Ukraine Turns Drone Warfare into a Game, Using Real-World Scores to Guide Real Attacks

Ukraine has formalized a gamified approach to drone warfare, turning the battlefield into a live testing ground for a strategy the government says boosts efficiency and morale. The Army of Drones bonus program assigns points to confirmed strikes, with higher scores awarded for more valuable targets. At the end of each month, an expert review board tallies the points and publishes a leaderboard, while officers can redeem the total for upgrades on a digital marketplace that the Defense Ministry oversees.

The program works like a hybrid of a video game and a military logistics system. A strike against a Russian tank can be worth about 40 points, while a multiple-rocket launcher can reach 50 points, depending on the type. The points are not merely symbolic: they unlock purchases on Brave1, a marketplace that lists hundreds of items, many of them classified. One of the best-known items is the Vampire drone, a six-rotor heavy bomber favored by front-line units. Officials say logistics teams typically deliver purchased hardware within roughly 10 days, enabling drones to be fielded and points accumulate rapidly. The system also serves a broader strategic purpose: by standardizing how targets are valued, commanders can steer front-line focus toward gear that yields the greatest effect.

The program, announced by Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s minister of digital transformation, represents a deliberate reshaping of how Kyiv allocates scarce resources in a war that has already seen drones become a dominant force on the battlefield. Fedorov has described the system as a way to quantify what works and what does not in real time, noting that it allows the military to adjust priorities quickly. He has also suggested that the gamified framework can compress procurement timelines dramatically; the United States, he said, can look to the approach as a model for expediting arms orders to the front.

The Army of Drones concept did not appear in a vacuum. In the summer of 2023, top military brass rejected the idea as ill-advised, but Zelenskiy’s war council gave its blessing a year later after hearing a demonstration and evaluating the potential gains. By August 2024, the program was underway, though some leading drone units initially refused to participate. Over time, however, participation broadened, and the initiative became a visible way for Kyiv to mobilize private fundraising and private-sector partnerships to supply hardware.

The project has also elevated the profile of individual units. Some leaders embraced the notoriety, using the leaderboard to attract attention, sponsorship, and talent. Lasar’s Group, a highly secretive outfit run by Pavlo “Lasar” Yelizarov, initially resisted the idea of gamified scoring, warning that a public ranking could expose sensitive targets to Russian adversaries. Yet the unit eventually joined the program; its commander’s name appeared in media reports, and a widely cited Ukrainian Forbes cover highlighted the group’s perceived impact. For their backers, the approach generated a powerful incentive to perform—sometimes at a pace and scale not possible through traditional gear procurement.

The core recruitment pool for drone units underscores a broader cultural shift: many pilots are young, technologically savvy, and comfortable with a PlayStation-style interface. Commanders noted that gamers and IT professionals have strong hand-eye coordination and screen-based combat experience, traits well-suited to operating from distant control rooms. The base in Kyiv maintains its own recruitment and training pipeline, with an in-house psychologist who helps service members process trauma from the front lines. The work is remote in feel as much as in practice; pilots often operate through computer terminals or virtual reality interfaces, with the physical front line increasingly abstracted from the cockpit.

The gamified system has drawn attention from abroad. A senior U.S. official in Germany described the Ukrainian approach as a potential blueprint for streamlining procurement and battlefield adaptation. According to the official, Kyiv’s front-line commanders were able to order what they needed directly from manufacturers in a way that compressed the typical Defense Department process into roughly a week—a model some U.S. allies have asked the Pentagon to study. The account underscored a broader debate about how to balance speed, oversight, and accountability in wartime acquisitions, especially with weapons that can dramatically alter the dynamics of a conflict.

Beyond the logistics and thrill of competition, the program raises ethical questions that Ukrainian officials acknowledge. Gyunduz Mamedov, a former Ukrainian prosecutor who now advises the armed forces on drone warfare ethics, cautions that the gamification of killing can de-emphasize the human costs of war. He worries that as AI-enabled targeting and autonomous modes become more capable, the line between play and lethal decision-making could blur. The Brave1 platform already offers upgrades and AI-enabled options for drones, including a mode in which AI helps with targeting and navigation. Some developers say the technology exists, but robust safeguards are essential before any system can autonomously decide when to fire and risk civilian harm.

The program has also prompted renewed interest in how air defense will be waged in the future. Ukraine has faced persistent vulnerabilities—especially in intercepting swarms of drones—mandating rapid adaptation of defense technologies. In response, Fedorov has signaled openness to expanding the bonus framework to spur innovation in air-defense systems, including cheaper interceptor drones. He has described the effort as the creation of a new kind of defense network: a distributed, incentivized ecosystem able to scale as threats evolve. In his view, the metric is not only the number of enemy targets destroyed, but the efficiency of the defense architecture as a whole.

The broader context matters. Ukraine’s defense spending already allocates more than 30% of its GDP, a level that far exceeds most countries and reflects the war’s financial intensity. Meanwhile, Russia has pursued its own incentives for combat success, including cash payments to soldiers tied to battlefield results, a program that has drawn attention for its visibility and scale in official and state media reports. Kyiv’s approach, by contrast, relies on a mix of private fundraising and public–private partnerships that allow the state to stretch limited resources without surrendering oversight.

As the war drags toward its fourth year since Russia began its full-scale invasion, the Army of Drones program embodies a broader arc in which technology, gaming culture, and military strategy intersect. A drone developer involved in the work acknowledged that a future where pilots sit anywhere in the world and operate weapons remotely—perhaps without real-time awareness of whether they are engaging in a simulated scenario or a live front—remains a theoretical possibility. He described it as a thought experiment today, but not a current reality. Still, the questions raised by such ideas—accountability, error prevention, and the emotional toll of remote warfare—are already shaping how Ukraine designs and uses its technological edge.

The experience also hints at a more hopeful dimension: the potential to turn military challenge into a catalyst for innovation. Fedorov has framed the program as a means to accelerate the development of robust air-defense capabilities and to provide a feedback loop that aligns resources with battlefield results. If sustained, the initiative could influence how other militaries think about rapid procurement, performance-based incentives, and the ethics of drone warfare in the AI era.

Ultimately, the Army of Drones program reflects a grim but undeniable reality of modern conflict: the fastest, most scalable path to extraordinary capability may lie in blending digital incentives with frontline necessity, while asking hard questions about the human costs and responsibilities that come with giving machines greater discretion over life-and-death decisions.