The Secret Sauce in Ukraine Isn’t Drones—It’s Innovation at Speed
by Benjamin Cook
The “secret sauce” out of the war in Ukraine isn’t the importance of drones on the battlefield. It’s the fast-fail iteration leading to innovation.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, media coverage and military analysis alike have focused heavily on the role of drones—cheap, ubiquitous, and deadly. Kamikaze drones like the Iranian-made Shahed-136 and Ukraine’s own FPV platforms have altered battlefield dynamics, shifting reconnaissance, precision strikes, and attrition into the hands of small units. Yet for all the attention paid to the hardware, the deeper transformation—the one that should concern defense planners from Washington to Warsaw—is the underlying process of rapid battlefield innovation. It is this process, not any specific platform, that has given Ukraine its edge in a war against a much larger adversary.
Most nations at war seek innovation, but few are structured to achieve it at the speed Ukraine has demonstrated. Whether by accident or design, Ukraine developed a battlefield development model that prioritizes fast-fail learning. Ukrainian engineers, frontline operators, private manufacturers, and defense officials are engaged in an unprecedented feedback loop. A drone can go from concept to test to deployment—and then back into redesign based on frontline feedback—in a matter of weeks, sometimes days. In contrast, Western defense procurement systems are often locked into multi-year development cycles burdened by regulatory hurdles, fixed specifications, and rigid supply chains.
This feedback-driven ecosystem in Ukraine emerged under conditions of extreme necessity. With limited resources (a lack of 155 artillery shells) and a desperate need to survive, Ukrainian forces had little choice but to adopt an adaptive, bottom-up approach to technological advancement. Civilian hobbyists, garage tinkerers, and commercial drone builders were pulled into the war effort. Many of today’s most effective drone strike platforms in Ukraine were developed not by government contractors but by independent teams working in small shops and testing their designs in active war zones. The consequences were profound: the drones evolved faster, countermeasures adapted more swiftly, and solutions were built to real battlefield needs rather than congressional/parliamentary requirements.
In many cases, the frontlines became a live-fire R&D lab. If a drone’s targeting software failed, or if Russian jammers neutralized its navigation system, the design was modified almost immediately. New iterations were pushed to the field in quantities small enough to test but large enough to matter. Failures weren’t career-ending; they were expected. This mindset—embracing failure as a necessary part of the process—is largely absent from traditional military-industrial models.
Contrast this with the U.S. Department of Defense, where weapon systems can take a decade or more to go from requirement to fielding. These programs are designed to avoid failure at all costs—delaying risk until testing is complete, certifications are granted, and final approvals are in place. In this environment, the idea of rapidly deploying partially tested systems and collecting real-time feedback is almost heretical. Yet in Ukraine, it is the norm—and the results speak for themselves. Ukraine’s FPV drone development has exploded from crude line-of-sight systems in 2022 to coordinated multi-drone swarm attacks in 2024. President Zelensky recently stated that Ukraine now has the capacity to produce up to 8 million drones annually, although this level of production will require further investment to be fully realized.
This is not to say that the West should abandon all rigor or embrace improvisation as a strategy. But the key lesson is that innovation in wartime must be structured differently than innovation in peacetime. It must be decentralized, tolerant of failure, and integrated directly with frontline users. The U.S. and its allies have experimented with such models before—Special Operations Command has had limited success with “rapid equipping forces,” and DARPA has produced rapid prototypes in the past. But these remain the exception, not the rule.
The challenge ahead is cultural and structural. NATO militaries are built for large-scale operations, not agile iteration. Defense contractors are incentivized to deliver guaranteed outcomes, not to experiment and adapt quickly. Ukraine’s experience offers a potential blueprint—not for every program, but for the kinds of fast-moving threats that now define modern conflict: drones, jammers, countermeasures, autonomous systems, and the interplay between all of them.
To capture this “secret sauce,” the West will need to establish a more distributed model of defense innovation—one that encourages smaller firms, frontline testing, and short-cycle development. It will need to create funding streams and procurement pathways that reward adaptation rather than stability. And it will need to abandon the illusion that perfection is a prerequisite for fielding new technology. In the next war—one that could erupt with little warning and evolve rapidly—speed of adaptation may matter more than raw capability. Or the West risks being outpaced in an era where dictators willing to expend millions of lives trumps raw capability.
Watch for our forthcoming BattleLab feature next week, where we unpack how the next war won’t hinge on the biggest bombs—it will be won by the fastest learners. Ukraine’s model of frontline-driven, fast-fail innovation is the blueprint Western armies urgently need to adopt.
Benjamin Cook continues to travel to, often lives in, and works in Ukraine, a connection spanning more than 14 years. He holds an MA in International Security and Conflict Studies from Dublin City University and has consulted with journalists and intelligence professionals on AI in drones, U.S. military technology, and open-source intelligence (OSINT) related to the war in Ukraine. He is co-founder of the nonprofit UAO, working in southern Ukraine. You can find Mr. Cook between Odesa, Ukraine; Charleston, South Carolina; and Tucson, Arizona.
Hate Subscriptions? Me too! You can support me with a one time contribution to my research at Buy Me a Coffee. https://buymeacoffee.com/researchukraine
Mr. Cook’s Substack:
Bibliography
● Kyiv Independent. “Ukraine Can Produce 8 Million Drones Annually, Needs Investments, Zelensky Says.” June 2025. https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-can-produce-8-million-drones-annually-needs-investments-zelensky-says06-2025/
● Reuters. “Ukraine Sharply to Raise Purchases of Home-Produced FPV Drones in 2025.” March 2025. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraine-sharply-raise-purchases-home-produced-fpv-drones-2025-2025-03-10/
● CSIS. “Innovation and Adaptation in Ukraine’s Drone War.” March 2024.
● RUSI. “Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine.” November 2022.
● U.S. Department of Defense. 2023 National Defense Industrial Strategy. January 2023.
It's an old rule in nature: not the strongest will survive, but the one who better adapts to the environment
Any hierarchical organisation will tend over time to rigidity and procedures, such that these become its over-arching raison d'être. But wartime, as Vadim points out, produces explosive and revolutionary changes, usually in spite of the prevailing military ethos. Certainly in WWII Churchill went out on a limb to encourage 'out-of-the-box' thinking, bypassing established military command structures.
Whether western nations still possess the necessary industrial wherewithal to exploit these opportunities is a moot point; my own view is that 'our' leaders have either been complicit with the Russian bandit regime or simply complacent, so continue largely to push the problem as far down the road as they can while blowing hot air in the usual orifices.
I believe the phrase 'zombie idiots' has been trade-marked by Tom..?