80% results, 2% funding: the most important equation of the war

Speech by Kateryna Mykhalko, Managing Director of New Age Defence, at the official opening of the international defence conference New Age Defence in Berlin on June 8, 2026.

The event brought together representatives of the defence industry, military personnel from Ukraine and Germany, government officials, and investors from across Europe.

Last night I bought a Nokia 3310 at MediaMarkt here in Berlin. It cost me 46 euros. You can make calls on it. You can send messages. The battery lasts almost a week.

And this device, the iPhone — you all know perfectly well what it can do. So here is a simple question. When was the last time you trusted your future to this?

This story is not about phones.

Ladies and gentlemen — in one important sense we have already won. Not the war. The argument. Let me be precise about what I mean. I am not talking about the outcome of the war. I am talking about something else — the uncomfortable thing for some people in this room.

The debate about whether autonomous systems, drones, and new military technologies can compete with traditional platforms — tanks, artillery, aircraft, and ships that have defined military doctrine for decades — is already over.

It was not settled in a think tank, or a procurement committee, or on a conference stage. It was settled on the frontline in eastern Ukraine, in the skies above Kyiv, in the waters of the Black Sea.

The verdict has already been delivered. And we are not here today to argue it. We are here to talk about the gap — the undeniable gap — between that verdict and the budgets that are supposed to reflect it.

According to official Ukrainian military data, more than 80% of enemy targets destroyed on the battlefield are taken out by drones and autonomous systems. Not by tanks. Not by artillery alone. By the systems many people once dismissed as "toys."

And now another number: 2 percent. That is roughly the share of European defence budgets currently allocated to the new generation of military technology. The technology delivering 80% of battlefield results receives only 2% of the funding. The systems responsible for the remaining 20% receive 98% of the resources.

Why don't you put all your money into Nokia today?

I am not here to tell you this is unjust. I am here to tell you it is unrealistic. It does not correspond to the world as it actually exists. And a defence posture built on an unrealistic budget is not a defence posture at all. It is a vulnerability.

But before I address the counterargument I always hear — let me invite you to run a very simple test.

Ask yourself: if you had a spare one million euros of your own money to invest today — not a government allocation, not someone else's capital, but your own — would you put it into conventional military platforms? Or into the NEW AGE technologies we are here to discuss?

I am not asking you to raise your hands. But I think you know your answer. And I think that answer says everything about the gap I have just described.

I know your counterarguments. I have heard them many times, often from very smart and influential people.

"Ukraine is a poor country. You were forced to improvise. Your drone tactics are a workaround, not a doctrine. We have resources. We build real things. Are drones even a real military capability?"

Let me answer with another question.

Russia has all resources to invest in costly tanks, missiles and aircraft, they have more than enough financial resources to wage this war. Why is this petro-state investing in drones? With every passing month, the aggressor is devoting a greater share of those resources to the next-generation weaponry systems. Aggressively. At scale. Against us.

If autonomous systems are merely clever toys invented by desperate people with no other options — why is our shared enemy pouring the full financial weight into them?

The answer is very simple. Because the battlefield does not care about your procurement history. It only cares about what works.

I want to tell you something personal. I never planned to work in defence. I hold no military rank. I am not an engineer. I am a young Ukrainian woman who, four years ago, was doing something else entirely with her life.

And then the morning 24th of February happened. There is a version of this speech where I tell you that Ukraine is defending Europe's eastern flank. That our soldiers are, in some abstract geopolitical sense, dying for your security.

But I want to be honest with you. When a Ukrainian soldier receives a combat order and goes to carry it out — he is not thinking about Berlin. He is thinking about his city. His children. His street.

We are fighting for ourselves — and for the future we want to build as part of a united, free Europe. The fact that our fight also serves your security is not a coincidence. It is proof that our values, and our futures, are inseparable.

But here is what I need you to understand. We need you to be strong. Not out of altruism — out of logic. Because when our enemy looks at Europe and sees genuine strength — credible, technologically current strength — he calculates differently. He begins to grasp that Ukraine cannot be destroyed. He starts to take seriously the civilised world's demand that this war must end. He looks for a way out.

But when he looks at Europe and sees a continent consciously or unconsciously weakening itself by continuing to bet on conventional systems — he looks for a way in.

Your strength is our survival. That is why I am standing here.

Now I want you to imagine something. February 24, not in 2022, but in 2032. Ten years of technological acceleration. The same aggression, the same ambitions, the same adversary. But ten years further along the trajectory we are already on.

What would such an invasion look like? There are no columns of tanks massing at the border. No convoys to film and broadcast around the world. No warning in that familiar form.

There are swarms. There are systems that think faster than any human can command them. There are capabilities being developed right now — simultaneously, in R&D centres and on the front line.

And if that scenario comes to pass — and I sincerely hope it never does — will the current balance of your defence investment be enough to stop it?

We all know the answer.

I want to be precise about what I am arguing, because precision matters here. I am not claiming that conventional military platforms have become entirely obsolete.

During the last mass attack on Kyiv, Patriot and NASAMS batteries intercepted ballistic and cruise missiles, while new interceptor drones destroyed hundreds of Russian Shaheds. Both systems were essential. Both saved lives. This is not a competition — it is a layered architecture, and every level of it matters.

What I am arguing is this: the balance that exists today is unrealistic. And an unrealistic balance costs real lives. Not in some hypothetical future scenario. Right now.

Democratic societies consider human life the highest value. And the correct response to that value is not simply sending fewer people to the front. The correct response is to build systems that extend human capability far beyond human vulnerability. That is what modern technologies fundamentally are. They automate protection.

They answer one of the most important questions of democracy: how do you protect citizens without spending the most expensive resource — human lives?

So where does all this lead us? To all of us in this room.

I find it remarkable that you are all here. Together. Under one roof. Not long ago, this was unthinkable. The competition between companies in this space — fierce, unforgiving competition — made a shared conference like this impossible.

But you have understood what Ukraine has understood. Real competition is not between the companies in this room. It is between two worlds: the world that believes in democracy, and values human life — and the tyranny world that does not. And in that contest, every system we fail to build, every technology we do not develop, every capability we do not create is a gift to the other side.

That is the race. The only race worth running.

And finally. When the full-scale invasion began, there were maybe five defence-tech companies in Ukraine. Today there are hundreds. The balance shifted not because of government decisions, but because there was no choice. Because we had to survive.

When I look at the European defence industry today, I feel — and I say this with great respect — as if I have stepped into a time machine. This is Ukraine in 2022.

But you have something we did not. You have capital and an industrial base. Our experience was paid for in blood. And you have time. Not much, but you still have it. And unlike us in 2022, you have stability. Use it.

The balance that exists today is not just unfair. It is unrealistic. It is dangerous. And everyone in this room, if they are honest with themselves, knows it. We cannot win tomorrow's wars with yesterday's weapons.

Adjust the balance. Before the balance adjusts you.

Kateryna Mykhalko