Tomorrow's Victory and the Army of the Future: Forecasting the Next Steps in Ukraine's Military Evolution

RAND Corporation | Jacob Parakilas and Oliver Gill

The Armed Forces of Ukraine face a critical strategic inflection point as leadership transitions and internal debates intensify over the military's future structure. This institutional tension pits a traditionalist camp favoring conventional combined-arms mass against reformists advocating for a technology-driven, decentralized force. Newly appointed Chief of the General Staff Mykhailo Drapatyi must now reconcile these competing theories of victory.

This debate is crystallized by the rapid rise of the Unmanned Systems Forces, which comprise only two percent of personnel but inflict thirty percent of Russian losses. Traditionalists argue that driving out occupiers requires conventional maneuver brigades, heavy artillery, and armored breachers, treating uncrewed systems merely as preparatory enablers. Mass still dominates the frontline. Conversely, technologists envision a radical transformation where autonomous platforms conduct primary strike and ground assault operations, relegating human infantry to defensive and security roles. This rapid technological model also risks disrupting NATO interoperability during ongoing hostilities.

Comment

The institutionalisation of the Unmanned Systems Forces as an independent branch represents a profound shift in contemporary military doctrine. This structural elevation formalises asymmetric, attritable capabilities. By codifying robotic warfare into a distinct command, the Ukrainian General Staff acknowledges that electronic and uncrewed systems are no longer mere tactical accessories. Instead, they function as primary operational drivers capable of shaping the entire battlespace before physical contact occurs.

This doctrinal integration operates through a dual-track training and procurement mechanism that embeds basic uncrewed systems proficiency directly into the Ground Forces curriculum. Rather than isolating drone operators in specialised technical units, the system forces tactical integration at the lowest echelon of infantry training. Consequently, the General Staff's 51-day basic training syllabus ensures that even frontline riflemen can coordinate local sensor-to-shooter loops during active defensive operations.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the Unmanned Systems Forces continue to expand their share of combat delivery, does the traditional combined-arms brigade remain the primary unit of action, or does it degrade into a secondary security force?

The available evidence points toward a hybrid model where the traditional brigade remains indispensable for holding physical terrain, even as the Unmanned Systems Forces dominate the deep strike and reconnaissance fight. My assessment is that autonomous platforms cannot fully replace human infantry in consolidated defensive positions, meaning the combined-arms structure will endure as a necessary protective shell. Consequently, the two branches will likely co-exist in a highly integrated, interdependent command relationship rather than one eclipsing the other.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here