Drones Are The Predominant Weapon On The Future Battlefield

 A Ukrainian soldier launches a drone during battles in Bakhmut. (Reuters)
A Ukrainian soldier launches a drone during battles in Bakhmut. (Reuters)
TT
20

Drones Are The Predominant Weapon On The Future Battlefield

 A Ukrainian soldier launches a drone during battles in Bakhmut. (Reuters)
A Ukrainian soldier launches a drone during battles in Bakhmut. (Reuters)

Over the years, major wars have been characterized by the introduction of new doctrines, new tactics, and new technology. In 1453, the walls of Constantinople were breached by a gigantic cannon used by Sultan Mehmed II. Napoleon brought innovative new infantry tactics. In World War I, mustard gas and machine guns changed the battlefield. In World War II, it was aircraft carriers, blitzkrieg tactics and nuclear weapons.
Today, it is the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), commonly known as the drone. In Afghanistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Gaza, drones have become an essential tool of modern warfare and whether used for surveillance, reconnaissance or attack, the skies over Kiev, Gaza, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Taiwan Straits are filled with these small, deadly sentinels.
Drones are the dream of every combatant, whether major armies or non-state actors, and three attributes stand out. First, they are cheap... and plentiful. A small observation drone can be purchased from Amazon for less than $100 and delivered overnight. While it might not kill tanks, it can provide real-time video of the enemy trench line across the field, a rooftop sniper position, or an ambush site around the corner.
More advanced drones can fly higher, farther and stay in the air longer, and this is the bane of the support troops. While wars are fought on the front line with infantry, tanks and aircraft, wars cannot be won without keeping those front lines fed, fueled, and resupplied. It requires massive supply chains of ammunition dumps, fuel depots, repair facilities along with fleets of trucks and thousands of support troops to replenish the millions of tons needed daily to keep a small army fighting.
Most of that supply chain is well away from the front lines and before the proliferation of drones, it could only be observed intermittently and without sufficient accuracy for an enemy to target with artillery or missiles. Now, the entire area of operations is a battlefield and there is nowhere to hide. Drones can patrol above roads, reconnoiter locations with likely logistics stockpiles and zoom over to an infrared heat signal at night to discover a hidden artillery unit or a moving tank column. The power of drones to see throughout the depths of the combat zone, effectively creating a transparent battlefield, is unprecedented.
Drones can not only see targets throughout the combat zone, but they can also attack those targets. In military parlance, the goal is to establish a “sensor-to-shooter link” that can find a target in time and accurately and destroy the target precisely. Drones can solve the “sensor” part of the equation by providing real-time and GPS-accurate information. But until recently, even if the drone sensor is timely and accurate, the tools to attack that target have been relatively blunt. Conventional artillery and rockets are notoriously imprecise and often require hundreds of rounds to destroy a target. As but one example, in Ukraine over 65,000 rounds are fired each day, double the number of shells the US can produce per month.
Drones help solve the “shooter” problem as well. With the advent of laser designated and GPS guided precision weapons, an individual or aircraft with the proper equipment can guide a round onto a target with sufficient accuracy as to achieve a one-round kill. Yet individuals and aircraft are limited by flight conditions, aircraft availability, ground conditions, limited field of view and a host of other challenges that impair the ability to see or engage a target. Drones are not only far better at seeing targets but can also engage a target in several ways. They can provide a video downlink with precise targeting data, provide laser designation to guide a precision round onto a target, carry and fire missiles in its own payload or perform as a “suicide drone” to attack a target directly.
To many, drones are changing the nature of war and will be the predominant weapon on the future battlefield. In an extreme, theorists picture a battlefield filled with technology but devoid of humans. Self-driving tanks will be guided by operators far from the battlefield, drones and autonomous aircraft will be guided by artificial intelligence and ChatGPT and victory will be defined by who has any machines left over at the end of the battle.
That may be one day, but it is not today. Nor will it be soon. For now, drones are seen as invulnerable and revolutionary, but as is so often, radical new technology is quickly overtaken by a better technology which either leaps ahead or neutralizes that new technology. In the case of current drone technology, armies have been exploiting its advantage, but counter drone technology is racing to take away those advantages. Drones are not invulnerable – they can be shot down, they need to be guided, they need data links to pass information to operators and they need clear pictures of the target. Those elements can be interrupted or negated, particularly the critical radio links which can be jammed, spoofed, or blocked.
Despite their vulnerabilities, drones are having a significant impact on every battlefield, whether the high-intensity war in Ukraine, the attacks on international shipping off the coast of Yemen or counterterrorism operations worldwide. Drones have proven to be versatile, inexpensive, and extraordinarily effective, particularly deep targets such as command posts and artillery positions, and high-value targets such as terrorists. Inevitably, counter drone tactics and technology will somewhat reduce their overall effectiveness, but even if their capabilities are diminished, drones will retain an important and permanent role on the modern battlefield.



Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
TT
20

Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)

The highest-ranking US representative now at the United Nations told Congress two years ago that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was "unprovoked" and "unjustified," urging UN members to condemn Moscow’s aggression and demand an end to the war.

In February, it was the same career diplomat, Dorothy Shea, who voiced the Trump administration's extraordinary decision to split with European allies and refuse to back a UN resolution blaming Russia for its invasion on the third anniversary of the war.

While it is typical for diplomats to stay on as US presidents — and their political parties — change, Shea's interim role has unexpectedly made her a face of the stunning US transition on the world stage, with President Donald Trump's "America First" approach increasingly upending the post-World War II international order.

Shea will be in place longer than expected after Trump's unusual decision last month to withdraw his nominee for UN ambassador, Rep. Elise Stefanik, from consideration because of a slim Republican House majority.

"I would say (Shea’s) position is unique. It is probably particularly unique in that because of the extraordinary change, not just from one administration to another, but really an era of US foreign policy, even when there were nuanced differences," said Phillip Reeker, the former acting assistant secretary of state for Europe. "The change in the vote that took place at the UN on the Russia-Ukraine war was really an inflection point in US policy."

A UN vote changes US messaging on Ukraine

On Feb. 24, the US joined Russia in voting against a European-backed Ukrainian resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of Moscow's forces. A dueling US resolution noted "the tragic loss of life" and called for "a swift end to the conflict," but it didn't mention Moscow’s aggression as the Trump administration opened negotiations with Russia on a ceasefire.

"Continuing to engage in rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield," Shea, 59, said at the time. "Let us prove to ourselves and to our citizens that we can come together and agree on the most basic principles. Let us show one another that the bold vision of peace that once pulled us out of hell can prevail."

The message was a shocking retreat for the US in the 193-member UN General Assembly, whose resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as a barometer of world opinion. It also reinforced the fears of some allies about what a second Trump presidency could mean for longstanding transatlantic partnerships — and whether the US could remain a bulwark against aggressors like Russia.

For Shea, it was another day at work. She has spent the last 30-plus years serving as a diplomat under both Republican and Democratic presidents — from Bill Clinton to Trump — carrying out their policies even if they were a departure from longstanding US positions.

"I don’t know what her personal views are on things. But administrations change, policies change. And your job as a diplomat is to advocate for those policies," said a former colleague and deputy US ambassador, Robert Wood, who recently retired.

The US mission to the UN declined to comment. The State Department did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

The roots of a diplomat

Shea's work has included stints in South Africa, where she witnessed Nelson Mandela become the first democratically elected president, and Israel, where she worked on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Shea grew up in the suburbs of Washington — her father a World War II veteran and her mother active in the local Japanese American friendship society. The experience of Japanese exchange students staying with her family over several summers and wanting to understand world events propelled her into international relations at the University of Virginia. After graduation, she scored a job offer with the US Foreign Service.

She worked her way up and in 2019 was tapped to be Trump's ambassador to Lebanon, where the soft-spoken diplomat made headlines for her criticism of the Hezbollah group. A Lebanese judge banned local and foreign media outlets from interviewing Shea for a year, saying her criticism of Hezbollah was seditious and a threat to social peace.

In 2023, Biden nominated Shea to become No. 2 at the UN.

The top US role at the UN — for now

It is unclear when Shea will hand off to a Senate-confirmed political appointee. Stefanik went through a confirmation hearing, but her nomination was pulled last month because her vote to advance Trump's agenda remains crucial to Republicans in the House. The GOP congresswoman was the fourth Trump nominee not to make it through the confirmation process.

Trump has made no mention of whom he would nominate to replace Stefanik and fill his last remaining Cabinet seat. Until then, Shea is at the helm at a critical moment for US foreign policy, selling big changes to dealing with both allies and adversaries and defending the administration's slashing of foreign assistance.

The White House recently proposed additional drastic cuts to the State Department, which would include eliminating funding for nearly all international organizations, such as the UN.

The proposal is highly preliminary but reflects the administration's isolationist view, which, along with funding uncertainties, poses a major challenge to the mandate and work of the UN.