Ready Soldier One: Video Game Incentives and Law of Armed Conflict Compliance
A gamer sits in his room, headset on, staring unblinkingly at a screen. He is closing on his final target in a Call of Duty battle royale match. With a well-placed shot, he takes down the final enemy, sealing the win. In addition to completing the mission and earning experience points that will help him level up, he also earns battle tokens, a special kind of in-game currency that allows him access to rewards like exclusive cosmetics and weapon blueprints.
The philosophy is simple. Earn points to get rewards, which will make you better and able to earn more points. The system motivates players to be effective and efficient at the task.
Of course, players must follow the rules to reap the rewards. The video game is coded to ensure the gamer operates within the parameters of the game. The rules ensure a level of fairness for all players and further encourage them to be effective. Players do not comply with the rules for the sake of compliance, but rather because they allow them to reap benefits that will make them more successful.
The Ukrainian military is reportedly testing a theory that a similar kind of point system can be used to motivate troops to be effective and efficient against their Russian enemy. As described in a recent article, this innovative system allows Ukrainian drone operators to submit video footage of drone hits to earn points, which they can redeem for better munitions, hardware, and modifications for the unit that executed the target.
The integration of a video-game-like point system represents a new paradigm in modern warfare. While other legal considerations may certainly arise, this post argues that, when structured within the boundaries of the law of armed conflict (LOAC), the point system can incentivize compliance with the law. Additionally, by offering a faster acquisition pathway, the system eliminates the need to seek equipment outside formal channels, ensuring lawful procurement and proper vetting of lethal equipment. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the point system demonstrates that compliance with LOAC can also enhance operational efficacy.
The Army of Drones Bonus
Modern warfare is rapidly integrating digital technologies that alter not only tactics and logistics, but also how combatants engage with the ethical and legal frameworks of war. The Ukrainian point system, reportedly called the “Army of Drones Bonus,” allows drone operators to earn points for successful attacks on Russian targets that they validate by submitting recorded evidence.
This “gamified” model incentivizes Ukrainian units to execute their missions and rewards the most efficient and effective of those units by allowing them to redeem points, which they can exchange for the rapid acquisition of new military capabilities. The redemption of points, through Brave1 Marketplace, is touted as a “a platform for quickly delivering innovations to the front for technological superiority over the enemy.” Specifically, front-line units can directly contact Ukrainian defense tech manufacturers and order the necessary developments to perform combat missions after they have converted their points into cash from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. Brave1 Marketplace purports to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and significantly accelerate the implementation of innovations directly on the battlefield. Additionally, sharing recordings of successful target engagement will likely enhance battlefield intelligence, situational awareness, and improve tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Enhancing Compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict
One of the central tenets of LOAC is distinction, the obligation to differentiate between combatants and civilians. Ukraine’s system requires video documentation of attacks. Documentation reinforces the principle of distinction by demanding visual proof that Ukrainian troops conducted their attacks against military objectives, evidence which it is possible to scrutinize after the event. The creation of a permanent record facilitates after-action reviews that can examine whether Ukrainian personnel committed any war crimes thereby serving to deter unlawful conduct.
While the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols do not specifically require the preservation of evidence to facilitate the investigation and potential prosecution of war crimes, several articles indicate the need to preserve such evidence. For example, Article 146 of Geneva Convention IV requires parties to “provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches.” This implies a duty to gather and preserve evidence sufficient for investigation and prosecution.
By institutionalizing a process where combatants are encouraged to document operations, Ukraine’s program effectively internalizes these compliance mechanisms. To be sure, the point system does not assume that grave breaches are occurring in Ukraine; it is not a response to any indication that Ukrainian soldiers are conducting unlawful operations. However, should there be a question of any unlawful conduct, the record created as a product of the point system is readily available.
Furthermore, consistent with Ukraine’s LOAC compliance policy and initiatives, the system presumably only awards points for lawfully conducted successful actions, encouraging the boots on the ground to “get it right.” Current reporting on the point system does not specify whether units are required to submit all footage; it is possible that given the option a unit would simply choose not to submit questionable attacks. The incentive program may also encourage more strikes generally, which increases the probability of more reckless strikes. For example, a unit may choose to execute a strike on less than complete intelligence because they are chasing the points that will get them new equipment.
However, the conflict in Ukraine has significantly stressed the State’s resources, including munitions and essential military equipment. Indeed, foreign aid legislation has been based on findings that the Ukrainian military is in dire need of military resources. Effective employment of the munitions available to the Ukrainian drone operators would therefore mitigate the potential for hasty or less-informed strikes.
In addition to addressing potential grave breaches, the Ukrainian military and government would also want to ensure compliance with domestic law and rules of engagement. Importantly, the point system does not appear to be designed to provide military and government leaders with the opportunity or the mandate to question operational decisions. But the recordings allow a reviewer to understand facts and circumstances as the decision-maker did at the time of the strike. In other words, the intent is not to second-guess the warfighter, but rather to protect them against misinformation and lawfare by the enemy suggesting Ukrainian soldiers are violating the law.
The video evidence requirement similarly encourages compliance with other elements of LOAC by creating a contemporaneous recording that provides a valuable snapshot taken at the time of attack. Military necessity justifies all measures not otherwise prohibited by LOAC to destroy the enemy in the most efficient and effective manner. The accountability inherent in the Ukraine system rewards efficiency and effectiveness, but also allows for analysis of whether the measures used are otherwise prohibited. Similarly, soldiers are incentivized to respect the requirement that expected harm to civilians and civilian property is not excessive in relation to the anticipated military benefit of an attack. Video recording could also capture what, if any, feasible precautions were taken prior to a strike to further reduce the risk of harm to civilians and civilian objects.
Although the system promotes compliance with LOAC, the Ukraine system raises some ethical concerns that may be considered under the LOAC element of humanity. Generally, this element requires military forces to avoid inflicting gratuitous violence on the enemy. More broadly, it also encompasses the humanitarian themes of the Geneva Conventions. Gamifying warfare risks trivializing lethal force. A common critique of popular video game franchises such as Grand Theft Auto is their encouragement of violence and desensitizing effects on gamers. Indeed, studies have shown that repeated exposure to virtual violence can dull psychological resistance to killing.
By using points as a reward mechanism, just as in a first-person shooter video game, there is a danger that moral gravity is lost. However, potential desensitization is arguably an inevitable byproduct of modern drone warfare and remote combat. As the International Committee of the Red Cross discussed in its position on autonomous weapons, distance from violence tends to reduce emotional engagement. Ukraine’s system may, paradoxically, restore more accountability by forcing soldiers to review and justify their actions. Of note, while ethical and policy implications are important considerations, they must be analyzed separately from questions of legality.
Although Ukraine’s system is innovative and largely unprecedented, the value of contemporaneous video recording in promoting LOAC has been demonstrated in other military contexts. The U.S. military’s use of helmet cameras and drone footage in Afghanistan and Iraq has shown that digital documentation can support both tactical learning and legal compliance. Notably, footage from the 2007 Baghdad airstrike highlighted both the evidentiary value and ethical ambiguity of filmed warfare. Similarly, Israel’s use of drone analysis in Gaza has facilitated review by the Israeli Supreme Court of necessity and proportionality. Ukraine’s model takes this further by incorporating feedback and rewards, thereby creating a more structured and intentional system.
Tethering the rewards to military acquisitions provides an additional legal and operational benefit because it consolidates procurement within the Ukrainian military. When units purchase drone hardware outside military acquisition channels, there is potential risk to cybersecurity and data privacy, and therefore national security. Given their sensor packages and connectivity features, drone hardware that has not been properly vetted and secured can be utilized for espionage and unauthorized surveillance. Additionally, weapon systems fielded to units must be legally reviewed for compliance with domestic law and international law, including relevant treaties. By providing a rapid acquisition pathway, the point system encourages legal procurement within the policy limitations of Ukraine.
Crucially, Ukraine’s system does not merely enforce compliance; it aligns legal conduct with combat success. In military operations, complying with LOAC might be seen as a hindrance to effectiveness. Ukraine’s model highlights the more common reality: compliance becomes a pathway to enhanced capability. When soldiers must document and justify their attacks to earn better weapons, they have a vested interest in acting consistently with the law. The point system functions similarly to command oversight, but in real time and with reviewable records. The result is a more disciplined force that is both legally compliant and tactically lethal.
Conclusion
Ukraine’s point system represents an unconventional but potentially transformative tool for enforcing compliance with the LOAC. By integrating documentation, review, and incentivization into the act of targeting itself, the model aligns legal obligation with operational benefit.
While risks of desensitization and misuse remain, they are not unique to this system and may be mitigated by its very structure. As warfare continues to digitize, systems like Ukraine’s may serve as essential tools not only for achieving tactical success but also for preserving the humanity and legality of armed conflict.
***
Chad Bird is a judge advocate and major in the United States Army.
Michelle Lukomski is a judge advocate and major in the United States Army.
The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Articles of War is a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Articles of War does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Authorship does not indicate affiliation with Articles of War, the Lieber Institute, or the United States Military Academy West Point.
Photo credit: Sergio Hvostini
