Article by Debalina Ghoshal
Siege warfare has defined warfare tactics for strategic victories for centuries. Nevertheless, with each passing generation and revolution in military affairs (RMA), technological advancements have made siege warfare more lethal. Yet again, adversaries’ modern technologies in warfare have made siege warfare vulnerable for countries employing such tactics. Hybrid technologies have made siege warfare tactically viable owing to the fact that missile increases stand-off capabilities and drones make siege warfare tactics inexpensive.
The strategic victory by employing hybrid technologies in modern warfare scenarios could become difficult tasks to achieve. The Ukraine War is one such example in the present-day modern warfare scenario where, despite the employment of hybrid technologies, strategic victory for decisive gains is at an abnormally slow pace. The author uses the term ‘abnormally’ because the employment of drones and missiles should fetch decisive gains for countries. However, in the case of Ukraine, such technologies have only prolonged warfare. During the Iraq War in 2003, siege warfare proved successful until blitzkrieg style technologies in the form of aerial power were employed. But when the United States had to switch to guerilla warfare tactics to fight intifadas to ensure that siege warfare tactics gains decisive results, the result proved dismal for the United States.
In 1812, when Napolean Bonaparte marched into Russian territory of Moscow with his Grande Armée, the Tsar Alevander I ordered the city be evacuated including removing and burning food and resources that could help Napolean’s army to survive the harsh cold winters. This forced Napolean to abandon Moscow within a month of occupying it. Such examples prove that siege warfare is a difficult tactic that requires greater and more robust planning. If we travel back to the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), we can see that despite the employment of siege and attrition warfare tactics, siege warfare failed to achieve decisive results. The Siege of Leuven in 1635 is one such example when the Franco-Dutch army invaded the Spanish Netherlands facing severe challenges leading to the failure of the siege. The Cold War era witnessed the Berlin Blockade which proved that ‘where there is a will, there is a way’ defying the notion that blockade could lead to siege victory and supplies were delivered through aerial delivery platform in the famous Berlin Airlift of 1949.
On the other hand, the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 did not rely on siege warfare and instead focused on heavy maneuvers, which led to the victory of Prussia despite Austria’s powerful military. Not always does siege warfare tactics prove failure. In fact, in 1640 and 1643 during the Thirty Years’ War, the Siege of Arras and Battle of Rocroi proved success stories for the French army when it defeated the Spanish army Prussia, which never relied on siege warfare during the Seven Years’ War with Austria, won the Franco-Prussian War after it besieged Paris from September 1870 until January 1871 with its superior artillery forces.
Will Siege Warfare Succeed in Ukraine?
Modern warfare tactics are becoming more cumbersome to neutralise and gain decisive victories for states. Artillery has become a crucial weapon for both sides, along with drone technologies, to achieve siege tactical advantages. Nevertheless, decisive victory has not been achieved. Drones like Hornet and Dart drones have altered the course of modern warfare, providing Ukrainian forces inexpensive means to cut off Russian crucial supplies. Ukraine has also targeted crucial Russian military facilities.
In addition, Ukrainian drones were reportedly capable of destroying Russian nuclear bombers in 2025. Nevertheless, Ukraine achieved tactical gains but could not achieve decisive results. Modern air and missile defence systems that could counter siege warfare capabilities further make such tactics cumbersome for gaining strategic victory. As is a known fact, victory is not decisive and complete, unless, states have won strategically.
On Russia’s side, siege warfare has proved success at tactical level. But it is yet to gain decisive results. Nevertheless, what gained attention in 2026 would be Russia’s efforts with missiles like Zircon which are high speed systems to suppress Ukrainian air defences so as to be able to strike against vital targets. Moscow has launched siege warfare tactics targeting Ukrainian logistical and data networks as well as energy infrastructure hubs. Russia has also targeted Ukrainian military facilities.
Nevertheless, despite the heavy bombardments from both sides, both sides view the possibility of ceasefire in a positive light. This is due to the fact that modern warfare could make strategic gains in warfare difficult. In fact, one could view siege warfare tactics in positive light that such tactics though may not help in gaining decisive victories but cause lethal damage and catastrophe coercing states to oblige to ceasefire agreements.
Conclusion
Modern warfare technologies make warfare more appealing owing to the advancements in weapon technologies, yet lessen scopes for victory in warfare when both sides possess offence-defence capabilities in parity. In fact, to end on a positive note, modern warfare technologies have made warfare futile effort.
