According to Defense Scoop, General Aleksy Grinkovich, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO and a U.S. four-star general, spoke at a defense technology summit, stating that the Ukraine war has had a profound impact on NATO's strategic vision.

He pointed out that the frontline in Ukraine has become a real-world testing ground where unmanned systems and electronic warfare are fully integrated, with changes happening at a pace far exceeding the response rhythm of traditional military systems.

For example, a certain type of drone could perform tasks normally on Monday, but by Wednesday, it might be completely ineffective—not due to hardware failure, but because the enemy's electronic jamming methods have evolved. At this point, adjustments are needed; by next Monday, a new solution may emerge, allowing this type of drone to be used again.

Grinkovich emphasized that NATO's future combat system must be built with rapid adaptability, no longer relying on cumbersome procedures and slow procurement processes.

Because today's battlefield is not one where tactics change once a year, but rather one where tactical logic can be updated as frequently as once a week.

Aleksy Grinkovich

In his speech, Grinkovich directly named Western defense companies, urging them to deploy their weapon systems onto the battlefield and put them to the test.

He said, "Go to Ukraine, go to Israel, take your proud creations into real combat and see if they work as well as you think they do."

This was not just a suggestion, but also a warning.

The Ukraine war has already proven that many high-tech weapons that appear to have impeccable performance parameters are often useless on the front lines.

On the contrary, some simple drones, portable jammers, and software-defined platforms have become tools that truly changed the course of the war.

Grinkovich revealed that a few Western companies have tried to send their products into combat, but instead of gaining experience, they were caught off guard by reality and quietly withdrew, unable to adapt to the current operational environment.

This reveals deep problems within the U.S. military-industrial system: on one hand, it is rigidly structured and excessively costly, with many systems costing hundreds of millions of dollars, yet unable to even stop an enemy drone that costs just a few hundred dollars;

on the other hand, it is detached from real combat and delayed in verification, with long development cycles and closed testing environments, leading to many weapons becoming kings in laboratories.

NATO's Deep Involvement in the Ukraine Conflict

It should be noted that the United States is not an observer, but the most deeply involved external participant in the Ukraine war.

Logically, in the context of deep involvement, the United States should have the clearest understanding of the battlefield situation and the fastest response.

But the reality has been one of after-the-fact awareness.

Where is the problem? The core lies in the fact that the U.S. military has built a strategic culture over decades centered around industrialized warfare: emphasizing platforms, systems, and redundancy, focusing on standardization, hierarchical management, and process control.

This model worked effectively during the Cold War, but in a battlefield characterized by drone swarms and dynamic tactical iterations, it appears too cumbersome and lagging.

The U.S. believes it still defines the standards of warfare, acting as a teacher to Ukraine. However, the Ukraine conflict is nothing like what the U.S. expected.

This is not a technological gap, but a generational difference in reaction mechanisms.

That's why, despite its deep involvement, the U.S. still exhibits a sense of dissonance—having seen big scenes, yet failing to understand the current rules of the game.

Ukraine-Russia Conflict

So, where does China stand?

On the surface, China has taken a neutral stance toward this war, providing neither weapons aid nor battlefield deployment, seemingly completely "absent" from this global trial shaping the future of warfare.

But the reality is different.

First, the Chinese military and defense industry have not missed the signals of transformation revealed by the Ukraine war. Besides going into battle, there are many ways to conduct research.

Second, China has already established a combat ecosystem adapted for future warfare, including but not limited to: family-style deployment of reconnaissance and strike drones, modular design of swarm control systems, the ability to modify civilian communication platforms for the battlefield, precise strike applications of the Beidou system, and the integration of AI algorithms in command and control and situational prediction.

These systems have not appeared on the Ukrainian battlefield, but have undergone multiple rounds of practical exercises in South China Sea drills, border confrontations, and Red-Blue confrontation exercises.

The most important thing is that although China has not participated, it is not "absent." This is a case of evolutionary timing, avoiding the resource consumption and strategic risks brought by war, while still being able to learn about the changes made by NATO and Ukraine based on actual combat.

Of course, the U.S. could do the same, but the problem is that it has found it hard to turn back.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7544960588821037604/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author, and we welcome you to express your opinion using the 【Up/Down】 buttons below.