I have been involved in supplying non-lethal technology to Ukraine for the last 2+ years. While this excludes the "bullets, barrels or bombs" part of the killch

I have been involved in supplying non-lethal technology to Ukraine for the last 2+ years. While this excludes the "bullets, barrels or bombs" part of the killchain, it includes energy sources, ISR drones, telecommunication and EW equipment. I can confirm several assertions in Glinert's piece: - Russia has cutting-edge EW technology. Russia does not possess SOTA in many aspects of military tech, but it does in EW. - Ukraine is one theater, and maybe the main one, that shows us how drone-based warfare is evolving. Here's the way to think about EW. A drone-based war is a war conducted largely on the eletro-magnetic spectrum, because it is via that spectrum that radio-controlled drones are given instructions, how they retrieve data to navigate, and how they are jammed and spoofed. Jamming and spoofing are the primary drivers of so-called lethal autonomy, because all sides want to continue to use drones within GPS-denied/RF-denied bubbles. "Autonomy" is a continuum. At the low end, it involves inertial navigation that lets drones continue to move toward a target once they lose contact with navigation sats and/or their operators. And the higher-end, it allows them to identify targets based on pre-programmed patterns (e.g. "here's what an SU-47 looks like; if you see something like this after we launch you in the right direction, hit it"). The real problem with the US military is not that we're no longer on the cutting-edge of EW. In many senses, we are. It's that our military-industrial complex is bloated with slow procurement practices where new tech decades years if not decades to deploy. Those procurement practices are spec driven and follow a waterfall from those specs, which themselves take a long time to hammer out. For some people in tech, this may already raise a red flag. What we need are product and engineering teams or representatives in the field with users to observe their problems, hear their POVs, and devise better ways of doing things based on their knowledge of what's technically possible and quickly deployable. That is very rare. I have seen little of it Ukraine from any vendor or allied government. The nation(s) that can do that will win. War can be a tremendous technological accelerant, but many forces conspire to slow down product development, and the only forcing function is that the enemy is trying every day to kill you by responding to what you've got. I am deeply worried that the US military cannot build fast or buy cheap. Cheap is important, at least in Ukraine, because we are dealing with swarms of small devices in a war of attrition, and the side that runs out of money first loses.