Sort of points out that winning against a multi-faceted adversary will never win
The defensive position is to always look at what has worked in the past and stick ones fingers in that particular dike. Yes, you can be proactive but the corporate costs for this are far more than the costs for the perps.
Reminds me a bit of one of the latest news stories about real attacks:
The Yemeni government (supported by Saudi Arabia and the US among others) uses some version of the PATRIOT anti-missile system to try to protect assets.
So these PATRIOT anti-missile batteries are being attacked by "home-made" (or perhaps Iranian) drones that attempt to take out the anti-missile defenses by swarming/jamming/attacking.
The PATRIOTs were developed back in the days of semi-mobile artillery and when the imperial powers could control the skies. This is no longer the facts on the ground (as they say.)
The adversaries will always be more nimble, more adept. The defenders will always be more localized/territorial. The losers will be mainly civilians and soldiers. The winners will be the architects of destruction.