Name: Robots on Ukraine's frontlines: What are the pros and cons? | DW News
Uploaded: 2026-02-07T17:03:31.000Z
Duration: 9 min 46 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

On Ukraine's front lines, unmanned aerial drones and ground robots are increasingly shaping combat.

While they help soldiers survive, they're also becoming one of the deadliest dangers on the battlefield.

As DW's Max Sunder reports, We're in Eastern Ukraine with soldiers of the Karadakh Brigade.

We're here to see their ground robots, remote controlled vehicles that carry supplies to frontline positions, among other tasks.

Commander Scrooge shows us the latest development.

Right now we've got a Browning mounted on it, a heavy machine gun.

You can also mount other weapons, like an automatic grenade launcher.

It can defend a stretch of road, fire at vehicles, and even lead an attack.

Just imagine it, a drone driving straight at you, trying to kill you.

Footage from a similar device shows Russian soldiers surrendering to a Ukrainian robot.

Today, the robot is being sent to deliver supplies to the front line, not capture soldiers.

The first leg of the trip is done on a trailer.

A burnt out truck shows Russia's ability to strike deep behind the lines.

We're heading towards Kupyansk, where Ukrainian gains have drawn in elite Russian drone reinforcements, a unit called Rubikon.

They arrived a few days ago and now want to show us their work.

This is how they try to exert psychological pressure on us.

When we get to the large spot, the men load the robot.

So the robot you see here is about to be sent on its way and it should arrive at its first destination at one of the frontline positions in about two hours.

And that is if the Russians don't manage to spot it and take it out.

Meanwhile, at a different part of the frontline, a vantage point that shows how Ukrainian drones are reshaping battlefield tactics.

It's a choreography between machines in the air, soldiers on the ground.

It might be carrying ammunition, it might be supplies.

The soldiers send a combat drone its way.

The enemy can no longer get so close to us.

We prepare our actions, push the enemy back and create a 2 to 3 kilometer gray zone in front of our positions so that the infantry doesn't have to enter direct combat.

That's essential because the frontline is too long to fully hold.

With human power within that frontline gray zone, at points Russians would have to pass to make progress, the Ukrainians have set up what they call kill zones.

A kill zone is an area we deliberately set up, essentially a small pocket where artillery is already aimed at where our drones can reach them as well, and

The only casualty today, a Russian Starlink device.

Back with the ground robots heading towards the front, under skies controlled by the Russians, the operator maneuvers it through a protective tunnel of nets.

For parts of the journey, he has to watch out for Russian FPV drones and mines.

The robot is slower than a car and and can carry less, but

crucially, it's smaller and doesn't need a driver.

If it were still done the way it used to be, only with vehicles, we would probably have neither people nor vehicles left.

You set off your scene and then an FPV drone hits.

Nonetheless, soon after we leave, a Russian drone blows it up.

The mission failed, but the soldiers will send another robot tomorrow.

Most importantly, the only casualty was metal, not human.

Anya Dahlmann is from the Institute for Peace Research and Security.

In your opinion, how close are we to seeing unmanned systems like ground robots, drones, etc.

To actually replace human soldiers on the front lines?

So in my opinion, we won't see them replacing humans completely, but complementing them.

Unmanned systems will take over increasingly dull, dangerous, or also data intensive tasks like surveillance or logistics, mine clearance, or certain strikes in combat.

But they will always just complement the human, at least for the foreseeable future, because humans are necessary to exercise judgment in complex or morally charged situations.

Basically, but is that teaming something that's now become a necessity?

In the report we heard, humans are now too visible, too vulnerable on the battlefield.

These unmanned systems now seem like a necessity.

They definitely become a necessity, yes, because they are inexpensive, adaptable, scalable, and

So, yeah, we will see an increase in unmanned systems integrated into existing force structures.

And what's your assessment on full autonomy?

Robots selecting and engaging targets without human control?

That obviously remains very controversial.

We've seen in Israel, for example, AI being used to rack up a huge amount of targets, many more than would have been possible without such systems in the past.

Once we started using unmanned systems, we can see a kind of logic towards autonomy and autonomous functions, because those communication links can be disrupted and they're slow and all that.

So it kind of makes sense to have more autonomy on the weapon system.

The issue with that is that we see a definite decrease in human control over the use of force, and

that is very concerning from a legal standpoint.

For ethical reasons and also for operational reasons.

Because human judgment and human control is always necessary to have accountability and responsibility in the use of force.

The UN warns delegating life and death decisions to machines is morally repugnant and calls for international regulation.

Do you believe international law can meaningfully constrain autonomous weapons, given the rapidness of the innovation and the pressure on the battlefield?

I definitely think that international law should regulate this and that there should be a ban on so called fully autonomous weapon systems, or at least a call for meaningful human control in the use of force.

But I'm also increasingly pessimistic that this will work out because several states block this negotiation process that is ongoing at the United nations level.

There are too many military advantages and expectations in there at the moment, I think.

But I still hope and call for states to come to a regulation and too meaningful human control in the use of force.

And finally, what sort of skills will the soldier of the future need on the battlefield?

I guess they're not only going to have to be able to know their way around electronics, but

In addition to what soldiers have to do and have to be able to do today, they will need much more digital literacy.

In a way, they need to be able to work with AI systems and especially to understand their limitations and to understand where human judgment in control is still necessary and when to take over from the system.

So decision making and supervision of these systems will be very important and definitely a new skill to add to the actual skill set at the moment.

Anya Dahman from the Institute for Peace Research and Security in Berlin.