The Future Of Ukraine’s Drone Democracy

The Future of Ukraine’s Drone Democracy

Transforming the Military Has Changed the War—and Upended Politics

Nataliya Gumenyuk

August 26, 2026

• More by Nataliya Gumenyuk

&
Download

Print Subscribe to unlock this feature or Sign in.

Sign in and to read later

Close

Article link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/future-ukraines-drone-democracyhttps://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/future-ukraines-drone-democracy

Copy

On August 19, the Ukrainian parliament voted overwhelmingly to confirm Ukraine’s new defense minister, ending weeks of uncertainty at a crucial phase of the war. For more than a month, Ukrainians had taken to the streets of Kyiv and other cities to protest President Volodymyr Zelensky’s firing of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov. His successor, Yevhenii Khmara, is a special operations officer, best known for leading Operation Spider’s Web, the successful attack on Russian strategic bombers deep inside Russia.

But the political fallout from this summer’s upheaval is not over. The removal of Fedorov, whom many Ukrainians considered highly effective, set off a series of decisions by Zelensky to reshuffle the cabinet, and more consequentially, the heads of military and law enforcement agencies. Shortly after dismissing his defense minister, Zelensky sought to quell the public backlash by also firing Oleksandr Syrsky, the unpopular commander of the armed forces. As a result, the president was simultaneously replacing the two figures—the defense minister and the head of the military—officially responsible for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. That this was happening at the very moment Ukraine was gaining the advantage on the battlefield has made the changes all the more fraught.

For one thing, the large-scale protests themselves mark a new stage in Zelensky’s relationship to the electorate. Unany previous protests since the full-scale invasion, Ukrainians directly challenged the president’s handling of the war, introducing a dynamic that is unly to go away. Perhaps even more consequential, on the eve of the parliament’s vote on Fedorov’s successor, Fedorov released a controversial video address in which he declared that Ukraine needed a “system reboot” and called for wartime elections—the first time that not merely a prominent Ukrainian figure but a member of Zelensky’s inner circle and one of his former closest allies had done so. Until now, most Ukrainians have dismissed the prospect, since elections cannot be held while the country is under martial law. 

Amid these developments, something else has become increasingly clear: one of the unforeseen consequences of Ukraine’s transition to drone-centered warfare has been the expansion of civil society in new ways. The embrace of a decentralized, technology-driven defense strategy has required new forms of co-operation between military and civilians, giving far more people a stake in matters of national security and military strategy. And that has created a new reality for the country’s leadership.

A DIFFERENT WAR

A crucial factor driving the events of this summer is the evolution of the military confrontation with Russia into a drone war. This reality, which began to take hold in 2024, has accelerated Ukraine’s transition from foreign-supplied to domestically produced weapons: some 95 percent of drones are now assembled inside the country.Moreover,although Ukraine remains heavily reliant on its scarce supply of American interceptors to defend against ballistic missile attacks, it is far less dependent on foreign systems and intelligence than it was at the start of the war. The shift to a drone-centered battlespace has fundamentally altered combat tactics, the expertise required of soldiers, and the way arms are purchased. It has also rendered some kinds of legacy systems, such as armored vehicles and short-range artillery, increasingly obsolete.

Yet it is not the drones themselves that have made the shift so dramatic. To exploit the full potential of unmanned warfare, Ukraine has adopted an integrated digital architecture linking unmanned platforms with situational inputs and intelligence. It has also pursued an unprecedented level of digital coordination, as well as decentralized production and procurement of weapons and of digital technologies themselves. Fedorov was one of the key architects behind the deployment of this drone infrastructure. Unmany other officials or military leaders, he not only possessed an acute understanding of the battlefield, the weapons deployed in it, and the data streaming from it, but he also had the ability to build, coordinate, and continually upgrade a comprehensive digital system to manage it.

Although he served as defense minister for only six months, Fedorov had driven this shift as the head of the Ministry of Digital Transformation, a government agency he created in 2019 and ran until 2026. Drawing on a team of specialists, the agency had set out to replace traditional bureaucratic procedures across government with more efficient digital platforms; a secondary goal was reducing corruption. After Russia’s full-scale invasion, Fedorov’s team became a driving force within the government for Ukraine’s drone program. Since the acquisition of drones initially fell outside of formal procurement, the agency was able to largely run the process through its own “Drone Line” initiative. At the same time, it began building a new digital infrastructure to manage drone warfare.

Some of these capabilities, such as Delta—a cloud-based system for managing the entire battlefield—had been designed earlier by volunteer-led civic initiatives. But the Ministry of Digital Transformation gave them crucial government support. It also introduced rewards for army units that successfully deployed drones and, later, for those operating unmanned maritime systems and ground robots, as well. Some military analysts worry that these kinds of incentives risk “gamifying” the war, or that they oversimplify operational realities. Yet by providing continuous feedback, the programs provide valuable real-time battlefield intelligence, as well as sophisticated data sets for assessing the performance of weapons and units.

Fedorov’s team, relying for a time on Zelensky’s backing, pushed for new policies and funding mechanisms to accelerate the military’s digital transformation. It also set out to streamline the military bureaucracy and bring greater transparency to wartime procurement, which has been highly vulnerable to corruption. Over 900 Ukrainian companies now produce thousands of drone models and components. To manage this huge and fragmented sector, the ministry introduced new systems to coordinate logistics, certification, and deployment.

Overall, these changes have been significant. Step by step, drones have allowed Ukraine’s armed forces to acquire or sustain capabilities that have traditionally come from missiles and airpower. In 2025, Ukraine had reached parity in the air domain with Russia along the frontline; by 2026, Ukrainian drones and missiles were also able to reach Russian command-and-control centers, cut off logistics, and prevent some Russian assaults. Although Moscow can still outcompete on resources, using oil revenues and vast state spending to finance its aggression, Ukraine’s new digital architecture has enabled it to do more with less, multiplying the effect of particular weapons by connecting sensors, operators, and strike platforms into a unified system.

NEW WEAPONS, OLD WAYS

Despite their undeniable value, these innovations have often come from outside Ukraine’s military establishment, and sometimes in opposition to it. Overshadowed by the large number of civilian recruits after 2022 is the fact that the Ukrainian army began the war staffed by professional soldiers, with inherited doctrines and lines of command. Although the military established the Unmanned Systems Forces as a separate branch in 2024, its traditional mechanized, infantry, and armored brigades still bore the brunt of the fighting while integrating drones at their own pace. And as with any large national armed forces, the existing hierarchy has resisted wholesale change. Many commanders have embraced drones as weapons—just as they would tanks or guns—yet without fully understanding the structural changes needed to make them effective.

Similarly, Ukraine’s established defense industry, which has long counted on existing relationships and contracts, has also resisted the overhaul. Until recently, drone contracting has remained a comparatively small sector. Even though it involves hundreds of millions of dollars, expensive traditional capabilities such as artillery and other conventional weapons systems continue to consume most of Ukraine’s defense budget. Over the past year, however, the balance has shifted: the military’s procurement priorities and the financial interests surrounding them have begun to adjust to drone-centered warfare. And that has created new forms of pushback.

Almost from the beginning of his tenure as defense minister, Fedorov and his team were targeted by smear campaigns on anonymous Telegram channels. These have linked him to various military scandals and alleged corruption in the drone industry. Fedorov blames the attacks on entrenched interests—defense contractors and powerful insiders—who were threatened by the shift in war priorities.As one example, he has cited his successful efforts to reduce the price of a procurement deal for short-range artillery that was becoming obsolete, given the expanding kill zones. He also said that Zelensky had received persistent complaints that the digital reformers were breaking a functioning system and disrupting the delivery of essential equipment to frontline troops.

At the same time, as large amounts of funding, especially from Ukraine’s international partners, have been directed at drone technology,established defense contractors and well-connected political actors have sought to gain a piece of the pie.They are now moving aggressively to compete with drone startups on drone contracts. Taken together, these tensions brought pressure on Zelensky to move more slowly on the military transformation—which Fedorov had been pushing to accelerate. But the president had failed to understand just how much the public had become invested in Ukraine’s new way of war, and the remarkable results it had begun to achieve.

PRESSURE FROM BELOW

By the spring of 2026, if defense contractors had misgivings about Fedorov, the Ukrainian public had become increasingly dissatisfied with Syrsky, Ukraine’s commander in chief. Syrsky had notched several strategic victories, including the battle for Kyiv and the liberation of the Kharkiv regionduring the first year of the all-out war. He had also embraced drone warfare, expanding drone procurement and battlefield integration, although that was part of the army’s broader evolution. Yet many soldiers saw him as a commander who emphasized discipline and was prepared to sacrifice lives when he considered it necessary to achieve a military objective.

Within the military, Syrsky had long taken pride in staying close to the frontlines, sometimes to the point of micromanaging the battlefield. But there was also a growing sense among officers and soldiers that he was beginning to value personal loyalty within the command structure above military effectiveness. He had a tendency to sideline talented younger officers and to use his control over promotions and resources to consolidate his own influence. According to some soldiers and officers, these habits risked undermining battlefield readiness, including on the most critical sectors of the front.

Then, in June, Ukrainian journalists published a bombshell investigation uncovering horrific allegations of abuse in an assault regiment—a unit that had been given privileged support by Syrsky. The revelations included evidence of violence and unlawful killings within the unit. Although a formal military investigation ed, public criticism remained intense and serving military personnel spoke out. Many laid the blame on Syrsky personally for allowing this to happen.

It was after this scandal that Zelensky made the ill-timed decision to fire Fedorov. In the eyes of many Ukrainians, the president was siding with those who opposed reforms. Almost immediately, thousands of people took to the streets of Kyiv and other cities. To contain the public outcry, Zelensky then moved quickly to fire Syrsky and install Major General Mykhailo Drapatyi as his replacement, a choice that was broadly welcomed. Drapatyi, 43, had entered the military in 2014 as a battalion commander and risen through the ranks, while taking part in many defining battles. He is known for embracing new approaches, including the digital battlefield promoted by Fedorov, supporting promising officers, challenging army leaders when necessary, and championing operations that minimize casualties—a priority that Ukrainians value.

Meanwhile, Zelensky named Khmara to replace Fedorov. Since 2011, Khmara—in his late 30s or early 40s—had served in Alpha, the Security Service of Ukraine’s special forces unit, and was considered to have an unblemished record. (He had to leave active military service and formally become a civilian before assuming the post, which by law must be held by a civilian.) Yet Zelensky’s moves failed to resolve the underlying tension between the Defense Ministry and the military’s General Staff. By law, the defense minister is supposed to nominate the commander in chief to the president. But this time, Zelensky once again effectively selected the commander himself, creating a situation in which the General Staff continues to see that it answers to the president, not to the defense minister.

LOST MOMENTUM?

A larger question is how this political upheaval will affect the war. Fedorov was fired just as the reforms he had been advocating for were helping Ukraine turn the tide against Russia. By spring 2026, Ukrainian long-range drone strikes were beginning to erode one of Russia’s greatest strategic advantages: its oil sector. Kyiv also continued to disrupt Russian logistics in the south, particularly in Crimea, while also attacking oil refineries across the European part of Russia, including Moscow and Saint Petersburg. But many wonder whether Fedorov’s dismissal will slow that progress.

In Russia, pro-war commentators openly celebrated Zelensky’s decision, viewing it as a rejection of one of the main architects of Ukraine’s military modernization. Hours after his dismissal, representatives of several foreign governments and international technology firms, including the Italian minister of defense and Palantir’s CEO, Alex Karp, offered him positions, which he declined. Zelensky has also offered him several alternative roles in Kyiv, but Fedorov has refused them all because they came with limited decision-making power. Still, he seems almost certain to gain an important place within the government or defense sector sooner or later.

Despite Zelensky’s appointment of innovation-minded leaders to replace Fedorov and Syrsky, the future of Ukraine’s digital war ecosystem remains uncertain. UnKhmara, who takes office without an established cadre, Fedorov brought to the defense ministry the team he had already built at the Ministry of Digital Transformation. Although only a few of the digitization specialists Fedorov brought to the Defense Ministry have left so far, many more may be pushed out. By calling for elections, Fedorov signaled a move into opposition, raising questions about whether his relationship with Zelensky would deteriorate—and what this would mean for close associates still holding official posts.

By design, Ukraine’s digital battlefield infrastructure has the capacity to rapidly evolve in response to changing combat demands. The system can function without Fedorov or his team, but it remains unclear whether it can maintain the pace of evolution needed to stay ahead of Russia. The immediate risk is lost momentum.

DEMOCRACY IN THE BALANCE

The democratic culture that took hold in Ukraine in 2014 and drove the protests this summer continues to be one of the country’s greatest military strengths. Many of Ukraine’s most important military adaptations have come from below—from individual soldiers and commanders but also from civilian entrepreneurs. Hundreds of private initiatives have advanced technologies, software, manufacturing, and logistics in ways that have dramatically improved the way Ukraine fights. Too many military units, entrepreneurs, engineers, and civic activists are now invested in this ecosystem for a single political decision to dismantle it. But the disruption could affect Ukraine’s ability to iterate new advances on the battlefield—at a moment when the overall dynamic of the war hangs in the balance.

For Zelensky, the political damage of his decisions this summer cannot be undone. Ukrainians have largely remained united behind the president in the face of external pressure, including after Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. Nonetheless, he has shown more than once that he is out of step with ordinary Ukrainians. Already a year ago, his effort to restrict the role of Ukraine’s anticorruption authorities provoked major protests and significantly diminished confidence in his leadership. Now, his decision to fire Fedorov has only reinforced that perception.

Until this summer, Fedorov had avoided attention, presenting himself as a manager, not a politician. Yet Zelensky’s abrupt decision to dismiss him—for reasons the public still does not understand—made Fedorov one of Ukraine’s most popular figures almost overnight. Now, Fedorov’s call for elections has significantly raised the stakes. In his video address, Fedorov—without mentioning names—again spoke about powerful vested interests that have meddled in government and defense and resisted the changes Ukraine needs to maintain its military advantage. He also asserted that, with no end to the war in sight, Ukraine needs a broader debate about political accountability and decision-making. Clarifying his initially vague but surprising address, the former minister pledged to outline the technical and security logistics of wartime voting—specifically for soldiers, refugees, and frontline residents—to enable a realistic debate on holding elections.

Under martial law, elections are barred. Until now, only external powers—Russia or the United States—had questioned Ukraine’s political legitimacy without elections. Most Ukrainians deemed wartime voting dangerous and impractical, fearing that staging elections would simply divert attention, funds, and effort from the front. But Zelensky is in his seventh year as president, under a constitution that permits two consecutive five-year terms. Having made consequential, unpopular decisions, he has increasingly given the sense that he has stopped reading the country’s mood. Fedorov’s announcement may not precipitate an immediate change, but it has started a debate that could play out in the coming months and years.

Until now, when it came to the question of holding elections, it had seemed that Ukraine would know when the moment arrived: at some point, in an active, outspoken society, even during war, Ukrainians themselves would demand democratic accountability. This does not mean that Fedorov will automatically gain popularity if he decides to run. His call for wartime voting has alienated some public figures and politicians who backed him as defense minister. They see his intervention now as less a push for accountability than an open political challenge to Zelensky—one that risks draining attention from the reforms that Fedorov had previously championed. With the war ly to continue for the foreseeable future, the urgent question facing the country now is to what degree the people should be given a direct say in the war’s course: how it fights, by what means, according to what strategy, and with what broader vision for its defense.

The rise of drone warfare has made military strategy more inclusive, giving a wider range of people—from civil society representatives and tech innovators to members of frontline military units—the expertise and leverage to shape it. That means, on a popular level, more engagement in the war than ever. But for the country’s leaders, it has also created a powerful new set of voices to be reckoned with and be held accountable to—ones that, in the future, may well demand an even greater say.

Loading…
Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

You are reading a free article

Subscribe to Foreign Affairs to get unlimited access.

• Paywall-free reading of new articles and over a century of archives
• Six issues a year in print and online, plus audio articles
• Unlock access to the Foreign Affairs app for reading on the go

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Sign In