KYIV, Ukraine — Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation has rolled out a strikingly novel battlefield tool: a gamified “Army of Drones Bonus System” that awards e-points to frontline units for confirmed kills and mission achievements.
Points can be redeemed on an online marketplace, Brave1, to buy drones, electronic-warfare kits, and other kits — a model officials say drives rapid innovation and resupply, but which critics warn risks desensitising combat and amplifying moral and operational risks.
Launched more than a year ago and expanded rapidly this year, the system features leaderboards, unit names such as “Achilles” and “Phoenix”, and video-verified scoring.
Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Mykhailo Fedorov, told the Guardian the scheme has gone “viral” in the armed forces: in September alone, drone teams competing under the bonus rules logged footage that Kyiv says relates to some 18,000 enemy casualties, and participating units rose from under 100 to more than 400.
Units upload strike video to validate claims; points are then converted into purchases on Brave1.
Proponents say the programme fixes practical problems. Facing procurement bottlenecks and funding shortfalls, commanders now have a transparent, near-real-time route to secure proven kit without lengthy centralised procurement.
The point system also generates rich battlefield data — which units attacked what, with which platforms, and with what result — allowing rapid peer learning and quicker adoption of effective tactics. “Thanks to the points, we’re actually starting to understand more about what’s happening in the battlefield,” Fedorov said.
But the incentives are controversial. Analysts and human-rights advocates warn that commodifying lethal outcomes risks eroding moral judgment and could incentivise risky targeting or misclassification of civilians. The programme has been adapted to reflect changing priorities — for instance, Kyiv doubled the points value for killing infantry when small Russian detachments became more common — a move critics say reveals how the system reduces complex human choices to a numeric reward.
“The more infantry you kill, the more drones you get to kill more infantry,” Fedorov acknowledged, describing the system’s grim logic.
Military commanders who operate the system reject the idea that it is mere “gaming.” Unit leaders say discipline, not joystick skill, determines success; they stress that the points do not override tactical priorities, and that the leaderboard drops away the moment a coordinated defence is required.
Still, NATO analysts and Western thinktanks caution against treating drone gamification as a template: sophisticated Russian air-defences and evolving countermeasures mean overreliance on unmanned systems could produce diminishing returns.
The programme’s expansion — now covering artillery confirmations, logistics using unmanned ground vehicles, and reconnaissance “Uber-targeting” workflows — shows how automation and data are remaking modern warfare.
Kyiv’s defenders argue the system is a pragmatic wartime innovation that accelerates learning and levels procurement playing fields. Opponents say it raises profound legal and ethical questions that the international community must examine as AI, autonomy, and incentive-driven procurement change how wars are prosecuted.
As the “Army of Drones” matures, Ukraine faces a stark trade-off: harnessing rapid technological adaptation that may save lives and blunt invasions, while guarding against the risk that algorithm-driven rewards dilute human responsibility for lethal force. The debate — technical, moral, and geopolitical — has only just begun.
