Beyond Lessons Learned: How Russia Institutionalises Battlefield Experience

Egmont Institute | Joris Van Bladel

The Russian Armed Forces have systematically adapted their battlefield capabilities since February 2022 by establishing a highly integrated hybrid learning system to compress the feedback loop between combat operations and institutional adaptation. This rapid evolution spans critical tactical domains including counter-battery fire, FPV drone integration, electronic warfare, and distributed infantry tactics.

To bypass traditional bureaucratic inertia, the formal military-scientific establishment of the Ministry of Defence now collaborates directly with a decentralised ecosystem of volunteer organisations, private developers, and military bloggers. This collaborative network, collectively termed the People’s Military-Industrial Complex, drives continuous wartime learning to rapidly field new capabilities. Yet, political barriers still prevent strategic self-correction. Ultimately, this systemic adaptation frames modern conflict as a direct competition between institutional learning systems rather than mere technology. Consequently, European militaries must measure their own capacity to absorb lessons from the war in Ukraine against this highly responsive and institutionalised Russian standard.

Comment

The integration of the People's Military-Industrial Complex into Russian military planning represents a fundamental shift in how the Russian General Staff conceptualises doctrinal development. Historically, Soviet and Russian military science relied on centralised, top-down evaluation cycles managed by formal institutions like the Frunze Military Academy. The war in Ukraine has forced a transition toward a decentralised, bottom-up model where tactical feedback from FPV drone units in the Donbas directly bypasses traditional Ministry of Defence bottlenecks.

As a second-order consequence, this decentralised learning model will likely create long-term friction between the traditional, hierarchical command structures of the Russian Ministry of Defence and the highly autonomous volunteer networks. Over time, the proliferation of non-state actors, such as Russian milbloggers and private developers, may dilute the state's monopoly on military-scientific authority. Consequently, the Russian General Staff will struggle to standardise these ad-hoc FPV drone tactics across larger formations like the 1st Guards Tank Army.

Strategic Question for Discussion

How will the tension between the Russian General Staff's need for centralised control and the decentralised nature of FPV drone innovation affect the operational integration of formations like the 1st Guards Tank Army?

The available evidence suggests that the Russian General Staff will likely struggle to reconcile rapid, bottom-up FPV drone adaptations with the rigid command structures of conventional formations like the 1st Guards Tank Army. This friction points to a bifurcated force, where elite or highly specialised units rapidly absorb technological advancements while standard motorised rifle brigades remain bound to slower, centralised procurement and training cycles. Consequently, the operational integration of these innovations is expected to remain uneven, limiting Russia's ability to execute large-scale, synchronised offensive manoeuvres.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here