Fishing Nets Reverse Russian Drone Kill Zone

The most important detail in the Financial Times’ investigation of Ukraine’s front lines isn’t the kill zone, the fiber-optic drones, or the soldiers trapped for 165 days without rotation. It’s the fishing nets.

French and Swedish fishing nets, suspended over roads, hospitals, and critical infrastructure in Kherson, are intercepting 95% of incoming Russian drones. Up from 80% last May. Not with radar-guided missiles, not with electronic warfare, not with AI-powered counter-drone systems. Nets. The oldest barrier technology in human history is defeating precision-guided munitions at a cost ratio that inverts everything the defense industry has been selling for decades.

Simple Economics as Strategy

An FPV drone costs a few hundred dollars. A fiber-optic variant under $1000. Russia produces them by the million. And soon they’ll be 3D printed by field teams themselves. The standard counter-drone response of jamming, directed energy, and kinetic intercept costs orders of magnitude more per engagement than the drone itself. That’s an attacker’s economy. The defender bleeds money and time faster than the attacker spends it.

Fishing nets flip the ratio back. The cost per meter of industrial netting is trivial. Once installed, it works continuously with zero per-engagement cost. No operator, no ammunition, no power supply. A drone hits the net, tangles, detonates harmlessly or falls. The net gets repaired or replaced for almost nothing. The attacker has to keep spending thousands per attempt against a barrier that costs pennies per interception.

That’s an economic advantage that’s sustainable.

Who Built It First

Kherson has been the laboratory. The city’s population dropped from 250,000 to 60,000 under relentless Russian drone strikes, with over 9,500 attacks on civilians by December 2024. Governor Prokudin responded with what he calls a “drone dome”: layered netting over critical routes and buildings, combined with EW systems, sensors, and civilians trained with shotguns. In some districts the sky is barely visible through the mesh.

The FT describes the same approach spreading across the front. Thousands of kilometers of nets now form tunnels over main highways, stopping suicide FPV drones from diving at vehicles. The Pentagon recently issued guidance recommending nets, barriers, and camouflage as low-cost physical defenses against small drones. Taiwan is building its T-Dome program directly from Kherson’s experience.

Nets Answer the Drone Zone Question

Last November I wrote about Ukraine’s quartermaster problem in Pokrovsk — the 20km death zone where centralized linear logistics had become suicidal under persistent drone interdiction. The FT’s kill zone report confirms that condition now covers the entire front. Two soldiers held position near Orikhiv for 165 days, thirty relief attempts failed, fog saved them. Supplies move by cargo drone and UGV. Troops crawl under thermal cloaks for days.

I compared the problem to Grant’s quartermaster insight: you don’t counter interdiction with better tactics, you build a supply architecture more resilient than the enemy’s ability to disrupt it. Multiple independent routes, pre-positioned caches, expendable logistics with losses built into planning ratios.

Nets are one such logistics architecture. Cover the supply routes with physical barriers, and the kill zone starts to shrink. Vehicles can move under netting. Positions can be resupplied. The 30 failed relief attempts become possible when the approach route is physically shielded. The engineering problem I described, to sustain forces inside a drone-saturated environment, has an inexpensive answer.

Machine Guns and Barbed Wire

The defense establishment keeps comparing drones to the tank of 1916 as if a new offensive capability awaiting doctrinal innovation. That’s backwards. Drones are the machine gun. They destroyed the old paradigm of conventional movement.

The kill zone is no man’s land. And nets are barbed wire’s inversion.

In WWI, barbed wire made from surplus telegraph supplies was cheap passive defense that made the kill zone lethal for attackers. Nets are cheap passive defense that makes the kill zone survivable for defenders. Same principle. Physical barriers that cost almost nothing defeat expensive offensive systems, by working in the opposite direction. Wire aided the machine guns. Nets defeat the drones.

The 40km fiber-optic cables, the dynamic mining, the electronic warfare stalemate — all of that is real and accelerating. But the counter already exists. It’s sitting in declining or dormant fishing ports. Defense spending could revive coastal economies instead of enriching bumbling contractors.

The question is whether militaries will scale it as infrastructure or keep chasing expensive technological and ideological unicorns while soldiers crawl through the mud under thermal blankets.

General Grant would have ordered net production over six months ago.

De Oppresso Liber Was a Trust Doctrine: SOF Can’t Get Back There From Venezuela

Sitting on my desk is a ship in a bottle my father gave me, made by Bill Donovan. When I look at the tiny masts, their delicate rigging, above the blue painted waves, I’m reminded how the precise qualities of an operator used to be measured.

And then I look over at Seth Harp’s book.

He explains Special Operations missions in the GWOT as:

…covertly liquidating the male population base of recalcitrant ethnic and tribal groups that resist U.S. military occupation.

Ouch.

The book gets reviewed plainly by some as an emerging revelation about how badly things turned out under Bush. The far more important exposure actually needs to be about what’s developing post-GWOT.

SOF operators increasingly hint towards decoupled regional commands, district-style zones of interest, an end to the global sharing frameworks that defined twenty years of allied operations. Everyone points to the Delta operation in Venezuela using narrow cartel designations as proof the model works without foundational coalition architecture.

This is regressive doctrine dressed as adaptation. It’s like how people invoke Monroe as cover for the exact opposite doctrine. I mean, look at what “special” has meant and what operators increasingly want it to mean next.

Tailored and Relative Defense

The original Special Forces mission that we study, such as Bank, the OSS lineage, and de oppresso liber all defined “special” as being tight and tailored. Small teams shaped to specific cultural contexts, building indigenous defensive capability relative to local threats. The operator learned the language, lived in the village, measured success by what the partner force could do after Americans left. The 12-man ODA existed to enable durable local resilience. Medic as community entry point, intelligence sergeant building networks through relationships, team sergeant as institutional memory.

“Special” meant fit to context and oriented toward defense that enabled populations to protect themselves. Force multiplication structure, training, selection all followed from this. The screens were for cultural adaptability, communication aptitude, comfort with ambiguity, patience measured in years.

Universal and Industrialized Offense

GWOT flushed all that away with a rush to produce body tags. McChrystal’s F3EAD cycle (Find, Fix, Finish, Exploit, Analyze, Disseminate) redefined “special” as universal champions of death tolls. One kill chain applied anywhere and everywhere. Track a target, kill him and every military-age male nearby, seize documents, generate more names, repeat again hours later. Speed through targets, shoot first, and only ask questions so you can start shooting again. The same process in Anbar, Helmand, Mogadishu, the Sahel. Context didn’t exist beyond the shape of the kill zones. Cultural knowledge didn’t matter beyond the direction the door kicked in. The machine was industrialized offense, optimized for speed and volume of kills on a full sprint.

This required total information access across allied networks and worked because Five Eyes plus NATO SOF plus partner nations operated as a single organism with shared targeting databases. The global architecture made universal application possible.

It also inverted de oppresso liber completely. Indigenous partners became consumable inputs to the targeting machine. Afghan commandos serviced American kill lists. A force designed to enable tailored local defense was reoptimized into universal industrial offense that depopulated resistance. And the more the thoughtless machinery depopulated areas, the higher the percentage of resistance. Just like Vietnam. Go figure.

Decoupled and Unleashed

The operators calling for regional decoupling lately think they are wisely preparing for a world where the U.S. no longer has authority. Turkey running SOF against the American-trained forces in Syria. France pushed out of the Sahel by Wagner. Gulf states with SOF relationships that bypass JSOC. The global sharing framework broke when Hegseth used it for war crimes in the Caribbean, so formalize it.

What they actually propose is a third model worse than either predecessor. Not tailored defense. Not even universal offense with its coalition constraints. It’s a decoupled offense of regional fiefdoms operating under their own legal authority, political cover, and information control, answerable to whoever holds the designation authority in their district.

“Special” stops meaning tailored or even universal. It means unleashed, above the law because loyal to the directed mission only. A force pointed at whatever target the political sponsor designates, with no doctrinal requirement to build anything, no allied framework providing oversight, and no cooperative architecture satisfying the SOF truths that most special operations require non-SOF assistance.

The GWOT model, for all the horrors that Harp documents in his book, at least maintained the structural possibility of allied pushback. Partners who share a common operational picture can object. Decoupled districts eliminate that. Each zone operates in its own information silo, like Chad or Guatemala under Reagan. Nobody outside sees the full picture until criminal tribunals investigate decades later.

De oppresso liber is a trust doctrine.

Populations considering partnership with American SOF watched what happened to the Montagnards, the Kurds, the Hmong, the Afghans. The institutional record is politically conditional treatment. Decoupled regional commands with rotating political sponsorship will only make that worse. What serious opposition figure in Venezuela or anywhere else will invest in a relationship with a force that has no doctrinal commitment to their survival and no allied framework holding it accountable?

Tailored relative defense built things that lasted. Universal industrialized offense destroyed them. The new trend towards decoupled and unleashed doesn’t even pretend to try.

Putin’s Advisors Warn of Russia Collapse Summer 2026

Alexandra Prokopenko, a former Russian central bank adviser now at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, published an op-ed in The Economist comparing Russia’s wartime economy to a mountaineer’s death zone. She invokes life at an altitude above 8,000 meters where the body consumes itself faster than it can repair. Fortune’s summary carries the headline that Russia is “eating its own muscle to survive.”

She’s right. Oil revenue crashed 50% year-over-year in January. Interest payments on government debt now exceed education and health spending combined. CSIS estimates 1.2 million military casualties.

The economy has split into a well-fed defense sector with a short lifespan, and a starving civilian one with a short lifespan, producing GDP figures that measure only the manufacture of assets designed for death and destruction. This is fact, uncontroversial. Russian officials have themselves warned Putin a financial crisis is likely to arrive this summer.

Stating that a malnourished nearly dead patient is dying is the easy part.

Prognosis or treatment options are where analysis is supposed to go. Prokopenko plays it safe precisely because it remains diagnostic. She documents the obvious symptoms with admirable precision, then concludes that Russia “can probably continue waging war for the foreseeable future“. Well, in fact, that’s a sentence her own evidence contradicts.

The Question She Should Ask

What happens when three converging failure modes intersect this summer? A banking system under stress from consumer loan defaults and corporate credit starvation; a military that now loses personnel faster than it can recruit, pushing Putin toward forced mobilization (the political third rail he avoided for three years); and oil revenue below the budget floor that forces binary choices between funding the war and funding the state.

These variables accelerate each other. Forced mobilization pulls workers from the civilian economy, accelerating loan defaults. Oil revenue decline constrains the budget, sharpening the choice between military and civilian spending. The banking system is the connective tissue. When it seizes, three problems merge into one big systemic event.

Russia had exactly this in 1998. We do not have to pretend it is theoretical.

The Question Everyone Should Want Answered

There is a second deafening silence in the analysis, more consequential than the first. Naming specific failure triggers immediately raises the matter of agency. If the collapse mechanisms are so clearly visible (banking contagion, recruitment shortfall, oil revenue floor) then so are the policy levers that could accelerate or shape them. Controlled prairie burns are far better than just waiting for lightning storms.

Tighter sanctions enforcement. Secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian crude. Further restrictions on financial system access. Coordinated pressure at the points where the three failure modes converge.

This is what “controlled burn” looks like in historical practice. Russia’s economy breaks. Russian officials are already telling their own president it breaks this summer. The question is whether external actors shape the manner of the burn or whether, as in so many previous cases, everyone waits for a lightning strike and then pretends the blaze was unforeseeable.

Prokopenko chose the mountaineering metaphor. Mountains are geological. Inevitable. Natural and beyond human agency.

Meh. At least she didn’t say here be dragons.

The more accurate framing is a large dam under pressure: the engineering failure modes are visible, the materials are known and stress points measured, and the difference between a controlled release and a catastrophic breach is whether anyone with authority decides to act before the structure does what is expected.

Green Berets know what I’m talking about.

The history of economic collapses in wartime states is a history of phase transitions. It is rapid, nonlinear, and in retrospect obvious. It is preceded by a long period in which analysts trying to protect themselves described trajectory without taking the risk of naming a destination.

Authoritarian systems by definition starve their populations and then in crisis exhibit the cognitive signatures of hypoxia: degraded emotional processing, loss of positive bias, impaired decision-making. It’s science not fiction.

How America Can Win the War With Iran

Look, I’m getting asked all the time now why nobody is stopping Trump from making a mockery of America with empty threats to Iran. Every time I sit down to drink my tea in peace someone says “hey, so are we going to war with Iran now?

For the last time, I don’t know.

However, what I DO know is how stupid it is that I’m being asked this question. And I’m getting tired of it.

So here’s a quick explanation of why this is even worse than Putin expecting Ukraine to be his quick win. Or to make a better point, this is even worse than the Bush-era neocons promising Iraq was their doorway to Tehran — that taking Baghdad would see Iran fall like a domino. We stormed into Baghdad and then pivoted like a snail on scotch tape, got our asses handed to us for ten years and never saw even a glow of Tehran.

Oh, but this time, this time, it will be different. Let me explain. It will be even worse.

No End, Just Mean

A military operation is supposed to be defined with an objective, and the first thing I see right now is that nobody in the administration can articulate Iran in objective terms. Nothing. Nada.

Not Leavitt. Not Witkoff. Not Trump. These ham-fisted chaos agents oscillate between “deal,” regime change, and legacy project.

When a reporter asked Leavitt directly why strikes might be needed against a nuclear program Trump already claims to have destroyed she blew smoke rings:

There’s many reasons and arguments that one could make.

Yeah, dude, whoa so many, like really many. You thinking what I’m thinking? Go ahead. Yeah, give me just one of those reasons and arguments.

Oh, so you don’t have any?

This is exactly how the Vietnam War started. Empty-headed political vanity dressed up as strategy and going in circles.

Witkoff gets on Fox News and can’t even commit to his own phrases:

I don’t want to use the word ‘frustrated’… I don’t want to use the word ‘capitulated,’ but why haven’t they capitulated?

I don’t want to say what I’m saying but I’m saying that I’m saying something other than what I’m saying.

Eight dimensional chess, this guy. Wizard of words.

Witkoff capitulated to using the word capitulated. A real estate guy with no diplomatic experience broadcasting his only acceptable outcome is total Iranian surrender. That’s probably how real estate deals are done. Pretending negotiations are happening in good faith while threatening total annihilation sounds like the PLO strategy. Remember them? Meanwhile he’s meeting with the exiled son of the toppled shah “at Trump’s direction.” A regime change agenda is practically an armband they wear to meetings.

Plain Numbers

Putin went into Ukraine with roughly 200,000 troops against a country of 44 million people covering 600,000 square kilometers. He promised it would be over in days. Four years later, his entire military is totally wrecked, his economy is totally wrecked, and he’s known as the meat-grinder dictator who can’t win.

Iran is big, like 1.65 million square kilometers big, nearly three times the size of Ukraine. The population also is big, roughly 90 million, so double Ukraine. The terrain is mountains and desert, with thousands of years of deep defensive warfare doctrine. And unlike Ukraine in February 2022, Iran has spent a solid 40 years excitedly planning for the day America dares to try. Every weapons program, every tunnel network, every proxy relationship, every mine in the Strait of Hormuz was designed for the President too dumb to think about it.

Iraq in 2003 had 25 million people, a hollowed-out military wrecked by a decade of sanctions and no-fly zones, and flat desert terrain made for American armor. Bush believed Wolfowitz, Feith, and the AEI crowd that they would be in Tehran by morning, despite the CIA silently banging their heads on tables and warning without authority it was never going to happen. The US pushed 150,000 troops into Baghdad in three weeks and then spent the next decade losing badly, redirecting billions into a hole in the ground they dug themselves into. Iran watched and waited.

Enemy Don’t Play House Rules

You don’t get to decide how the other side fights. Military scholars get this. Trump doesn’t. His sycophants would never dare to tell him.

Iran’s foreign minister went on CBS and gave a taste of professionalism that marks their potential for success. He was honest: they can’t hit the US mainland, so they’d target American bases across the Middle East. That’s the stuff of real danger. That’s an expert telling you their plan built around asymmetric reach makes the US “air power” projections instantly irrelevant.

The Strait of Hormuz closes on day one. That’s roughly 20% of global oil transit. The economic shock alone could trigger a worldwide recession before the second sortie lifts off. Iran doesn’t need to win a naval battle. It needs to drop enough mines and fire enough anti-ship missiles to make tanker traffic snarled and financially toast. We’re talking hours, people, not weeks.

Carriers in the Arabian Sea? Might as well ride circus elephants towards a machine gun nest. A country with modern anti-ship cruise missiles, fast attack boats, and sea mines sees a bold target presentation. Yoo-hoo over here, sink this ship. The Navy experts know all this. The Pentagon knows all this. The Russian ships at the bottom of the Black Sea prove this. I’m not saying anything new.

Carriers are just Witkoff’s presentation aids to look big and tough like a John Wayne for his Fox News segments, with zero relevance to modern warfare.

The June 2025 Iran-Israel war already gave us the math. Israel’s Arrow interceptors were heavily expended. The US rushed to backfill with THAAD batteries and burn through ship-launched SM-3s. Tactically there was a solution established. Strategically, it proved that Iran’s approach of exhausting missile defense systems through volume works well enough. Intercept 90% and you still lose when the 10% are all that’s needed for infrastructure to fail.

Day One Doesn’t Matter

You blow up the air defenses and bomb the nuclear sites, sink the navy. It’s a flash bang start. Then on day two every problem in the Middle East that you currently blame on Iran is yours to handle and fast. The Shia militias in Iraq. Hezbollah. The Houthis. The influence networks across the Gulf. All of it becomes your problem, on your bloody hands, with no plan. You’re staring at 90 million people with a 3,000-year-old playbook. And you have … what?

We already saw this. The US invasion of Iraq was the single greatest strategic gift Iran ever received because it eliminated their biggest regional rival, installed a Shia-majority government next door, and gave Iran’s proxy networks room to metastasize across the region.

The whole “we’ll be in Tehran” concept of the US flattening Iraq had the opposite effect and significantly weakened American approaches to Iran.

Vietnam Failure in Fast Forward

Trump keeps threatening war without understanding the enemy, without defining victory, and without any theory of how military force would produce a political outcome he desires. It’s probably because he never served in Vietnam. The draft dodger wants to play general.

That’s the failed logic of Vietnam being compressed into weeks instead of years: escalation as substitute for strategy, military deployments driven by domestic political needs rather than operational logic, demands on the enemy that demonstrate zero understanding of their decision-making calculus, and complete absence of planning for what happens after the first shots are fired.

Trump thinks he can demand zero enrichment, dismantle ballistic missiles, cut all ties with regional allies. Yet all of it is untenable to any Iranian government, even the most pliant one. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty enshrines low-level enrichment as a right for all 191 signatories. Obama figured this out early in negotiations. It’s a non-starter, so he adjusted. Trump people haven’t learned anything because apparently they don’t think that thinking helps them.

We aren’t seeing strategy. We aren’t seeing military planning. The only thing at all here is political theater with live ammunition.

Sheldon Adelson used to rattle on about dropping a nuclear bomb in the Iranian desert as his preferred opening negotiating move. That nutjob spent hundreds of millions making sure the people who shared his big bang fantasy got into power. Now they’re there and he’s dead. The only thing separating Adelson’s fever dream from policy is the question of whether the modern-day Nixon thinks he can get away with it.

Iran will be harder to handle than Serbia, Libya and Iraq combined. The current administration struggles to even handle trans troops who are friendly, so I wouldn’t expect them to be able to punch their way out of a wet paper bag at this point. Hegseth literally said there’s no more special anything allowed in his military, only one voice going forward. And yet, we all know the best thing in the military was always the special operations.

The question everyone keeps asking me is whether there will actually be war. The honest answer is that the people in charge would be bigger idiots than Putin invading Ukraine, and unfortunately that might be their actual goal.