The Russia-Ukraine war is specific to the capabilities of the two parties, and to the nature of the battlefield (big and flat). The next war will be different in many important ways. So yes, one shouldn’t overlearn.

That being said:

they will just adapt to new threats unless there is an actual replacement that can fullfil their role on the battle field. Which drones don’t.

What fulfills the role of a castle on an ancient battlefield, in a modern one? Nothing, really. That whole method of warfare become obsolete.

Ditto for the musket formation. Tactical infantry formations obviously exist, but they’re dispersed, because the problem tight lines solved are gone, and the weaknesses they had are much more important.

Alas… the next iteration is coming with more active defenses as well as a remote-weapon station able to work against drones. And with their own set of missiles and/or loitering munitions.

The Ukrainians themselves hate the whole “we added a remote 50-cal station to the truck so we’re good” argument. Drones can do a lot of different things, and don’t necessarily come one-by-one. If there’s any actual replies back to that argument, they seem few and far between.

It’s going to change tactics, not just technology. The West can’t procure our way out of having to adapt.

the less talked about class of IFVs is actually getting much more tank-like with similiar levels of armor and active defense as tanks, just another specialisation

Yeah, but that’s not an MBT! Armour is almost certainly not dead. A vehicle built around a big gun firing mostly horizontally, and surviving assault by other armour, on the other hand…