From Blitz to Attrition: The Evolution of the Russia–Ukraine War
24.02.2025
Four years have passed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. During this time, the conflict has gone through several phases—from the advance of mechanized columns and maneuver offensives to a prolonged positional struggle and a stage of systemic attrition. The war has taken on a character in which not only frontline losses matter, but also the ability to replenish equipment, ammunition, and personnel. Today it is, above all, a war of resources, technology, and resilience.
Technological Transformation
Combat operations are not limited to clashes along the front line. Alongside ground, air, and naval operations, there is constant competition in the information and cyber domains and deep in the rear. The course of the conflict shows that even an army as large as Russia’s is vulnerable to a maneuverable and technologically adaptive opponent. Advantage is now determined not only by manpower and the quantity of weapons and equipment, but also by decision-making speed, intelligence quality, communications, and the ability to rapidly implement new solutions on the battlefield.
Satellite reconnaissance and real-time data sharing play a significant role. This has shortened the “detect–strike” cycle and made covert force concentration more difficult. The transparency of combat zones has become one of the defining factors of the current phase of the war.
An interesting synthesis can be observed on the battlefield. On the one hand: mass artillery use, trench dynamics, inter-position fighting, and even the use of pack animals for transport. On the other: digital command systems, satellite reconnaissance, drones, and cyber operations.
Drones have become a routine and accessible tool of war—from tactical FPV systems used at the level of individual units to long-range strike platforms capable of hitting targets deep inside enemy territory. They have reshaped tactical patterns and reduced the safe distance for troops. The widespread use of FPV drones has reduced the survivability of armored vehicles; tanks and infantry fighting vehicles have proven vulnerable to guided systems whose cost is orders of magnitude lower than the equipment they destroy. This forces both sides to reinforce protection with improvised screens, disperse forces, and minimize time spent in exposed areas. Counter-battery warfare and equipment strikes occur in real time, largely offsetting advantages or disadvantages in artillery numbers.
Despite the war’s technological nature, advantage is also determined by the industrial base. Military factories, logistics, repair facilities, ammunition depots, and the capacity to produce thousands of weapons each month remain crucial. Expanding the production of artillery shells and unmanned systems has become especially important. In a high-intensity war, shell consumption is measured in thousands per day, turning serial production capacity and rapid replenishment into a strategic advantage.
Shift to Positional Warfare
Offensive operations require significant resources and are accompanied by high losses. This increases the role of reconnaissance, unmanned systems, precision strikes, and small assault-group tactics.
Artillery duels, drone strikes, and missile-bomb attacks continue without interruption. Strikes on infrastructure and energy facilities have become a constant feature of the war.
By the fourth anniversary, combat operations are largely positional. In many sectors the line is stabilized; in some directions it remains fluid, and overall fighting intensity is still high. Lines of contact are saturated with engineering fortifications, minefields, and layered defenses. The primary aim of operations is often not rapid territorial seizure but inflicting maximum losses on enemy personnel and equipment. Under such conditions, infantry advances—sometimes measured in hundreds of meters—are the result of prolonged and methodical firepower.
Neither side enjoys absolute air superiority. Air defense systems provide only partial protection and frequently become targets themselves. Another factor is the tactic of saturating air defenses and the cost ratio between attack and interception means. Mass combined strikes using drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles are designed to overload air defenses; even layered systems must distribute interception resources, reducing overall effectiveness.
The dynamics of counter-drone warfare have also changed significantly. Traditional electronic warfare tools are ineffective against drones that use fiber-optic control links.
A War of Resources and Endurance
The war is increasingly becoming a contest of stamina. Russia is betting on sustained pressure, relying on its resource and demographic advantages and on gradually wearing down the opponent. It has adapted its economy to wartime needs, while industry continues to increase weapons and ammunition output.
Ukraine seeks to offset the imbalance through technological adaptability, precision strikes, and constant tactical innovation. It maintains combat capability thanks to allied support and societal mobilization, despite growing public fatigue from the prolonged war. However, the burden on its economy, energy system, and demographics remains extremely high.
The conflict also has a broader dimension beyond a bilateral confrontation. Ukraine relies on military-technical and financial support from a coalition of Western states, while Russia operates under sanctions pressure and limited access to certain technologies and markets. Under these conditions, Moscow attempts to circumvent restrictions, including through parallel imports to obtain dual-use goods. Russia maintains technological ties with countries such as China and Iran, and has involved personnel from North Korea in combat operations. The war has thus become a test not only of national resources and economies but also of international alliances.
In such circumstances, the side that can sustain military capability and rear-area functioning longer is the one that endures.
Prospects for Settlement
The prospects for establishing peace remain unclear, with the main obstacle being the incompatibility of the sides’ strategic goals.
Without changes to their initial positions, a durable peace agreement is unlikely. Over time, a temporary pause or freezing of the front line is possible, but fundamental contradictions would remain.
A complete cessation of hostilities and a comprehensive agreement could occur either due to a military breakthrough by one side, deep exhaustion of one or both sides, or major political changes within one of them. So far, none of these factors has emerged to a degree sufficient to produce a mutually acceptable settlement.
This war demonstrates that the decisive factor is not only soldiers’ bravery but also a state’s ability to manage resources, learn quickly, scale production, and adapt to the conditions of modern warfare and an ever-changing battlefield.
One of the conflict’s key parameters has been the pace of adaptation. The cycle for implementing new solutions has shrunk from several years to months, becoming a crucial condition of military effectiveness. In this sense, the conflict has effectively turned into a laboratory of military creativity and innovation, where new methods of employing unmanned systems, digital command, networked operations, and countermeasures are being developed.
This experience is already influencing military planning in other countries far beyond the region.
Eduard Arakelyan
RCDS
The article was originally published on CivilNet.