This week, Naked Capitalism is holding a fundraising drive. Over 1,147 supporters have contributed to our mission to challenge corruption and exploitative practices, especially in finance. We invite you to join these efforts by visiting our donation page. There, you’ll find various options for contributing, whether by check, credit card, PayPal, or other methods. For insights into the motivations behind this fundraiser, our achievements over the past year, and our current goals, including recognition for our esteemed writers.
Charles Darwin’s legacy extends beyond the concept of natural selection; it encompasses its wide-ranging explanatory power across various systems, including biology, behavior, and even contemporary warfare. Currently, the logic of adaptation and survival is evident in the arena of drone warfare.
The conflict in Ukraine has emerged as the first extensive war where drones play a dominant role across all combat scenarios, from frontline trenches to strategic deep strikes. Initially, what began as a makeshift use of civilian quadcopters has evolved into a relentless competition of innovation, countermeasures, and counter-countermeasures. Each adaptation on the battlefield spurs a rapid technological response, significantly narrowing the gap between research and deployment.
This swift evolution has transformed Ukraine into a unique military drone testing ground. The conflict illustrates that aerial power is not exclusively held by state air forces; instead, a diverse ecosystem of relatively low-cost, software-driven systems can now achieve results once attainable only through expensive precision-guided munitions and piloted aircraft. Understanding this transformation provides invaluable lessons for militaries around the world.
Improvised Beginnings
During the tumultuous early months of 2022, Ukraine found itself facing a larger invading force. Its initial advantage did not stem from advanced Western technology but rather from consumer drones purchased off the shelf. Civilian quadcopters, such as the DJI Mavic, priced at under $2,000, were quickly adapted to identify artillery targets and make real-time adjustments to fire. These drones were soon modified to carry munitions, effectively turning them into precision-guided weapons.
Weaponized drone – small but deadly
Grassroots networks of volunteers, tech enthusiasts, and veterans formed makeshift units like Aerorozvidka, introducing innovative battlefield solutions: 3D-printed bomb racks, modified cameras, and extended batteries. These innovations transformed hobby drones into effective observers and light bombers. The impact was immediate: artillery accuracy improved, small units gained access to real-time intelligence, and morale soared as troops witnessed live broadcasts of their strikes.
Conversely, Russia, relying on conventional reconnaissance and centralized command structures, was initially slow to adapt. This led to a paradigm shift in the early months: improvised use of drones acted as both an artillery multiplier and direct attack systems, initiating a new arms race.
Industrialization and Swarming
FPV drone operator – a view to a kill
Ukraine’s decentralized approach promoted rapid development: components sourced from around the globe, assembled locally, and tested within days. Russia responded with the mass production of its own FPV systems and dedicated electronic warfare units, igniting a high-stakes electronic duel — with technologies for jamming, frequency-hopping, and counter-jamming evolving nearly in real-time.
This resulted in a shift from occasional drone usage to a constant aerial presence. Every trench, armored unit, and supply line became subject to continuous surveillance. The era of drone swarming had arrived, fundamentally redefining air superiority by assessing volume and duration of battlefield coverage.
Strategic Deep Strikes
As both sides’ capabilities matured, the battleground expanded. Ukraine began launching long-range drones deep into Russian territory, targeting oil depots, airbases, and even the outskirts of Moscow. Many of these drones featured legacy Soviet engines combined with modern guidance systems, a blend of old hardware and new software.
These strikes were not just tactical disruptions but also bore significant psychological and strategic impacts. Russia, previously secure in its homeland, now faced nightly alerts and scrambles for air defense. The cost-benefit ratio heavily favored Ukraine: a drone priced at tens of thousands of dollars forced Russia to redirect million-dollar defenses and instill anxiety in its major cities.
Despite Moscow’s attempts to fortify its radar coverage and implement layered surface-to-air missile (SAM) networks, no defense can fully counter low-profile, expendable threats. The advent of drones has blurred the lines between front and rear, rendering the entire operational theater contested.
The Techno-Operational Feedback Loop
One of the most striking characteristics of the drone conflict is its condensed innovation cycle. In traditional military procurement, weapon systems evolve over years; in Ukraine, weeks suffice. Every tactical victory leads to immediate imitation and counteraction. A new FPV platform showcased today could have adversaries testing defensive measures by next week.
This continuous experimentation resembles Darwinian selection: successful designs rapidly spread across the battlefield, while ineffective models quickly drop out of production. Crowdsourced research and development blur the boundaries between soldier and engineer, as volunteer groups fund projects, share software, and publish field results transparently.
A clear example is the swift implementation of fiber-optic guidance in frontline FPV systems. As electronic jamming escalated, disrupting radio-controlled drone links, Ukrainian and Russian engineers independently revived the concept of tethered control using fiber optics, drawing inspiration from anti-tank missiles. Within months, drones fitted with spooled micro-cable guidance proved effective in combat, immune to radio interference and capable of precision strikes in heavily jammed environments. While the added weight and restricted range present trade-offs, this innovation underscores combatants’ ability to adapt under pressure, trading one evolutionary constraint (mobility) for another (resilience). Each adaptation feeds back into the design cycle, refining the balance between connectivity, survivability, and lethality.
Fiber optic drone – jam-proof guidance
Artificial intelligence is becoming an integral aspect of this evolutionary process. Advanced AI tools for targeting, automated navigation, and swarm coordination are actively being developed and utilized. This natural selection on the battlefield rewards adaptability rather than merely pedigree. Survival hinges less on industrial capacity and more on the ability to reconfigure tools faster than the enemy. It resembles a fast-paced startup environment — iterative, experimental, and ruthless.
🇷🇺💥🇺🇦
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Russian “Gerani” have started hitting moving targets
▪️In the Chernihov region, a strike was recorded on a Ukrainian railway echelon carrying fuel while moving 150–200 km from the border.
The new drone model is equipped… pic.twitter.com/gIhSX0qNfl
— 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺 🇷🇺 (@SMO_VZ) October 1, 2025
The Evolution of the Shahed-Type Drone
Simultaneously, a different evolutionary path for Russian drones emerged, derived from the Iranian Shahed family of long-range munitions. These propeller-driven, delta-wing systems were designed for affordability and extensive range rather than precision. Introduced in late 2022, they were the first mass-produced strategic drones optimized for long endurance, minimal radar detection, and saturation strikes.
Initial Shahed models featured rudimentary navigation and limited accuracy, but subsequent Russian iterations, especially the Geran-2 variants, incorporated refined guidance, GLONASS satellite navigation systems, and locally sourced components to overcome sanctions. Over time, adaptability led to improved reliability, fuel efficiency, and warhead stability, enhancing the Geran’s operational viability within the long-range warfare ecosystem.
The true strength of this drone lies not in its sophistication but in its ability to dominate its niche: it can travel vast distances, evade some air defenses through low-altitude flight, and compel defenders to expend costly interceptors. A single Patriot interceptor can cost around $4 million, while estimates place a Geran drone’s price between $40,000 and $200,000, creating a cost-exchange ratio that greatly benefits saturation tactics by imposing significant asymmetric burdens on Ukraine.
As production transitioned to Russian facilities, the evolution of the Shahed accelerated. Domestic assembly lines now create hybrid models that integrate Iranian airframes with Russian avionics and engines, forming a subspecies, the Geran, specifically tailored for the Eurasian conflict. Deployed in large numbers, these drones can overwhelm defenses by sheer volume, opting for replication over radical innovation. Reports suggest the emergence of new Russian Gerans equipped with jet propulsion, effectively doubling their speed and complicating interception.
In biological terms, the Shahed/Geran lineage exemplifies stabilizing selection: designs refined through incremental optimization within a specific environment, in this case, long-range striking capabilities. Its ongoing adaptation highlights a crucial reality of drone warfare: success relies not solely on novelty but also on reproducibility and sufficiency.
Russia’s Drone Manufacturing Capacity
While Ukraine has showcased rapid innovation and agility, Russia has leveraged its industrial infrastructure to gain an upper hand in drone production. By late 2024, various Ukrainian and Western sources reported that Russian output of FPV and reconnaissance drones surpassed 100,000 units monthly, although these figures remain debated. The overarching narrative suggests that Russia is prioritizing standardization, production volume, and robust supply chains, while Ukraine excels in rapid, field-engineered innovation. One model emphasizes continuity at scale; the other emphasizes quick adaptation. Matching Russia’s production would require coordinated efforts, resilient supply lines, and shared standards among Ukraine’s allies.
This divergence reflects an evolutionary splitting: Ukraine thrives on rapid experimentation and field-driven changes, while Russia focuses on routine, volume, and logistical robustness. The end result is that Russia can deploy an increasing supply of uniform, interoperable drones, a vital asset for sustained attrition warfare.
Geran drone production – quantity matters
This industrial advantage may prove crucial in a prolonged conflict. In evolutionary terms, Russia’s strength lies not in variance but in reproductive efficiency: its ability to replicate successful models faster and at a larger scale than its opponent. For Ukraine and its Western partners, matching this capability would necessitate coordinated production, supply chain resilience, and mutually recognized technical standards — a daunting industrial mobilization of innovation.
Ukraine’s war effort heavily depends on its energy and rail infrastructure. These intricate networks are robust against scattered strikes, but extensive long-range assaults by Russia could severely disrupt Ukraine’s energy and transportation systems. Current estimates suggest around 100 Russian Geran drones are operational daily. Ukraine has nearly 90 330 kV electricity distribution substations supporting its electrified rail system and approximately 500 to 1,000 diesel locomotives. Recurring Russian drone attacks on energy infrastructure and rail operations suggest a critical tipping point may be approaching, with potentially dire implications for Ukraine.
Countermeasures?
Despite significant efforts to develop countermeasures against attacking drones, the latter often hold an advantage. Electronic jamming has limited effectiveness against radio-controlled drones and fails entirely against fiber-optic systems. Protective screens or cages may defend against single strikes but are incapable of enduring multiple drone hits. Conventional artillery struggles to reach drones at high altitudes, while interceptor missiles are prohibitively expensive to deploy in large numbers. Anti-drone drones can intercept some threats, but their effectiveness is constrained. The evolution of drones has consistently outpaced the capabilities of defensive mechanisms, and no immediate solutions appear on the horizon. Without urgent innovation, this imbalance is likely to persist.
Anti-drone cage – no guarantee of survival
Strategic and Doctrinal Implications
The spread of affordable and effective drones is undermining established military paradigms regarding force structure. The cost asymmetry has become pivotal: a $500 FPV drone can disable a $10 million tank. Traditional metrics such as tonnage, armor thickness, and sortie rates have become obsolete, as the factors of quantity and expendability now outweigh mass. Additionally, an unfavorable cost exchange ratio against interceptor missiles further complicates defense efforts.
Constant aerial surveillance diminishes the effectiveness of concealment strategies, posing risks to static defenses and troop concentrations. The former tenet of maneuvering under cover is outdated in a landscape saturated with persistent sensors. Armies now need to disperse effectively, utilize electronic camouflage, and brace for continuous oversight. The psychological impact of drone presence has also altered the infantry experience, inducing stress and hyper-vigilance. Furthermore, the democratization of aerial power has decentralized control, empowering smaller units while complicating overall battle management.
Doctrinally, this shift signifies not just technological adaptation but evolutionary divergence: forces that do not evolve will face extinction on battlefields where the capacity for rapid iteration equates to survival. For major powers, the lesson is clear: future joint operations must integrate drone defense strategies as comprehensively as they do conventional warfare initiatives. Achieving air superiority will hinge as much on employing jamming and counter-drone tactics as on utilizing fighter jets.
Global Lessons and Policy Outlook
The insights gleaned from Ukraine have global repercussions. Taiwan examines FPV tactics for its coastal defenses; Israel integrates micro-drones for urban warfare; Iran refines its exportable loitering munitions. NATO members, initially skeptical of unconventional platforms, are now racing to replicate Ukraine’s innovative approaches. However, ethical and legal frameworks are lagging behind. The inclusion of civilian infrastructures and urban areas within drone range raises pressing questions about proportional responses and accountability. The dual-use nature of components—from lithium batteries to GPS modules—complicates enforcement of export controls and sanctions.
For major military powers, industrial policy must pivot toward fostering micro-production ecosystems that prioritize software, autonomy, and rapid iteration. Nations with both robust technological capabilities and mass manufacturing infrastructures will hold sway in large-scale conflicts. Yet, drone technologies also empower smaller nations and non-state actors to engage in asymmetric warfare. The proliferation of drone weaponry poses a real risk of escalating instability in regions afflicted by conflict.
Conclusion
In the span of less than three years since the onset of the Ukraine war, drones have transitioned from simple aerial scouts to powerful offensive systems. This evolution reflects not only technological prowess but marks a profound shift in the nature of warfare. The ongoing conflict illustrates that adaptability is the crucial factor for success. Effectiveness and survival stem not from the thickness of armor or caliber of weaponry, but from the velocity of innovation. Just as organisms in a hostile environment, drone systems that fail to adapt soon fade away, whereas those that are well-suited to their surroundings proliferate rapidly. As nations internalize these lessons, the war in Ukraine serves as a harbinger of future drone warfare: dense, autonomous, and perpetually in motion. In the confrontations of the future, aerial supremacy will no longer be the sole province of conventional manned forces; victory will belong to those who can evolve the quickest.
