EDITOR'S CORNER: Why Europe Won’t Look Like Ukraine

Since the war in Ukraine took an interesting turn from conventional warfare to drones, the question on everyone’s lips has been whether Europe should still keep investing in expensive military equipment such as tanks and jets.

Cheap drones and missiles appear to be making a major difference in the war in Ukraine. So why spend so much money on traditional weapons when there is already a lack of funding in other areas? Education and health systems, after all, do not fund themselves.

This week, let’s break down why conventional warfare is still very much relevant—and why Europe continues to need expensive military materiel alongside cheap drones.

UKRAINE, A BIG AND FLAT NATION

The war in Ukraine could initially be fought with tanks and large mechanized formations because Ukraine’s geography allows for it. It is a vast, relatively flat country with wide open fields and long land borders, which makes it suitable for maneuver warfare where tanks, artillery, and infantry can operate across large frontlines.

The conflict is also shaped by Ukraine’s political situation. The current war, known as the Russo-Ukrainian War, is taking place in a country that is not part of NATO or any collective defense alliance that would directly intervene with troops on the ground.

Instead, Ukraine receives large-scale support in the form of weapons, intelligence, and funding, but not direct military involvement from NATO forces. This distinction is critical because it allows the war to develop into a prolonged, attritional conflict.

A wider European war involving NATO territory would look very different. Collective defense commitments would dramatically raise escalation pressure from the very beginning, making a long static front far less likely to emerge in the same way.

DRONES, CHEAP AIR DEFENCE, AND WHY IT IS NOT ENOUGH

Drones and cheap precision weapons have become highly visible in Ukraine and are often seen as game-changers. They are effective for reconnaissance, artillery spotting, and targeted strikes, especially in contested airspace where neither side has full control.

However, they do not replace conventional military power.

In a broader European conflict involving NATO, the situation would likely shift significantly. NATO states operate highly advanced layered air defense systems such as Patriot, SAMP/T, and IRIS-T. These systems would make sustained drone swarms and missile saturation attacks far more difficult to maintain over time.

Air power would also play a much larger role at the beginning of a conflict. Instead of a gradual build-up of drone warfare, modern militaries would likely attempt rapid strikes on air defense systems, command and control networks, logistics infrastructure, and satellite and communication systems. This would create a faster and more technologically intense opening phase than what we see in Ukraine today.

CYBER, SPACE AND ECONOMIC WARFARE

Europe already experiences a form of hybrid conflict in the background, where cyberattacks, sabotage, and disinformation target infrastructure and public confidence. In a full-scale European war, however, these activities would become central rather than secondary.

The Ukraine war already includes cyber operations, economic sanctions, and financial pressure campaigns. But in a wider European conflict, these would not just support military operations—they would become core battlefields in their own right.

Financial systems, energy grids, satellite networks, undersea communication cables, and digital infrastructure would all become immediate strategic targets. Unlike traditional frontlines, this form of warfare would be continuous and global, affecting both civilian life and military operations at the same time.

NUCLEAR SABRE-RATTLING AND ESCALATION CONTROL

The most important difference between Ukraine and a potential European war is nuclear deterrence.

Russia is a nuclear power, and NATO collectively also has nuclear capabilities. This creates a strategic environment where escalation control becomes the central factor in every military decision.

In Ukraine, escalation risks exist but remain indirect. In a NATO–Russia conflict, escalation would be immediate and constantly present in strategic planning.

Many military actions that are technically possible would be avoided simply because they risk crossing nuclear thresholds. This makes nuclear weapons not just tools of destruction, but instruments that shape the entire structure of modern warfare.

In such a system, there are no winners in a nuclear exchange scenario. Even limited use would have catastrophic consequences for multiple countries and regions far beyond the battlefield.

WHY TANKS, JETS, AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT STILL MATTER 

Despite the rise of drones and cyber warfare, conventional military forces remain essential.

Drones can observe and strike, but they cannot hold territory. Cyber operations can disrupt systems, but they cannot secure land. Precision missiles can damage infrastructure, but they cannot control physical space.

Heavy equipment such as tanks, artillery, fighter jets, and logistics systems still forms the backbone of military power. These systems allow armed forces to hold territory, sustain operations over time, project power across distance, and ultimately convert battlefield success into political outcomes.

Modern warfare is therefore not becoming drone-only. Instead, it is becoming multi-layered, where drones and digital systems enhance conventional forces rather than replace them.

CONCLUSION

The Russo-Ukrainian War represents a modern industrial war shaped by geography, limited direct great-power confrontation, and extensive external support without direct intervention.

A broader European war would likely be very different. It would be faster in its early stages, more dependent on air and missile strikes, heavily shaped by cyber and space warfare, and constantly constrained by nuclear deterrence.

Rather than replacing conventional warfare, drones and cyber systems are being layered onto it. Europe’s defense strategy reflects this reality: the future is not a choice between cheap systems and expensive ones, but a combination of both working together in a multi-domain battlefield.