By Matt Underwood Estonia is digging a 40 km trench to stop Russian tanks — and 600 bunkers are next. Well, it seems like Estonia is taking a page out of history, or perhaps a very, very long chapter. They’re building a 40-kilometer-long trench, and planning for 600 bunkers, as a defensive measure. The initial thought is a bit… well, how effective will a trench really be against modern warfare?
How exactly does a trench stop drones? It seems like a relevant question in today’s world of conflicts, where drone warfare is quickly taking center stage. The immediate reaction might be a chuckle, picturing a drone nonchalantly flying over the trench. And, let’s be honest, with the shift towards drone technology, it raises the question of whether this is a defense for a different era. We’re talking about a war where drones and missiles dominate, not necessarily tank battles in the classic sense.
However, better than nothing is a valid point. After all, a static defense isn’t inherently bad. The thing is, we have to consider how it stacks up against the current reality of conflict. And there is also the potential for a tactical impact. Even if tanks are not the primary threat, a trench could still channel or slow down any ground movement, providing defenders with a tactical advantage.
Indeed, one can’t ignore the historical parallel with the Maginot Line. Remember that? Built by France before World War II, designed to stop the Germans. It sort of did its job, in that it was designed to do, but the Germans simply went around it through Belgium. Static defenses have existed for millennia, so there’s got to be something to it. And the current situation means the allies are working together in the Baltic states, so there is no equivalent “around the corner” route for Russian forces.
But if a trench is unlikely to stop drones and missiles, what should be done? Well, it comes as no surprise that a lot of focus is on modern methods. NATO, including the U.S., is already focused on studying drone warfare. They’re looking at scaling up production and innovation in this area. A lot of emphasis is being put on cheaper and more difficult-to-stop drones, including AI, swarms, and ways to interfere with and intercept them. This kind of evolution is crucial for modern warfare. The U.S. is even helping Ukraine build its own military hardware.
Of course, military hardware is only one aspect of the situation. The reality is that Estonia is a small country. Russia has a significantly larger military and, even if diminished from the conflict in Ukraine, would still likely have a larger fleet of tanks and armored vehicles. It’s a disparity in resources, and that’s something to consider.
However, the situation is also fluid. Russia may have a lot of aging vehicles. They are even refurbishing what they can. It’s not a secret that Russia is having a hard time keeping up with the demand for equipment. Production is not matching the losses. But, on the other hand, Russia is building more vehicles every day.
Regardless of the exact military dynamics, it’s crucial to recognize that new technology doesn’t make old technology obsolete. The weapons of World War I, World War II, and the Cold War are still relevant today. They might not be the *only* thing being used, but they still have a place. And even the current weapons being used in Ukraine are a collection of older and newer equipment.
It is also important to consider what all this is actually *for*. Estonia has to deter Russia, and defensive fortifications play a vital role in that. Even in Ukraine, the frontlines would have crumbled without them. The trench may not be perfect. The bunkers may not be perfect. But they contribute to the overall defensive posture, helping to instill fear in any potential aggressors. The idea is to create a more challenging environment for any invasion, even if drones end up being the biggest threat.