Ukraine’s adoption of a video-game-style points system to incentivize drone strikes against Russian forces has sparked debate over the ethics of gamifying warfare. The system, known as the Brave1 Market, rewards soldiers with points for confirmed kills, which they can then exchange for additional military equipment. While this approach has been praised for its efficiency in resource allocation, it has also raised concerns about the potential dehumanization of combat and the moral implications of treating lethal operations like a competitive game.
The Brave1 Market, launched in April and expanded in August, operates similarly to an online marketplace, where Ukrainian units can browse available defence technology and purchase equipment using points earned from successful missions. The system awards 12 points for killing an enemy soldier, 40 for destroying a tank, and 25 for eliminating a specialist drone operator. Wounding a soldier earns eight points, while capturing a Russian soldier alive grants 120 points. Ukrainian officials have emphasized that the system is designed to enhance motivation and operational flexibility, allowing units to tailor their procurement based on frontline needs.
“We want our people to come back from the war as human beings, not as killing machines,” said Gyunduz Mamedov, a former Ukrainian prosecutor and current advisor on the ethics of drone warfare. His concerns reflect a broader unease about the psychological impact of such systems on soldiers. Christian Enemark, a professor of International Relations at the University of Southampton, echoed this sentiment, warning that the gamification of war could undermine the moral gravity of lethal actions. “You run the risk of undermining a person’s sense of the moral seriousness of the deadly and destructive actions that they are taking,” he said.
However, supporters of the system argue that it is a pragmatic response to the realities of modern warfare. Tim Mak, a war correspondent based in Kyiv, noted that the system provides a transparent and flexible procurement process, allowing commanders to address specific challenges on the battlefield. “As opposed to having a centralized system where the government says, ‘All units need this number of drones, all units need xyz,’ it allows units to be more flexible,” he said.
Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, dismissed concerns about dehumanization, stating that the system is a necessary tool for defence. “What is inhumane is starting a full-scale war in the 21st century,” he said. Fedorov’s perspective underscores the broader context of Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression, where survival and sovereignty are at stake.
The debate over the Brave1 Market highlights the tension between military necessity and ethical considerations in modern warfare. As technology continues to reshape the battlefield, the challenge lies in balancing innovation with the moral principles that govern conflict. While the system may offer tactical advantages, it also serves as a reminder of the need for ongoing ethical scrutiny in the development and deployment of military technology.
As Ukraine continues to defend itself against Russian attacks, the Brave1 Market represents a bold experiment in military logistics and motivation. Whether it proves to be a sustainable and ethical approach remains to be seen, but it undeniably reflects the evolving nature of warfare in the 21st century.