Must feel horrible to be a laboratory for richer countries newest war tech.
Also, there's an incentive for richer powers outside of the conflict to extend the conflict, to allow for more "research". Unclear if this is actually the case, but it is present.
It sucks very slightly less if you're being given support from wealthier countries.
It would be even better if those countries would let you use them to really tear up your invader -- not just their invading forces, but striking their homeland. But when those countries are fearful of that escalating, you take what you can get.
I guess trench warfare has this 'just one more glorious offensive' lure.
And I never though war would be so glorified like the one in Ukraine. But then again I didn't think liberals would cheer closing the border for men and throwing them into trenches, arming far right militias, banning media and opposition parties either. Lets call it a wakeup call...
"Some" could be "none", depending on their evaluation of the situation at the time. In the maximal case, they take back all of their conquered territory.
Whether Putin will accept that is anybody's guess. It is entirely possible he will reject it and continue to fight to the last Russian male and/or his stroke.
If I can tell a car has anti-drone RF noise creators maybe its a high value asset?
Allies and Axis alike learned that active RF was a signal to target as much as a mechanism to find objects targetting you, and (wrong words?) antenna resonance is a thing: your passive RF collector can be an RF emitter as well.
You can't be sure that a lancet won't attack you just by the economics alone. Just because the price of a drone exceeds the price of its target doesn't mean there won't sometimes be expensive drones attacking cheap targets.
Maybe drones can improve their cost-efficiency by targeting stuff that has RF emissions.
Your writing reminds me of how I write when I have taken too much Vyvanse, I don't mean it in an offensive way but I'm kind of curious if you take stimulants.