War 2026: how exports, institutions and people are shaping the future of Ukraine's defence industry – key takeaways from the Ukrainska Pravda conference

An international conference, "War 2026. Humans vs Machines", has been held in Kyiv, bringing together weapons manufacturers, military personnel, major businesses and Ukraine's partners to discuss a question central to this war: human or machine?

War in 2026 is technological. Unmanned systems are being scaled up, robotic platforms are being tested, the private sector is being integrated into state defence, logistics are being transformed, and the role of data is growing.

Yet the paradox of this technological revolution is that another question is becoming increasingly prominent: how important is the human factor – the will, discipline, motivation and moral choice of individuals – when the battlefield is saturated with algorithms, sensors and autonomous decision-making?

Technology will not replace strategy

The event was opened by Ukrainska Pravda editor-in-chief Sevğil Musaieva, who proposed a framework that sounded less like an optimistic technological forecast and more like a warning about a dangerous wartime temptation – believing that new weapons automatically guarantee an advantage.

"Over the years of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has created a new sector – the technological sector – that's developing at a pace that makes the rest of the world look at us like the laboratory of a new military reality. And this gives rise to a dangerous illusion: that technology alone can replace strategy. That the speed of an algorithm can compensate for the absence of policy. That a machine can take on responsibility.

It can't. Without long-term rules of the game, without protected manufacturers, without planning for human resources and without a mature state policy, no technology will create the advantage that will bring us closer to the victory we desire," Musaieva said in her opening remarks.

The war is entering a phase where the decisive factor is not only innovation, but also a country's institutional capacity to scale it up – through contracts, standards, predictable rules, protection for manufacturers and human resources, which are no less important than drone components.

The discussions centred around this idea.

Ukraine's lessons for NATO

Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, described Ukraine's experience as a unique case of rapid military adaptation to a new type of warfare. Its uniqueness lies in the situation where changes in tactics, technology and logistics are taking place not according to long-term plans, but literally at the pace of the front line.

"No other army in the world has done what Ukraine has done: you have adapted to the use of drones, to artillery shortages, to the introduction of fibre-optic technologies and new air defence systems. These are unique skills that no NATO army possesses," Clark said.

His remarks confirm that Ukraine's experience is no longer a peripheral "case of a country at war", but a source of knowledge that the Alliance must consider as it re-arms and rethinks its own doctrines.

Exports: an opportunity constrained by protectionism

The "Weapons Production and Protection of Manufacturers" panel focused on arms exports – both as an opportunity and as an area of risk.

Ukrainian technologies are attracting interest in Europe, but entering its defence markets is far from straightforward. The sector is shaped not only by market rules, but also by political decisions, lobbying and the protection of national manufacturers.

Olena Dushenok, Business Development Director at Skyfall, stressed that partners expect Ukraine to provide not just a product, but a full package – including training and integration.

"When we talk about exports, our partners don't just expect hardware – they expect a whole ecosystem. For us, this includes Skyfall Academy, support centres, training and the unique expertise gained over the years of the full-scale war. It's not enough just to assemble a drone in a laboratory; we offer a ready-made solution and operational experience," Dushenok said.

Stanislav Hrishyn, co-founder and Director of Strategic Development at General Cherry, noted that Western attitudes towards FPV drones are changing. They are no longer seen as a "cheap alternative", but as one of the most effective categories of weapon in modern warfare. But the path to the NATO market still runs through politics.

"In the West, there is strong lobbying – what we sometimes call corruption. They protect the interests of their own companies and want defence contracts to go to businesses owned by their citizens. There is now growing recognition globally that FPV drones are not weapons for the poor, but highly effective systems that all NATO countries should be paying attention to," Hrishyn said.

Oleksandr Yakovenko, founder of TAF Industries, expressed a similar view, but even more bluntly, arguing that "classic export" in the defence sector is almost a myth, as markets are structured to keep key funding within national economies.

"I'll be frank: I have never believed in the possibility of classic exports, where we simply manufacture drones here and sell them abroad. What we in Ukraine often call corruption has an official name in the West – lobbying. Western countries fiercely protect the interests of their own companies and beneficiaries. They want the main defence contracts to go to companies owned by their citizens," Yakovenko said.

Vladlen Nikitin, founder of Ukrainian Aerospace Technologies, added another dimension: global demand is not only for equipment, but for the concept of its use – Ukraine's "logic of war", shaped in real combat, which is itself becoming a valuable product.

"Western companies are trying to bring Ukrainian technologies into their own ecosystems not only for the hardware, but also for the knowledge of how to use it in modern warfare. Our advantage is real combat experience, which is currently unique," Nikitin said. "However, we must remember that the enemy is not standing still: Russia has significantly increased ammunition production – from four to seven million rounds per year – as well as missile and armoured vehicle output, and continues to supply equipment to Algeria and other countries despite sanctions."

This part of the discussion ultimately came down to a central dilemma: Ukraine already has both the product and the experience, but exports require more than contracts. They require a state strategy that protects both national and industrial interests – and prevents Ukraine's advantage from turning into mere technology transfer.

"Moving away from China": how the industry is seeking sovereignty

Another key panel, "Moving away from China", focused on the reality that technological warfare ultimately depends on manufacturing dependencies.

Despite Ukraine's progress in assembly and development, reliance on Chinese components remains systemic. This isn't so much about patriotic slogans as about supply chains and the ability to scale up production domestically.

Oleksii Babenko, director of the Vyriy drone company, described a pace of growth that would have seemed impossible just a year ago.

"A year ago we were celebrating the first thousand mass-produced FPV drones, and today the market situation is fundamentally different. Although there have been few changes at the global policy level, the industry itself has made a huge leap forward – everything is developing despite the circumstances, and this gives confidence that it will be Ukrainian drones that will be used in the future. There has also been progress in component production. A year ago, Ukrainian motor manufacturers such as MotorG were only considering pilot batches and looking for funding. Today they're producing tens or even hundreds of thousands of motors per month," Babenko said.

Yaroslav Azhniuk, co-founder of Odd Systems, acknowledged a critical dependence on China in the field of optics and outlined a pragmatic response: building a facility to manufacture sensors for thermal imaging cameras.

Human capital: the resource that can't be manufactured

Alongside the discussions of technology and contracts, the conference repeatedly returned to what remains irreplaceable in the war of 2026: people – their motivation, psychological resilience, management culture, and the way the state and business work with veterans.

During the "Human Capital" panel discussion, Liudmyla Novak, Communications Director at Interpipe, who oversees the company's corporate patronage service, spoke not about abstract "social responsibility", but about practical matters – how businesses stay in touch with employees who are serving in the defence forces, how they welcome veterans back, and why this work needs to start not when employees return, but from their first day of military service.

"We have a principle that a veteran's journey begins on the day of mobilisation," Novak said. "If it starts later, that person will not see you as their partner or employer. The period when a person is in the military is simply a temporary assignment. We know that person will come back. Staying in contact with mobilised employees helps us understand what's happening in their lives. Their requests are mostly to do with attacks, destruction, psychological support, or help with medical treatment for family members.

A total of 150 people have returned from military service to work with us. We are not afraid to employ veterans – we have a dedicated onboarding procedure and have developed tools that allow us to welcome them back in a sensitive and supportive way."

Hero of Ukraine Serhii Volynskyi framed the issue even more directly, describing veterans as a strategic national resource.

"People are the most valuable capital our country has, and both business and the armed forces must ensure they have high-quality personnel. A veteran is a major asset – disciplined and aware of their place and role, someone who values their reputation highly. I believe veterans will be the driving force of progress," Volynskyi said.

The final decision belongs to people

Borys Martynenko, founder of the 14th Regiment and now head of the 1st Separate Centre of the Unmanned Systems Forces, delivered a message that brought together the conference's key themes – exports, localisation, production and the defence economy.

"Behind all technologies, the most important element remains the human being. Technology can make us stronger, but the final decision always rests with people," Martynenko said. "We must not forget to invest in our people – fragile and vulnerable, sometimes afraid, but responsible for the future of an entire nation. In the end, the one who prevails is the one who preserves clear judgement, dignity and faith. At the centre of everything is the human being. And as long as people stand, Ukraine stands."

This is perhaps the most accurate definition of the war in 2026: yes, it has become technological; yes, it is measured in production, data and scalability – but its meaning and its limits are ultimately determined by people.

The general partners of the "War 2026. Humans vs Machines" conference were NAUDI, Skyfall, Interpipe, Metinvest Group, General Cherry and Vyriy. The event was also supported by UkrAviacosTech and TAF Industries.

Volodymyr Fomichov

Translated by Myroslava Zavadska

Edited by Anastasiia Kolesnykova

Reviewed by Teresa Pearce