The nature of war—the violent struggle to impose one’s will on another through force—has remained fundamentally constant throughout human history. Yet the character of warfare—its tools, methods, strategies, and operational logic—has undergone profound transformations, evolving rapidly with advances in technology, society, and geopolitics. In this essay, I explore this evolution through three pivotal paradigms that define modern military history: the era of industrial warfare, the age of population-centred conflicts, and the emerging epoch of digital warfare.

This analysis draws particular attention to the ongoing Russo–Ukrainian war, which serves as a live laboratory for digital warfare, showcasing both revolutionary technological capabilities and significant strategic challenges. It exemplifies how the integration of artificial intelligence, network-centric command, autonomous systems, and cyber operations fundamentally reshape the battlefield without rendering conventional military forces obsolete.

From Industrial Warfare to Population-Centric Conflicts

The industrial warfare paradigm, emerging with the 19th-century industrial revolution and culminating in the total wars of the 20th century, was characterized by mass mobilization, mechanized armies, and unprecedented logistical complexity. Conflicts such as the Crimean War, American Civil War, and especially the two World Wars embodied this model. Entire societies were mobilized, with factories dedicated to arms production and millions conscripted into often static, high-casualty battlefield engagements. Victory depended on overwhelming production capacities, logistical prowess, and the ability to sustain massive, coordinated operations.

Following the advent of nuclear weapons and the Cold War, a paradigm shift occurred. The catastrophic potential of atomic warfare rendered large-scale interstate wars between great powers less likely, ushering in an era of population-centric conflicts defined by asymmetry. Here, state militaries frequently faced non-state actors employing guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and information warfare within civilian-populated environments.

‘Modern conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere illustrate how military might alone no longer guarantees victory’

Wars became ‘wars among the people’, fought in streets, towns, and villages rather than open battlefields. Civilians simultaneously served as targets, enablers, and instruments of war. Military advancements from the industrial era, such as heavily armoured tanks or strategic bombing campaigns, proved ill-suited to these complex environments, where political control, psychological influence, and tactical restraint gained prominence. Modern conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere illustrate how military might alone no longer guarantees victory; success depends on nuanced understanding and management of political, social, and cultural dynamics.

The Digital Warfare Paradigm: Revolutionizing Modern Conflict

The current epoch marks another revolutionary shift: the digital warfare paradigm, driven by rapid advances in artificial intelligence, cyber capabilities, autonomous weapons, and real-time data integration. The Russo–Ukrainian war vividly illustrates this new reality. It is no longer sheer numbers or tonnage of materiel that decide battles, but information superiority, network resilience, and the speed of decision-making.

In Ukraine, AI-powered systems like the Delta command platform integrate vast data streams from drones, satellites, and human intelligence, enabling precise targeting and rapid adaptation. The system processes hundreds of thousands of potential enemy positions monthly, dramatically enhancing the effectiveness of counterattacks and artillery strikes. Simultaneously, autonomous drone swarms with limited human oversight undertake reconnaissance and offensive missions, introducing new ethical and operational complexities.

Conversely, Russian forces have deployed AI-enabled artillery commander systems to automate target identification and engagement, indicating that both sides embrace digital tools, albeit with varying success. Yet these technologies also expose challenges: false positives in target identification can cause collateral damage, and accountability for autonomous weapon actions remains a contested issue, involving programmers, commanders, manufacturers, and states.

‘It is no longer sheer numbers or tonnage of materiel that decide battles, but information superiority, network resilience, and the speed of decision-making’

Cyber warfare has opened an entirely new front. Early Russian cyberattacks targeted Ukrainian command and control nodes and crippled vital infrastructure, including power grids. The resultant fragmentation of communication and logistics underscores the increasing vulnerability of interconnected systems. Moreover, attacks disrupted European internet connections, signalling the potential for digital conflict to spill beyond traditional battle zones.

Remarkably, civilian volunteers organized into cyber units such as Ukraine’s ‘IT Army’, conducting digital sabotage campaigns and digital fundraising efforts that materially support frontline forces. Innovations like 3D printing near the front lines provide quick replacement parts, further enhancing operational flexibility.

These developments reveal that digital warfare is not confined to augmenting traditional military operations but also transforms strategic thinking, force composition, and governance of armed force employment. Autonomy, rapid data processing, and network integration demand continuous doctrinal adaptation and ethical reconsideration.

The Future Role of Armoured Forces in the Digital Age

One illustrative example of paradigm shift adaptation is the evolving role of armoured forces, notably tanks. Traditionally symbolic of industrial-era massed assaults, the tank’s battlefield supremacy faces new tests. Contemporary conflicts expose significant vulnerabilities—advanced anti-tank weaponry, urban and complex terrain, and electronic warfare environments degrade their independent efficacy.

Notably, the 1973 Arab–Israeli war marked the last large-scale classic armoured clash. Recent wars demonstrate that tanks must operate within integrated combined-arms formations, supported continuously by air and artillery. The massive Russian armoured losses in the initial stages of the Ukrainian war, caused by well-equipped defenders using modern precision weapons and drones, highlight the obsolescence of archaic tank doctrines.

Future armoured vehicles are likely to become lighter, more networked, and digitally resilient, employing active defence systems and precision-guided munitions rather than relying solely on heavy armour. Projects like Israel’s Carmel tank prototype emphasize multi-domain integration, cyber defence, and information sharing as critical attributes of 21st-century armoured warfare.

Ultimately, armoured forces remain essential but must be reimagined to thrive within a decentralized, information-driven operational environment that stresses agility, real-time coordination, and technological edge.

Conclusion: Adapt or Perish in the New Era of War

The 21st century warfare landscape is defined by paradoxical continuity and rapid transformation: the primal nature of war—violent clashes to impose will—persists, yet its conduct is revolutionized by accelerating technological change. Industrial mass conflict gave way to protracted population-centric struggles; now digital warfare reshapes doctrine, force structure, ethics, and politics.

The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict serves as both a testing ground and a harbinger, demonstrating that mastery of data, networks, and AI-enabled tools will determine future victors more than traditional metrics of military strength. Success hinges on armed forces and political leaders who embrace innovation, rethink established doctrines, and build adaptability into their institutions.

‘Digital warfare reshapes doctrine, force structure, ethics, and politics’

Wars cannot be won solely through cyber operations or drones, nor can conventional forces operate in isolation from digital integration. Instead, the future belongs to those who combine precision strike capability, networked intelligence, and rapid learning cycles, guided by strategic vision shaped for a digitally complex battlefield.

In this evolving contest, strength without intelligence—physical force without digital sophistication—is insufficient. The next paradigm demands armies that are not only powerful but smart, not only strong but agile, prepared to navigate the intertwining realms of kinetic and digital warfare to secure peace and safeguard sovereignty.

Related articles:

Read the full-length article published in Hungarian in the August issue (2025) of Honvédségi Szemle (Hungarian Defence Review) here.