He's pointing out that the material in this article has been discussed ad nauseam and this doesn't present any new ideas.
"Despite Tadini's losses, his methods have continued to
influence combat into the present. Mining and
countermining, with all their attendant surveillance and
engineering, are still staples of warfare."
This is actually worse than a passage from a test -- it sounds like a student essay written in response. It's little better than: In conclusion, Tadini's mining is still influential today.
which is vague, abrupt and unsubstantiated -- the article makes no mention of mining in the current day. Am I the only one who finds this odd?