPK kits, these weapons gain extended range and precision, offering Russia a cost-effective method to enhance battlefield impact.
As a personal reflection, imagine the peril Ukrainian soldiers face knowing that a weapon conceived decades ago could be reinforced and skillfully repurposed for modern conflict. It’s reminiscent of the fable where simple but effective ideas often triumph over complex strategies.
The deployment of glide bombs, keenly noted by Western observers, highlights Russia’s capability to produce these weapons at scale. According to RUSI, these weapons launch from safe distances, ranging from 19 to 56 miles behind the frontline, depending on the bomb’s glide efficiency.
Granted, Russian glide bombs might lack the pinpoint accuracy of their Western counterparts, but they compensate with explosive payload. While JDAMs employed by the US range from 500 to 2,000 pounds, Russia boasts the formidable FAB series, with the FAB-1500 weighing around 3,500 pounds and the FAB-3000 tipping scales at over 6,000 pounds.
Such destructive power means that even a near miss can have catastrophic results on Ukrainian defenses. RUSI reports escalating glide bomb production figures: from 40,000 units in 2024 to 70,000 anticipated in 2025, ramping up the toll on Ukrainian forces significantly.
This adaptation marks a turning point for Russian tactics, echoing combined arms doctrines seen since the days of World War II. Yet, for all its clever innovation, Russia still wrestles with entrenched challenges like rigid command and control, factors which limit the effectiveness of this newfound tactical agility.
Ukraine’s resistance, fortified by a deep understanding of attrition and defense in-depth, holds firm in its resolve, despite the uphill battle. The attrition imposed by Ukraine at extended ranges issues a heavy cost, challenging any swift Russian advances. As the RUSI concluded, while Russia may have uncovered a formula for inflicting damage, they’ve yet to resolve the strategic riddle of breaking defensive lines without incurring considerable losses.
So, should NATO fret over this triad of infantry, drones, and glide bombs? Some may see parallels worth noting, urging a reflection on structural defenses and innovative offensive strategies. The prowess of Russian air maneuvers poses lessons perhaps best heeded through the lens of foresight rather than immediate anxiety.
Yet context matters. What has transpired in Ukraine reflects unique geopolitical dynamics, ones that may not wholly extend to NATO. Russia’s strategic advantage lies partially in Ukraine’s limited air force capabilities, a constraint largely absent in most NATO scenarios. NATO air forces demonstrate strength in both air combat and logistical disruption, offering a bulwark against similar threats.
Michael Peck, a seasoned defense writer with works appearing in Forbes and other prestigious outlets, provides insights shaped by an MA in political science from Rutgers University. For more profound reflections, follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
