John Rendon is CEO and President of the Rendon Group, a global strategic communications firm. He formerly served as an executive consultant to the White House and the Pentagon, as well as Executive Director and Political Director of the Democratic Party in the United States. 
 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has proven to be a watershed moment in twenty-first-century military affairs. Far from a swift campaign, the war has become a crucible of innovation, resilience, and hybrid warfare. It has reshaped the concept of the battlefield and expanded the battlespace beyond traditional domains. This article examines how the conflict has changed the character of warfare, identifies five critical lessons, and offers five forward-looking recommendations. As states prepare for future conflict in a more transparent, contested, and multi-domain environment, Ukraine’s experiences offer invaluable insights into military transformation.

 

This paper starts with a story. In the fall of 2019, while attending a global conference, I led a workshop on the future of warfare, in which one young man asked a seasoned senior military officer this question: “for the cost of one F35, I can send 20,000 drones across the border, how are you going to deal with that?”

A military surveillance officer working on a city tracking operation | Source: Shutterstock
 

Military conflicts have long served as laboratories for innovation and doctrinal evolution. The Ukraine War, now well in its fourth year, is no exception. When Russian forces invaded Ukrainian territory in February 2022, many expected a rapid decapitation campaign culminating in Kyiv’s fall. Instead, Ukraine mounted a resolute, multifaceted defense that not only stalled Russian advances but leveraged both conventional and irregular warfare capabilities to strategic effect.

 

What distinguishes the Ukraine War from other post-Cold War conflicts is the convergence of legacy military systems with emerging technologies in a high-intensity conventional setting. The conflict has tested long-held assumptions about maneuver warfare, logistics, air dominance, and deterrence, while showcasing the operational utility of civilian technologies, asymmetric tactics, and mass mobilization. It has also underscored the increasingly important role of having the “will” to fight through public opinion, strategic communication, and international coalitions to mitigate threats, leverage opportunities, and shape the outcome of combat.

 

This article explores how the Ukraine War has redefined the battlefield and battlespace, outlines five critical lessons with enduring relevance, and provides five strategic recommendations for future military planners and national security institutions.

 

Redefining the Battlefield and Battlespace

Historically, conventional warfare assumed spatially contiguous frontlines and relatively secure rear areas. The Ukraine War has obliterated this construct. With the widespread use of long-range precision fires, one-way drones, and deep-penetration sabotage, virtually every part of the country has become a potential battlespace. Ukrainian strikes on Crimea (and on Russian elements in Africa) and Russian attacks on Lviv—both far from the Donbas front—demonstrate the erosion of traditional depth.

 

Moreover, urban and rural areas are both contested, with no sanctuary for civilians or logistics. This transformation requires militaries to think in terms of battlespaces without borders, where operational depth is fluid and constantly contested.

 

While hybrid warfare is not new, its scale and integration in Ukraine are unprecedented. Russia has employed cyberattacks on infrastructure, disinformation campaigns aimed at domestic and foreign audiences, applied “active measures,” psychological operations, and weaponized energy and migration. Simultaneously, Ukraine’s strategic communication has successfully mobilized global public support and sustained political will among allies and their own people.

 

Hybrid warfare in Ukraine functions not as an adjunct to kinetic action but as a coequal element. The battle is fought as much in the minds of global publics as it is on the ground, exemplifying the modern principle that “war begins long before the first shot is fired.”

 

Commercial technologies—such as civilian drones, mesh-network radios, and satellite-based internet—have transformed tactical warfare. Ukrainian forces have repurposed off-the-shelf drones for real-time ISR, target marking, and even explosive delivery. Starlink terminals provided redundant, mobile internet access, ensuring continuity of command under heavy electronic warfare. Innovation and creativity are no longer the sole province of research laboratories, like DARPA, among others. Innovation is happening in warehouses and garages, not just laboratories.

 

These tools not only reduce the cost of entry for non-state and irregular actors, but also empower small units to operate with near-strategic impact. The democratization of these capabilities signifies a paradigm shift in force generation and battlefield advantage.

 

The availability and utility of open-source intelligence (OSINT) has grown exponentially. From geolocated TikTok videos to commercial satellite imagery, independent analysts have monitored troop movements and conducted battle damage assessments in near real-time. Ukraine has capitalized on this transparency to both shape global narratives and inform its own operations.

This development means strategic surprise is increasingly difficult to achieve. Militaries must now plan under the assumption that their movements may be immediately visible to adversaries, allies, and the public alike. This near ubiquitous transparency presents both threats and opportunities.

 

Despite its modern overlay, the Ukraine conflict has in many ways reverted to industrial warfare: heavy artillery barrages, trench systems, and massed formations. Yet these are now overlaid with twenty-first-century technologies—drone reconnaissance, precision fires, and real-time data feeds. 

 

Rather than obsolete, for the time being, legacy systems have found new life when paired with digital enablers. This suggests that near future war will not be dominated solely by high-tech weapons or fully networked forces; rather, it will be shaped by how legacy and modern systems are integrated in creative, resilient and effective ways.

 

Ukrainian analysts have shared that a tank in the battlefield (American M1A1 Abrams, German Leopard 2 or the Russian Proryv-3) has a life of three and a half minutes on average.

 

Lessons from the Ukraine War

Ukraine’s ability to dominate the global information environment has yielded concrete strategic benefits: military aid, sanctions against Russia, and persistent moral legitimacy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s direct appeals to foreign parliaments and populations via video have been as impactful as battlefield victories.

 

Strategic communications are no longer merely political tools—they are operational assets that shape international alignment, coalition durability, and adversary calculations.

 

Unmanned aerial systems have redefined battlefield tempo. Turkish Bayraktar TB2s delivered significant early successes against Russian columns, while small quadcopters have provided persistent surveillance and close support. Both sides have developed counter-drone tactics, but the overall lesson remains: air superiority now requires dominance across manned and unmanned systems.

 

Moreover, drone warfare is not limited to nation states. Non-state actors are likely to adopt similar tactics, creating complex airspace environments that challenge traditional air defense.

 

Russia’s early logistical failures—long, exposed convoys, poor fuel planning, and inflexible supply chains—crippled its maneuver options. In contrast, Ukraine adopted a flexible, decentralized approach, augmented by civilian supply networks and Western coordination.

 

Sustainment now must be designed to operate under fire, across contested terrain, and through hybrid interference. This requires doctrinal changes and investment in mobile, redundant, and adaptive logistics systems.

 

Russian cyberattacks disrupted Ukrainian banking and energy systems early in the war but failed to cripple national command and control. Ukraine’s defenses were bolstered by collaboration with global tech firms, illustrating the strategic value of public-private partnerships.

 

Electronic warfare (EW) has also played a key role. Russia’s advanced EW systems have downed drones and jammed GPS, forcing Ukrainian forces to innovate with low-tech solutions and countermeasures.

 

The lesson: cyber and EW are most effective when integrated with conventional operations and supported by agile defense and commercial capabilities.

 

Ukrainian forces have repeatedly outperformed expectations despite disparities in equipment and manpower. This is attributable to high morale, cohesive national identity, decentralized initiative, and continuous adaptation. NATO training and doctrine—particularly in mission command—enabled junior leaders to act with autonomy and initiative.

 

In contrast, Russian units often displayed low morale, poor unit cohesion, and rigid hierarchies, leading to tactical stagnation.

 

Future militaries must prioritize human capital—not just equipment—to ensure operational effectiveness in dynamic environments.

 

Further, the world (including Beijing) has witnessed, but Moscow has not learned, the corrosive effect corruption has on capability.

 

Strategic Recommendations for Future Combatants

Noting that we continue to spend time figuring out what’s next before what’s next is next, we live in the adjacent possible. Thus, these are only five of many recommendations based on the choices and challenges with which future commanders will be confronted.

 

The future battlespace will be congested, contested, and degraded. Command and control systems must be designed for resilience under cyberattack, EW interference, and kinetic targeting. This means building layered, distributed communications that can operate even when primary systems fail.

 

Investments in low earth orbit and very low earth orbit satellite constellations, mesh networks, and encrypted digital radios are essential for maintaining battlefield awareness and control.

 

Training pipelines must evolve to include cyber operations, space-based ISR, narrative warfare, and electronic combat as core disciplines. Multi-domain operations should be practiced in joint, interagency, and multinational exercises.

 

The operational commander of the future must understand how effects in one domain cascade across others—and how to coordinate disparate capabilities in time and space.

 

Rigid command hierarchies are ill-suited to fast-moving, data-saturated conflicts. Tactical units must be trained and culturally empowered to act autonomously within a commander’s intent.

 

This requires changes in doctrine, leadership development, and institutional incentives. Militaries should adopt a culture that rewards initiative, experimentation, failure and mission-oriented leadership.

 

Civilian infrastructure is now a primary target and a critical vulnerability. Governments must integrate civil defense into national security strategies, including stockpiling, hardening, and mobilizing civilian logistics and medical systems. Total defense models—such as those used in the Baltics—offer a template for involving civil society, private industry, and local governance in defense planning.

 

Information dominance is now a prerequisite for operational success. Countries must invest in strategic communications capabilities—spanning public affairs, psychological operations, irregular warfare, deception, and digital engagement—as a doctrinal priority. This will require militaries to identify, recruit, train, and deploy strategic communicators, not have the next person available conduct strategic communications.

 

Narrative planning should begin in peacetime and integrate with operational planning at all echelons.

 

Turning Point

The Ukraine War has marked a turning point in the character of warfare. It has revealed that modern conflict is not neatly bound by geography, nor limited to armed confrontation. Instead, it is fought across multiple domains and concepts of time, enabled by ubiquitous technology, and shaped by the perceptions of local, regional and global audiences.

 

Militaries that thrive in this environment will be those that embrace decentralization, empower their people, and adapt faster than their adversaries. Ukraine’s resilience has been rooted in these qualities. As other states prepare for future conflict—whether against peer adversaries or asymmetric threats—the lessons of Ukraine must inform doctrine, investment, and institutional design.

 

The battlefield of the future will be open, adaptive, and multi-dimensional. Preparing for it starts now. Long before the first shot is ever fired.

 

Almost six years later the young man at the global conference has had his question answered. The question for today is: “will these lessons be learned or merely observed,” as they always have been.

Back to Table of Contents