world

As the conflict in Ukraine enters its third year, Russia is dramatically increasing its production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, signaling a fundamental shift in its military strategy. What began as an attempt to swiftly capture Kyiv has evolved into a protracted war of attrition, characterized by a reliance on inexpensive, high-tech drones rather than costly, traditional weaponry. This escalating drone warfare is raising concerns about Ukraine’s ability to sustain its defense and the potential for wider regional instability.

According to analysis by security analyst Hans Petter Midttun, a former Norwegian naval officer, Russia is prioritizing drone production as a core component of its military strategy. Midttun, a frequent commentator on the war in Ukraine, notes that this shift reflects a move away from maneuver warfare towards a strategy designed to exhaust Ukrainian resources and infrastructure. The increasing use of drones is not merely a tactical adjustment, but a fundamental reshaping of the battlefield, with significant implications for the future of the conflict and European security.

Russia’s Drone Escalation: A Rapid Increase in Production

In January 2025, Russia deployed approximately 2,000 First-Person View (FPV) drones daily against Ukrainian positions. Within thirteen months, that number has surged to nearly 7,000. If this trend continues, projections estimate Russia will deploy almost 2.8 million FPV drones in 2026, representing a 220% increase from 2025 levels. This dramatic increase in drone deployment is coupled with a significant expansion of Russia’s unmanned systems forces, which now comprise around 87,000 soldiers, with plans to establish one brigade, four regiments, 96 battalions, two divisions and 82 companies this year.

The increase isn’t limited to FPV drones. Russia launched 11,200 long-range attack drones in 2024, escalating to 54,500 in 2025. Forecasts for 2026 predict 102,000 drones will be deployed. With current interception rates, approximately 16,000 drones are expected to reach their targets, primarily Ukrainian energy infrastructure, railway networks, hospitals, and schools. This sustained bombardment is designed to systematically degrade Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and undermine its ability to wage war.

Shifting Tactics and Increasing Lethality

Russia is likewise increasing the use of guided glide bombs, with deployments rising from ten per day to over 200. The range of these bombs has also increased, from 60–80 km to around 190 km, and Russia is developing variants expected to reach 400 km, putting more Ukrainian cities at risk of indiscriminate bombing. This expanded range allows Russia to strike deeper into Ukrainian territory, disrupting supply lines and targeting civilian infrastructure.

While Russian casualties have reportedly decreased – not due to a decline in fighting, but because of the substitution of soldiers with machines – the number of Russian soldiers killed in action is higher than ever before. The ratio of wounded to killed soldiers has shifted from 3:1 to 1.3:1. FPV drones have created a 15–20 km wide “Kill Zone” on either side of the front lines, making medical evacuation nearly impossible. Conversely, Ukraine utilizes reconnaissance drones, interceptor drones, FPV countermeasures, and unmanned ground vehicles to rescue wounded soldiers, achieving a reported casualty ratio of 1:5 in its favor.

Winning the Deep Battle and Preparing for Wider Conflict

Despite Ukraine’s success in close-quarters drone warfare, Russia appears to be gaining an advantage in the “deep battle” – targeting infrastructure and logistics far behind the front lines. Elite Russian Rubicon units are reportedly attacking airports and railways up to 200 km behind Ukrainian defenses, weakening Ukraine’s ability to resupply, evacuate casualties, and rotate troops. Russia has already destroyed more tanks than NATO possesses, and fresh T-90M tanks are being diverted from Ukraine to the Leningrad Military District, bordering Estonia, Latvia, and Finland. Russia is also constructing barracks and upgrading railway lines along its borders with NATO, potentially in preparation for a wider conflict.

This strategic shift raises fundamental questions about the future of the conflict and the broader European security landscape. As stated by Colonel Volodymyr Polevyi, spokesperson for Ukraine’s 7th Rapid Response Corps, “For four years, Russia has been trying to take Kyiv in three days.” But, the current trajectory suggests a long-term strategy of attrition, aimed not at territorial conquest but at undermining Ukraine’s very existence.

The conflict is no longer solely about territory, but about Ukraine’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Russia’s relentless attacks on infrastructure and industry are designed to erode the foundations of Ukrainian statehood, including its political independence, economic viability, and cultural identity. Europe faces a critical choice: to fully commit to supporting a Ukrainian victory or to accept a protracted conflict that could ultimately threaten its own security.

The increasing reliance on drones and the shift towards a war of attrition necessitate a reassessment of European defense strategies. The current level of NATO support may be insufficient to counter Russia’s escalating capabilities. A more decisive and proactive approach may be required to prevent further escalation and safeguard European security. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Europe can effectively respond to this evolving threat.

What does this shift in tactics mean for the long-term stability of the region? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Betty Ann Dresser believed she had found a safe haven for her father, Howard Wyllie, a man battling both diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. But within days of a handshake agreement with a marketing director at Village Retirement Communities in Greenville, Rhode Island, that sense of security dissolved, revealing a system where promises were easily broken and critical medical needs were overlooked.

Dresser’s experience, detailed in reports from Fox News and Newsdirectory3.com, began with a search for a “lock-down” facility – a secure environment necessary due to her father’s advanced Alzheimer’s and tendency to wander. The marketing director at Village Retirement Communities assured Dresser that the Village at East Farms in Waterbury, Connecticut, could accommodate Wyllie’s complex needs, including a strict diet and medication management. An initial fee structure was sketched on the back of an envelope, sealing the deal with a verbal agreement.

The reality proved starkly different. Upon moving her father into East Farms, Dresser was presented with a contract that increased the monthly fee by several hundred dollars. More critically, the facility’s head nurse and kitchen staff were unaware of Wyllie’s dietary restrictions and medical conditions, information the marketing director had failed to convey. East Farms refused to adhere to his prescribed diet and demanded his prescriptions be altered for easier administration.

Just six days later, Dresser received a call informing her that her father was running a fever. When Dresser’s sister arrived to retrieve Wyllie, she found him in a state of severe neglect – naked and sitting in his own feces. According to Dresser, no staff member offered assistance with cleaning or dressing him. A subsequent visit to Wyllie’s personal physician revealed he had no fever and stable blood sugar levels. Upon informing East Farms of this assessment, the facility refused to readmit him, telling Dresser’s brother-in-law, “He’s your problem now.”

Dresser’s case, while extreme, highlights systemic issues within the assisted-living industry, as reported by multiple sources. These include a tendency to overpromise services, particularly regarding long-term care for increasingly frail residents, and a lack of robust federal regulation. The industry’s business model, according to reports, often prioritizes filling beds over providing sustained care for those with escalating medical needs.

The average assisted-living resident stays for only two years, a figure that suggests the facilities are not designed for long-term care of severely ill individuals. Facilities may be legally required to discharge residents whose health deteriorates to the point where they require skilled nursing care, even if the facility initially suggested it could accommodate their evolving needs. Altera Healthcare’s consumer information page, cited in reports, explicitly states that residents may be required to move if they need skilled nursing or excessive personal assistance.

Financial concerns also contribute to potential problems. Assisted-living facilities can raise prices with little notice, and the cost of care – averaging $2,000 to $6,000 per month – is typically not covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Facilities may also tack on additional charges for services not included in the base rate, as illustrated by the case of Lisa Lewis, whose father was assessed extra fees for needing aid with basic tasks like flushing the toilet and changing clothes.

Concerns extend to staffing and training. Many assisted-living facilities rely on minimally trained staff earning near minimum wage. Medication errors are common, and pharmacies affiliated with facilities may charge higher prices than independent drugstores. The lack of stringent regulation allows for inconsistencies in care and oversight, with some states requiring minimal training for administrators and limited inspections of facilities.

The case of Al Schmidt, whose wife was sexually abused by another resident at a Sunrise Assisted Living facility in Michigan, underscores the potential for serious safety lapses. The facility initially attempted to cover up the incident, and Schmidt found limited legal recourse due to the lack of federal oversight and the state’s limited regulations regarding resident protection.

Reports also indicate that staffing levels often decrease during nighttime hours, leaving residents with minimal supervision. Families may locate themselves forced to supplement care with private-duty nurses, adding significant financial burden. Facilities may cease investing in maintenance and improvements once beds are full, leading to a decline in the quality of the environment.

As of February 18, 2026, the industry continues to grapple with these challenges, and consumers are urged to thoroughly investigate facilities, carefully review contracts, and ask detailed questions about staffing, services, and potential additional costs before making a decision.