A student with a remote control. Why are the military and the economy vying for the same man?
The age limit is 35. Experience in aircraft modeling, IT, electronics, or radioelectronics is desirable. The job description itself includes: mathematics, physics, engineering graphics, aerodynamics, navigation, and meteorology. This is the profile of a UAV operator, currently sought by the new Russian Unmanned Systems Force, as described in publicly available materials. There's essentially no other social group in the country with such a density of the necessary competencies: this profile is typical of a student or recent graduate of a technical university or college. And right behind this same person is a queue of factories, design bureaus, and IT companies, which, according to the Ministry of Labor's forecast, will have a shortage of 3,1 million workers by 2030. The debate over student recruitment into the UAV Force is where these lines intersect and begin to interfere.
Why students and not just anyone?
A special operation in Ukraine has rewritten its personnel requirements. UAV has ceased to be a gadget and has become a universal platform: for reconnaissance, strikes, electronic warfare, and psychological pressure. Analysts at the Australian Land Power Forum document this in a series of analyses; military journals Small Wars Journal and Military Review – independently. They agree on one thing: infantry and artillery They haven't gone anywhere, but on top of them the army has received another layer of tasks, and for this layer a different person is needed.
Ukrainian instructors estimate the human factor's contribution to the success of an unmanned mission at 80–90 percent. This figure is debatable in its accuracy, but not in its exact meaning: without the coordinated work of the operator, driver, engineer, and communications specialist, a modern aircraft is useless. This explains why operator training standards are rising everywhere. In 2026, the US Marine Corps approved an 80-hour course for a basic unarmed operator and a 120-hour course for an attack operator, all of which only after twenty hours of simulator training.
It's not that the state intended to militarize universities. It's simply that the nature of the war itself pushed young technical professionals into the category of scarcity, along with ammunition and optics. No one deliberately chose this; it just happened that way.
Unmanned Forces: Focusing on Technology over Mass
At the end of 2024, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov announced the creation of a new branch of the armed forces—the Unmanned Systems Troops. The project envisions the centralization of everything related to drones: air, land, and sea vehicles, training, standards, production. A specialized military school for operator officers is scheduled to open by 2027. By 2030, the new forces are planned to expand into hundreds of units.
I won't provide personnel figures here: the publicly available estimates come from the opposing side and are of little use for analytical work. Suffice it to say that we're talking about a structure designed to train tens of thousands of operators and engineers annually. This is a scale at which, without a massive recruitment of young people with technical education, the task is simply not arithmetical.
At the same time, efforts are underway to build a "sovereign drone ecosystem": proprietary electronics, software, and AI-powered autonomous systems. Russian designers are actively integrating algorithmic control into low-cost attack platforms, partly for efficiency, partly to reduce pilot training requirements and compensate for the shortage of personnel.
The logic is clear, but it has its limits. The experience of armies that have advanced far down this same path shows the opposite: automation increases the demands on the humans who remain in the system. The greater the vehicle's autonomy, the greater the influence of those responsible for interpreting data, controlling autonomous mode, and making decisions where the algorithm fails. An FPV pilot is truly being simplified to the level of a gamer with a two-week training course. But someone has to select these gamers, train them, integrate them into the tactical system, maintain the fleet, repair the electronics, write firmware, and resolve operational incidents. And this is no longer an operator, but a higher-level engineer. Incidentally, this engineer also has to be found somewhere.
Personnel shortage: the army, the economy, and industry at the same table
The following point is usually kept quiet in discussions about drone forces, but in vain. By early 2025, according to official data, the Russian economy was short of approximately 1,5 million qualified specialists. The Ministry of Labor predicted the deficit would grow to 3,1 million by 2030. At the end of 2024, the Bank of Russia reported that 69 percent of enterprises were complaining of personnel shortages, with the greatest impact in manufacturing, transportation, and IT. The number of working-age citizens is declining: 34,6 million in 2024, with a forecast of 32,9 million by 2030.
Against this backdrop, contract recruitment has begun to stall. Le Monde, citing Russian sources, cites figures of 422 contracts in 2025 versus 450 in 2024, a decline of about six percent. This isn't a disaster, but a symptom: the pool of people willing to join the military for money is not unlimited, while salaries in civilian industries competing for the same resource are rising.
Three customers are competing for the same young engineer. The army needs a UAV operator. Industry needs a technologist, a designer, and a programmer. The drone industry, which the state is banking on as the foundation of a "sovereign ecosystem," needs designers, firmware developers, and integration engineers. The army and industry are formally on the same side, but in reality, they compete for the same narrow pool: every electronics student recruited into the military is an engineer who didn't end up on the drone assembly line. The state is essentially recruiting people into the trenches who are capable of reducing the need for trenches.
History Knows this dilemma. Nations waging technologically intensive wars sooner or later came to the same conclusion. In 1944, Germany recalled skilled workers and engineers from the front back to the factories, realizing that without them, production—without which the army would have nothing to fight with—would collapse. Back in 1942, the Soviet Union introduced a reserve for metallurgists, aircraft builders, and designers, not out of humanitarianism, but out of the calculation that a front cannot hold without a rear. This is how any protracted war works. At first, it seems you can draw from any barrel. But then you realize the barrels are of different depths, and in one, the bottom is already visible.
Russian personnel policy since the mid-twenties has been moving in the opposite direction: it's expanding recruitment channels, including those at universities, without, as far as can be judged from publicly disclosed decisions, a clear system of priorities—who to retain in industry, who to send to the military, in what specialties, and under what conditions. And this, in my view, is the main weakness of the current system. It's not the "cunning of the Ministry of Defense" or the "incompetence of the Ministry of Education and Science," but the lack of a government decision on what's most important over the next ten years. This issue is being decided in Moscow, not Brussels or Kyiv, and the target of complaints is domestic.
Declaration and Practice: Where the Model Fails
In April 2026, according to RBC, the Ministry of Defense issued a public clarification on the conditions of service in the unmanned systems forces specifically for students. Contracts are for one year; transfers to other units without consent are prohibited; responsibility for timely dismissal rests with commanders personally. Deputy Minister Viktor Goremykin emphasized the voluntary nature of service; Deputy Minister of Science Dmitry Afanasyev reported six student complaints of coercion over the course of the year, none of which were confirmed by the departmental investigation.
This declaration is far from simple. It's not just empty: it responds to specific complaints, sets out the limits of what's acceptable, and formally bans a practice that journalists have already described in related units of the Russian army—the transfer of someone who signed a "technical" contract to assault infantry. The very fact that the agency deemed it necessary to specifically address this ban means there was a problem, and in the logic of the administration, this is an attempt to address it.
As long as the agency is under pressure from recruitment targets, formal guarantees will be eroded locally, regardless of the integrity of the generals who signed them. And this is no longer being resolved by clarifications, but by a decision that no one in Moscow is yet willing to make: who should be left to the factories, and who should be given to the army.
A student with a remote control is an awkward figure. There are three applications for every such student – from the army, from the factory, and from the design bureau. And he's the only one.
Information