The nature of warfare is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by technological advancements and shifting geopolitical realities. Ukraine has been, for some time now, near-completely drone dependent to resist the Russian onslaught. India pounded Pakistan from a safe distance while ensuring its skies stayed sanitized from Pakistani response. And this Israeli air operations against Iran with the backing of the US is the latest entrant. These illustrate a move toward high-tech, standoff warfare that prioritizes disruption over territorial conquest. And this could be a pointer towards a future where occupation is sidelined while strategic coercion dominated. Could we be witnessing an evolution in warfare dynamics, the diminishing role of occupation, and the prospect of chronic instability?
The Evolution of Warfare: Conquest to Coercion
Historically, warfare aimed at decisive victory through territorial control, often requiring ground occupation to impose the victor’s will. The 19th century colonial campaigns, the WWs of the 20th century, they exemplified this model. However, times have changed, and modern conflicts these days have begun reflecting some of that change too.
The notable shift has been towards standoff warfare, enabled by drones, precision missiles, and cyber tools. Ukraine’s 2024-25 drone campaigns have targeted Russian oil refineries and logistics, disrupting 20% of their oil revenue without a single Ukrainian soldier crossing the border. Similarly, India’s precision strikes on Pakistani bases, by leveraging hypersonic technology, has extracted a damage that has sent ripples as far away as Washington DC. Israel’s air/cyber campaigns have targeted Iran’s proxies, IRGC top brass, military facilities with devastating accuracy, and have degraded Iranian capabilities significantly during the past weeks. And we all know about the recent US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
This shift is driven by three factors. First, technology enables precise, scalable attacks at low cost. Ukraine’s drones come at $5000 apiece. They rival Russia’s billion-dollar defences. Second, domestic political constraints, that often deter occupation. Consider the MAGA crowd that is absolutely against the US getting involved in another endless war (like Iraq or Afghanistan). They are not without reasons. Occupations, with or without an agenda, have proven to be costly quagmires. Afghanistan alone cost the Americans about $2 trillion. And third, asymmetric warfare empowers weaker actors. Ukraine, or Hezbollah, can afford to challenge bigger adversaries through drones and missiles.
The result? A rapidly developing warfare that is modelled and focused on coercion rather than conquest. Where the focus could be deterrence and degradation in order to extract leverage.
The Decline of Occupation
Occupation, once the cornerstone of victory, has increasingly become impractical and counterproductive. The scenarios described above, that of Israel or India envision no ground invasions. That reflects a strategic calculus. Occupying Iran is an impractical proposal given the size and the terrain of the country, the massive population of 90 million, and the limit of manpower that outlines the IDF. India, similarly, has no intentions of occupying an alien territory that remains infested with radical Islamists of a thousand shades, at a time when New Delhi’s focus is domestic security and economic growth.
Instead, these states pursue limited objectives: Ukraine weakens Russia’s war machine, India deters terrorism, and Israel-U.S. delays Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
This trend aligns with historical lessons. Occupation often breeds resistance. We have seen the same in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, in Vietnam or Afghanistan, and even in Iraq. Modern technology not just provides alternatives, but it amplifies them. Cyberattacks, economic sanctions, or precision strikes achieve medium-term goals without putting boots on the ground.
However, this bit remains true, that without occupation wars rarely produce decisive outcomes. Russian SMO is stalling in 2025; the future suggests a frozen conflict. India-Pakistan skirmishes would continue, till Pakistan is decisively balkanised. Israel-Iran tensions, similarly, would continue in different shape or form, probably through asymmetric, proxy warfare.
The absence of occupation thus trades total victory for manageable, if unstable outcomes.
Objectives of Standoff Warfare
If not occupation, what do states seek? The three cases – Ukraine, India, and Israel, reveal pragmatic goals: Coercive tactics using force to influence behaviour rather than seizing territories.
- Deterrence: India’s strikes could warn Pakistan against supporting militants; Israel’s operations could deter Iran’s proxies.
- Strategic Degradation: Ukraine’s drones cripple Russian logistics; U.S.-Israel strikes could set back Iran’s nuclear program by years.
- Tactical Leverage: Coercion shapes negotiations. Ukraine campaigns with the expectation that this would pressure Russia toward ceasefire terms. USA too, stands by Israel hoping to bring Iran into negotiations under Washington’s terms.
- Regional Influence: Military reach bolsters clout. Indian moves have helped it assert South Asian dominance; Israel-U.S. moves have reinforced their roles as Middle East security guarantors.
What are some of the risks involved? Miscalculations (if Iran retaliates disproportionately) and/or economic fallout (case in point – the Hormuz Strait issue). This can widen conflicts.
The Spectre of Global Chaos
As technology advances through drones, AI and hypersonic missiles, the threat of chronic global instability grows. Lethal tech could soon become accessible to smaller states, irregulars and non-state actors. Battlefields would get levelled, and flashpoints would increase. And while some of the perpetrators might show restraint towards inflicting collateral damage, some most certainly would not. Pakistan’s failed attempt to hit India with drones during India’s Operation Sindoor was exclusively aimed at civilian settlements and infrastructures inside Indian territory.
The one reason that could act as an enabler is the return on investment. The advent of cheap missiles and drones would most definitely tempt different states to take active interest in investing in them with an idea of disrupting regional economy, logistics, or to weaken sovereignties of their adversaries.
The outcome looks like a world of protracted, low-intensity conflicts rather than total wars. Ukraine-Russia, India-Pakistan, or Israel-Iran these all point to recurrent skirmishes, and low intensity proxy wars. The bigger powers like the US, China or Russia could look to fuel these conflicts through arms and alliances, as seen in Ukraine (NATO aid). All along diplomacy, like Qatar’s 2023 Israel-Iran mediation, may limit escalation but not resolve rivalries.
Conclusion
The future of warfare, as seen in Ukraine, Pakistan, and Iran, is probably going to be defined by standoff strategies that prioritize disruption over occupation. Technology enables precise, coercive campaigns, but political and economic costs deter ground wars. While this achieves deterrence, degradation, and leverage, it forsakes decisive victories, risking prolonged stalemates and global chaos. As drones, AI, and missiles proliferate, non-state actors and rival states will exploit vulnerabilities, eroding stability. The human and economic toll, rebuilding costs, casualties, energy shocks, logistics disruptions, would keep mounting, and the same would keep challenging international order.