The Eras of Francis Fukuyama: Building Things

Persuasion  |  Yascha Mounk

Francis Fukuyama highlighted how Ukrainian forces successfully leveraged low-cost commercial robotics, Arduino microcontrollers, Raspberry Pi single-board computers, and custom command-and-control networks to counter a superior Russian military invasion following the 2022 escalation. This localized technological adaptation illustrates how practical engineering skills and modular hardware design foster operational autonomy during crisis scenarios.

As modern societies grow increasingly reliant on proprietary technological ecosystems and generative artificial intelligence tools like Claude and ChatGPT, fundamental technical self-reliance faces critical erosion. The widespread adoption of closed, non-modular hardware architectures and automated coding assistants risks causing rapid skill atrophy across future civilian and defense workforces. When critical global infrastructure or satellite navigation systems experience disruption, populations lacking practical software manipulation and hardware repair capabilities face severe operational vulnerabilities. Maintaining basic technical literacy in hardware fabrication, open-source programming in Python, and sensor integration provides essential resilience, ensuring societies retain critical problem-solving capacities when external technological dependencies suddenly fail during high-intensity conflict or systemic breakdown.

Comment

The reliance on commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware, such as Raspberry Pi single-board computers and open-source flight controllers, demonstrates how civil tech stacks accelerate military innovation under high-intensity attrition. In the 2022 defense of Kyiv, localized assembly units integrated these commercial microcontrollers directly into low-cost first-person view (FPV) loitering munitions. However, this architectural dependence introduces acute electronic warfare vulnerabilities. Standard COTS microprocessors lack hardened encryption standards, leaving unshielded control links susceptible to radio-frequency jamming by systems like the Russian Zhitel electronic warfare complex.

Consequently, rapid battlefield field-modification fails to substitute for purpose-built tactical data links when adversary jamming degrades standard Wi-Fi and 2.4 GHz signal channels. Modern electronic countermeasure environments force field units to abandon civilian open-source protocols in favor of custom signal-hopping radios and fiber-optic tethering.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor ultimately dictates the viability of small-scale commercial tech adaptation on the modern battlefield — the speed of civilian software iteration or the physical vulnerability of unshielded COTS microcontrollers to systems like the Zhitel electronic warfare complex?

The operational record from eastern Ukraine indicates that speed of software iteration offers only short-term tactical advantages before targeted frequency jamming neutralises standard commercial hardware links. My assessment is that unshielded Raspberry Pi controllers and 2.4 GHz links inevitably reach an operational ceiling against integrated electronic warfare networks like Zhitel. Long-term viability therefore depends on rapidly transitioning ad-hoc civilian builds onto hardened, signal-hopping architectures or wired tethers.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here