Insights For Future Conflicts

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was the most violent seizure of sovereign European territory since World War II.

In the spring of 2025, CSIS military fellows worked with top resident defense experts to produce nonpolitical, actionable takeaways from the Russia-Ukraine War. Ukrainians, academics, industry leaders, and military professionals who have experienced and studied the war were brought together for this purpose.

Insights from this regional war have critical global relevance, as they will likely inform large-scale combat operations between great powers in the future.

PART I

Weapons of Modern Warfare

Existing weaponry, combined with rapid innovation, influenced the course of the war.

[ INSIGHT 1 ]

Combat Nuclear Threats Incrementally

Colonel Nathan Lewis, U.S. Air Force

Russia’s nuclear threats impacted both the speed and scale of Western military support to Ukraine.

Following the invasion in February 2022, Putin readied strategic Russian nuclear forces and threatened the use of nuclear weapons to defend its territory (including Ukrainian territory captured during the invasion). Within this context, Western nations methodically provided Ukraine with more advanced and long-range systems, one system at a time. For example, British Storm Shadow missiles were not employed until May 2023, while U.S. Army Tactical Missile Systems were not provided until October 2023. U.S.-made F-16 aircraft were supplied to Ukraine in August 2024. By some accounts, nuclear war was only avoided by stern warnings from the U.S. national security advisor and a message from President Biden.

The Russia-Ukraine War provides a successful model of how incremental military aid can keep warfare at the conventional, nonnuclear level. Incremental escalation—providing support and then pausing to gauge the Russian reaction before providing more advanced support—contributed to the absence of a nuclear detonation in this conflict.

[ INSIGHT 2 ]

Innovation Through Drones

Captain Quinton Packard, U.S. Navy

Innovation is about cycles. The speed at which adversaries complete cycles of gap detection, innovation, production, and testing impacts which side has a competitive advantage. The Russia-Ukraine War is a laboratory of such innovation and adaptation, especially in drones.

In the air, Ukraine’s use of cheap, expendable drones delivered precision weapons at scale. Costing several hundred to several thousand dollars each, Ukraine produced 1.5 million aerial drones in 2024, with a goal to triple that total in 2025. These drones provided surveillance and artillery adjustment, delivered kamikaze attacks on personnel and equipment, and even shot down other drones.

Ukraine, a state without a navy, denied sea terrain access to a great power. Unmanned surface vessels like the Magura V5 were a game changer in the Black Sea. Built from modified jet skis, the Magura V5 sank or damaged several Russian warships. These sea drones, along with Ukrainian-built cruise missiles, contributed to Kyiv’s ability to export its agricultural products after Russia withdrew from the Black Sea Grain Initiative in July 2023.

Russian forces matched Ukraine’s ingenuity on the battlefield. Their ability to adapt to new Ukrainian technology or tactics has improved remarkably since the war began and can now be measured in mere weeks. One example was their introduction of fiber-optic controlled drones, which circumvented Ukraine’s radio jamming advances while still matching their predecessors’ range and speed. As with most advancements in the war, this innovation was quickly adopted and subsequently improved by Ukraine.

Despite rapid advances, the use of unmanned sea and aerial drones today is still an evolution, not a revolution, of warfare. Judged through the lens of defense offset strategy, a revolutionary advance would gain and maintain a significant advantage over adversaries over long periods of time. While innovative, the technological advancements gained through iteration provided battlefield advantage measured in days or even hours before the opponent adapted, thus making it evolutionary.

Future warfare will feature innovations that adapt as technologies evolve. Encrypted AI software in drones allowed Ukraine to maintain a technological advantage, as a simple firmware upgrade could provide enhanced capabilities without the need for new hardware. Gaining advantages without updating hardware speeds the cycles of innovation.

[ INSIGHT 3 ]

Tanks Remain Relevant

Colonel Scott Pence, U.S. Army

Despite the countless videos of drones destroying tanks in Ukraine, Ukrainian military leaders are adamant that tanks remain crucial.

Tanks with infantry do what air power, indirect fires, and drones cannot do alone: seize and hold terrain. This is often the chief objective of land warfare. Ukrainian Army Lieutenant Colonel Volodymyr Dutko noted that his soldiers “ignore tanks at high risk.”

The skill of employment shapes the value of tanks. When Ukraine or Russia has committed tanks without infantry support, they became easy targets for drones and anti-tank weapons. During the 2024 invasion of Kursk, however, Ukrainian commanders used armored formations as part of a combined arms maneuver and held sovereign Russian territory for several months.

For future warfare, tanks provide what future tech needs most: power. The Russian “Turtle Tanks” demonstrate how future tanks could offer a mobile and survivable platform that supplies power for electronic attack, electronic protection, and drones. The tanks of the next war might contribute to success as a mobile protected supporter that is difficult to stop.

PART II

Capacity Enhancements

The Russia-Ukraine War has been a catalyst for warfare to test modern commercial technology and business practices.

[ INSIGHT 4 ]

Supplying the Fight at Speed

Captain Luke Slivinski, U.S. Coast Guard

The scale of artillery exchanges in this war has exposed global shortages in conventional munitions. Getting limited resources to the front lines has impacted battlefield performance. At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s state-owned defense agency, Ukroboronprom, was not able to deliver the equipment and supplies needed to effectively sustain military operations. War demands forced the rapid incorporation of foreign state and private industry equipment and technologies into the Ukrainian fight.

Evolving tactics on the front line have required quick changes to increasingly expendable and autonomous unmanned system designs. This necessitates rapid, large-scale production of cutting-edge technology.

To maintain a technological and logistical edge, Ukraine has disaggregated drone maintenance and refitting into agile workshops dispersed across the frontline and embedded unmanned system engineers and technicians there. This has enabled rapid acquisition based on feedback and requirements directly from warfighters.

The very short design, construction, combat testing, and hardware/software revision cycles of dynamic acquisition create a competitive edge. Authorizing these decisions at lower levels and with less oversight incurs accountability and program sustainment risks but is necessary to innovate at the speed of war.

[ INSIGHT 5 ]

Contested Logistics

Colonel Matthew Slusher, U.S. Air Force

Supplying the front lines is only possible if logistics systems are secure.

While Russia has been able to employ munitions from North Korea and drones from Iran, Ukraine has received support from the United States, Europe, and other nations. Transportation infrastructure, including railways, roads, and ports, is vulnerable to kinetic and cyber threats. Commercial providers’ willingness and capacity to operate in conflict zones has proved unpredictable. Cross-nationally, customs and hazardous materials transport regulations, along with infrastructure limitations, also has impeded supply between allies.

Traditional nodal concentration—large supply centers and transportation hubs—has proved vulnerable to long-range precision strikes. Ukraine’s cyber defense efforts, however, including a volunteer “Cyber Army,” have safeguarded logistics networks, while the rapid expansion of Ukraine’s “Army of Drones” has highlighted the potential of integrating commercial, military, and civilian innovation in wartime logistics.

Future success in contested environments will depend not only on moving supplies but on mastering data, defending networks, and leveraging innovation across all domains. Future military logistics must also adopt a strategy of disaggregation—distributing assets to avoid targeting while maintaining the capability to rapidly reaggregate at the point of need.

[ INSIGHT 6 ]

AI-Enabled Data Integration at Scale

Krista Auchenbach, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Ukraine has leveraged AI-enabled software and data platforms to enhance its decisionmaking speed for warfare and governance—leading to lessons for kinetic, non-kinetic, and governance operations. Whoever has data superiority will gain an advantage.

On the battlefield, a powerful trio of AI-enabled software, satellite communications, and overhead imagery analysis has enabled the Ukrainian military to efficiently target and deliver kinetic fires. Rapid adaptation of data analysis has enabled rapid evolution in battlefield decisions for warfighting and logistics sustainment.

State, society, industry, and military units can now be connected directly and at speeds and scales previously unimaginable. Ukraine has created data tools to share tactical data from citizens and military units that bypass traditional government hierarchies. These tools visualize logistics, kinetic fires, emergency response, and even the scope of war crimes.

Companies have used radar imagery and data from commercial satellites to help Ukrainian civilians find evacuation routes and map power grid damage for restoration without dangerous surveys. The Ukrainian application Diia’s digital identification and passport system has helped displaced Ukrainians cross borders when physical documents are inaccessible. The Ukrainian tech industry recognizes it possesses several key niche capabilities for future warfare and foresees export opportunities in the future.

The Russia-Ukraine War previews the future role of AI and data integration in warfare. Militaries gain advantages by creating a common platform for intelligence, operations, logistics, and planning functions; developing user-friendly systems to minimize training load; and granting authority to frontline forces to rapidly evolve tactics.

[ INSIGHT 7 ]

The Centrality of the Space Domain

Krista Auchenbach, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Near-real-time commercial space capabilities have enabled a new level of battlefield transparency that is forcing changes in tactics on the ground. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has seen unprecedented integration of dual-use commercial space capabilities in warfare. These technologies have enabled Ukraine to gain an asymmetric advantage against Russia—evolving from strategic intelligence resources to critical tactical enablers. As Giorgi Tskhakaia noted, every six months, a new “game-changer” technology is presented on the battlefield, requiring adaptation and countermeasures.

The new elements of space warfare also have led to cross-domain implications. Russia has struggled to integrate space operations effectively and has been unable to deny Ukraine’s satellite communications. The failure to achieve spectrum superiority also has hindered Russia’s network-centric warfare capabilities and underscored the importance of resilient communications and electronic warfare.

Meanwhile, the collaboration between Russia and China in space operations, including sharing commercial imagery, signals a growing challenge to U.S. space security. Over the last 30 years, U.S. space domain superiority has allowed the United States to reduce its army, navy, and air force significantly. If neither side can secure the space domain in future wars, we can anticipate attritional trench line warfare like the Russia-Ukraine War.

PART III

Timeless Realities of Warfare

Key elements of the Russia-Ukraine War remained consistent with historical conflicts and point to their continued relevance in future wars.

[ INSIGHT 8 ]

The Will to Fight Makes the Difference

Colonel Scott Pence, U.S. Army

Ukraine has persevered for over three years against a larger and more powerful adversary because of an outsized will to fight. When offered safe evacuation, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky replied, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”

The “will to fight” refers to the synthesis of psychological resilience, physical capability, and ideological conviction of a given side in conflict. While it is challenging to assess the will to fight before conflict, its effects have enormous repercussions on the course of warfare. Analysts underestimated the Ukrainian will to fight in 2022 and had been predicting rapid capitulation. Instead, Ukrainians have demonstrated profound psychological and ideological resilience, amplified by the reality of an existential threat to their homeland. The ability to sustain this will to fight depends on maintaining material support from the West and optimizing its few recruitable citizens.

Russian soldiers’ will to fight has suffered repeated blows throughout the war, rooted in the failure to secure what seemed like a quick, guaranteed victory. Despite generous recruiting incentives to families in Russia’s struggling economy, Russia has needed to secure prisoner labor and North Korean soldiers to bolster its meatgrinder assaults. In 2024, desertion and drug use in the Russian military reached unprecedented levels.

All things being equal, the side with a stronger will to fight will persevere and succeed. But all things are not equal in warfare. Ukraine’s will to fight has compensated for shortfalls but might not last forever.

[ INSIGHT 9 ]

Whole-of-Society Resiliency Creates a Competitive Advantage

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Murphy, U.S. Marine Corps

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine War highlights the competitive advantages possible by integrating women into combat and support roles. Women possess unique skills and networks in society that can drive innovation and mobilize resources.

Ukrainian women have been more active than Russian women in supporting and fighting the Russia-Ukraine War. As of 2023, more than 42,000 females were serving within the Ukrainian Army, compared with 1,100 Russian females on the front lines that same year. This disparity is shocking due to the demographic differences between the countries (Ukraine’s population is less than one-third of Russia’s) and because both militaries share a common Soviet heritage. During World War II, the Soviets gained a comparative advantage in population mobilization by integrating women into combat and support roles. This bolstered its population advantage against Nazi Germany, whose rigid ideology on gender roles precluded women in combat.

Ukraine has embraced innovative changes to body armor and uniforms to optimize protection, functionality, and dignity for women serving in the conflict.

Beyond serving as soldiers, Ukrainian women have contributed as humanitarian actors, community leaders, and providers for their families. Their effort contributes to a whole-of-society resilience that creates a deterrent effect.

Women in the armed forces and beyond enhance defense capability. For future warfare, nations that demonstrate a unified will to resist present a stronger deterrent against aggressors.

[ INSIGHT 10 ]

Soft Power Yields Tangible Results

Colonel Scott Pence, U.S. Army

Ukraine has attracted international goodwill as the underdog, appealing to a diverse array of donors. This goodwill has led to support in many forms, from weaponry from Western nations to volunteers at the grassroots level. In contrast, following the opening days of the invasion, the UN accused Russia of war crimes, and the International Criminal Court indicted six Russian officials for war crimes in Ukraine. This created a general international view of Russia as the villain in the conflict.

Western sanctions on Russia have limited the ability of Russia to sustain the war. Since 2023, Russia has expanded its outreach to China, Iran, and North Korea, trading unknown capabilities for additional war resources. Meanwhile, Ukraine has gained support due to a commonly held narrative that they are the victim of an invasion who refuses to give up. This has provided Ukraine with soft power. This dichotomy in the war narrative has resulted in Ukraine having additional options and Russia being constrained. The global equipment, money, and munitions support to Ukraine has enhanced its ability to fight.

In future warfare, the commonly understood story, supported by facts and events on the ground, will impact the amount of tangible support (or constraints) a side will receive from the international community. The way the United States is regarded by its allies and partners will influence the level of international commitment to future campaigns and impact the chances of success.

CONCLUSION

Insights from the Russia-Ukraine War are crucial lessons, but each war’s character differs based on the participants, along with their technology and political objectives.

Future conflicts will continue to be a contest of wills and skilled campaigners who use all tools at their disposal to achieve a relative and lasting advantage. Some of these insights can contribute to that advantage.

Scott Pence is a military fellow representing the U.S. Army in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Scott served on the Joint Staff as the Book Briefer to the Secretary of Defense, responsible for conveying global force management decisions.

Krista Auchenbach is a visiting fellow from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS. Previously, she was the Deputy Director of the Campaign Decision Support Team in OSD and the Division Chief for Strategic Assessments at Headquarters Air Force A5/7, where she provided strategic analysis to senior leaders.

Colonel Nathan “Smash” Lewis is a Department of the Air Force military fellow in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS. His former position was as the Chief of the Operations and Integration Division for the Joint Staff J-32 Deputy Directorate for ISR Operations at the Pentagon, where he led a 23-member team of multi-service officers, government civilians, and contractors to inform best military advice for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Murphy is the 2024–2025 Commandant of the Marine Corps fellow in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS. Scott commissioned into the Marine Corps in May 2005. After entry level and MOS training as an Armor officer, he reported to his first duty station in Twentynine Palms, California.

Quinton Packard is a military fellow representing the United States Navy in the Defense and Security Department at CSIS. He joins CSIS after serving as the Executive Assistant to the Chief of the Navy Reserve in the Pentagon. He is a naval aviator with over 3,000 flight hours in the CH-46E, HH-60H, and MH-60F airframes.

Luke Slivinski is a military fellow with the Defense and Security Department at CSIS. He is a captain in the U.S. Coast Guard specializing in afloat operations. He came to CSIS from the Coast Guard Headquarters Office of Cutter Forces, where he served as deputy office chief, overseeing policy, capabilities, and readiness of 240 cutters, and developed requirements for cutter acquisition programs totaling $25 billion.

Matthew Slusher is a military fellow with the Defense and Security Department at CSIS. Currently a colonel in the U.S. Air Force, Matthew provides significant strategic and real-world expertise to the program. Most recently he was the NATO Director for Ballistic Missile Defense, where he directed command and control over the BMD mission, management of resources, conduct of operations, and joint planning efforts.