The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that drones and autonomous systems are changing the face of warfare at such a rapid pace that traditional military thinking risks being left behind, according to defence experts.
They cautioned that treating Ukraine’s experience as an isolated case would be a serious strategic mistake.
Air Marshal Edward Stringer, Retired, told MPs that the lessons of Ukraine go far beyond specific technologies, revealing a broader failure to adapt national defence strategies to the realities of modern conflict.
“The lessons of Ukraine have to be evaluated by an independent commission,” he said. “It cannot be left to the Ministry of Defence, because people are already cherry-picking lessons that support cherished programmes.”
Stringer emphasised that the conflict highlights the critical role of industry, logistics, and national mobilisation, not just frontline systems.
“This war is about the power of industry; it is about railways,” he explained. “We have drifted out of the habit of thinking about national mobilisation and resilience since 1989, and that intellectual rearmament is now overdue.”
When asked specifically about drones, Stringer dismissed the idea that Ukraine’s use of unmanned systems could be seen as exceptional.
“I am rather staggered that I still hear officers say, ‘we would not fight like the Ukrainians’”, he said. “That strikes me as complacent and rather arrogant.” He acknowledged that future conflicts would not exactly mirror Ukraine but stressed that the fundamental trends would continue.
“The future of warfare certainly involves a lot of what you’re seeing in Ukraine, adapted for future theatres,” Stringer told the committee, citing Israel’s recent operations as an example of how conventional forces are increasingly integrated with drones, cyber capabilities, and intelligence-led systems. “At the moment, I do not see that blend of thinking applied to the way we do force development,” he added.
Dr Keith Dear, CEO and founder of Cassi, warned that the pace of technological change, particularly in autonomy and artificial intelligence, is often underestimated.
“We started with people saying drones did not really matter,” he said. “Then suddenly they mattered, but only as an adjunct to crewed systems. That fundamentally misunderstands the rate of progress.”
Dear highlighted the accelerating capabilities of AI. “We have gone from agentic capabilities doubling every seven months to doubling every four months,” he told MPs. “In 2023, AI could do tasks taking humans 30 seconds. Last year, tasks that took humans an hour.
On current routes, by 2029 it could complete tasks that take a human a full working year.” He cautioned that assuming autonomy will have only a limited impact is increasingly risky. “Any assumption that autonomous systems will only have a limited impact by 2030 is a large bet against AI progress,” Dear said. “So far, everyone who has bet against that progress has been wrong.”
Sir Hew Strachan, Professor of International Relations at the University of St Andrews, urged that the focus should not be solely on drones but on the wider lessons from Ukraine.
“There is a tendency to say, ‘This is not how we would fight,'” he said. “Of course we would try to avoid a protracted war of attrition. But the real question is whether we could.”
Strachan noted that Ukraine’s experience exposes unresolved challenges around manpower, mobilisation, and economic endurance.
“Ukraine still has not got a fully effective system of conscription or a whole-of-society approach to mobilisation,” he said. “Economic warfare and industrial sustainability are as decisive as battlefield tactics.”
Yet, he acknowledged an area where Ukraine excelled. “They fought a brilliant information and propaganda war,” Strachan said. “Internationally and domestically, they prevented the kind of internal collapse many expected.”
