More modern approach to anti-tank missiles are those with lasers being used for highlighting the target [2], while the missile has a battery and a camera to find the spot. The other approach is to do on-the-fly image recognition [3].

Edit: interesting fact: DART space craft sent by NASA to hit an asteroid used a missile derived technology to recognize the image and steer itself into the target, since direct control from Earth was not possible due to communication lag [4] (also try googling "dart mission" to see google's doodle on the topic).

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire-guided_missile

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

4. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-confirms-dart-missio...

“just”

I think the TOW missile is the most prominent example.

- Simple

- No radio frequency indication of an incoming missile.

There must be other reasons as well.

Even a basic analog video signal is orders of magnitude more data than what you'd be transmitting in a phone call.

No surprise Russia wants it.

I don't think the Donbass was ever secure against being retaken. Hence no investment.

It's still strategically valuable, because you're still taking resources from the enemy.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines

That means it probably breaks down in the environment after a few years - with the time mostly depending on what type of enamel it's coated in.