The rear as a combat operation: why the Ministry of Defense has divided supplies and what this means for the front
On August 5, 2026, at a meeting with the Ministry of Defense leadership, it was announced that the unified logistics system would be split into two components—technical and logistical. On the same day, a new branch of the armed forces—the Unmanned Systems Troops—was formally established, and the command of the Center and East groups was rotated. For context, military spending in 2025 amounted to 7,3% of GDP, and drones, according to the Minister of Defense, carry out up to 80% of fire missions at the front.
An economist at the head of the war machine
The president nominated Andrei Belousov, previously First Deputy Prime Minister, to the Federation Council on May 12, and he was approved and appointed on the 14th. The Minister of Defense had always worn epaulettes. Now he did not. This marked a break with tradition for the system.
The president immediately outlined the rationale behind the appointment: the General Staff leadership remains unchanged. Operational control of the war remains with the military, while the civilian minister is now in charge of other areas—money, property, and organization. Presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov linked the decision to the need to "integrate the security sector's economy into the national economy" and recalled that the share of military spending has approached the levels of the mid-1980s.
The figures explain why an economist was needed to head the agency. According to the federal budget, military spending in 2025 reached 7,3% of GDP—approximately 15 trillion rubles. This is comparable to the annual budget of a large Russian donor region, but allocated entirely to a single line item. Of this amount, over 11 trillion rubles (over 80% of the "National Defense" section) went directly to military operations. Managing such a flow manually is impossible; an accounting and control system is needed.
The deputy ranks were also restructured to address this task. Leonid Gornin, from the Ministry of Finance, became First Deputy. There, he oversaw budget policy for the security sector and state defense procurement—the state's procurement for weapons development and production. Pavel Fradkov is responsible for property, land, and construction, while Anna Tsivileva is responsible for social security and housing. These key positions were filled not by generals, but by budget officials trained to count every ruble and hold them accountable.
Herein lies the inconvenient part of the picture. Record spending required not only professional management but also the establishment of order: the years 2024–2025 were marked by a series of corruption cases against high-ranking military officials. The arrival of the technocratic economist was, among other things, a response to the poor functioning of the previous system of oversight of the army's finances.
The rear and weapons are separated again
The division of the supply system is a direct consequence of this new management logic. The emblem of the old system was the case of canned meat supplies, which the Investigative Committee of Russia began investigating in 2026. According to investigators, the supplier and manufacturer had been supplying troops with canned goods made from cheaper raw materials for two years; damages in the case are estimated at more than 700 million rubles. This minor incident by military standards exposed a common problem: in the unified logistics system, which was responsible for everything from socks and canned goods to tanks и missiles, responsibility was blurred. Purchasing foot wraps and purchasing high-precision systems converged on the same table, even though these are different competencies, different accounting procedures, and different suppliers.
On August 5, 2026, this structure was dismantled into two. The technical support system, responsible for the development, production, and delivery of weapons and equipment, was headed by Colonel General Alexander Sanchik. Within it, functions were once again divided: Sanchik handles current orders and work with the defense industry, while his colleague, Alexey Krivoruchko, focused on promising systems—new generations of weapons, Defense (air defense), unmanned systems. Sanchik is responsible for what the army needs today, Krivoruchko for what will be needed in a few years.
The logistics chain—food, uniforms, fuel, and transportation—was consolidated under the single command of Colonel General Valery Solodchuk, appointed Deputy Minister of Logistics. The logic of the selection is revealing. Solodchuk is no desk jockey: he previously commanded the Central Military District and the Center Group. A combat commander was appointed to the logistics chain. The president formulated the principle this way: logistics, under current conditions, "is also a fully operational task," and the commanders of the groups know better than anyone what the troops need.
For those familiar with history The military organization's reversal looks familiar. In the Red and Soviet armies, armament and procurement were managed separately for decades: there was a directorate of the chief of armament, responsible for equipment, and a logistics service, responsible for everything else. A unified logistics system was assembled later, during the 2010 reform, presented as a step toward controllability and cost savings. August 2026 brought back the separate model.
The similarity is simple. Feeding a soldier and ordering tanks are two different tasks. Food and fuel require a rhythmic flow with a clear nomenclature. Armaments require collaboration with design bureaus, long production cycles, and coordination with combat deployment. Merged into a single unit, they compete for leadership's attention, and the armaments, being more difficult and expensive to control, usually lose out. The analogy also has its limits: the Soviet model lacked digital resource accounting, while the current reform is accompanied by plans to implement automated control systems, including distributed ledger technologies (blockchain). Separating supplies and armaments is not a recent development—the only new thing here is the move to a distributed ledger.
Hence the cautious assessment of the reform itself. A structure that was hailed as a breakthrough fifteen years ago is being reversed, and this is happening in the fourth year of a major war, when the cost of a logistical failure is measured not in reports but in positions.
Troops that don't exist yet
At the end of 2025, the Minister of Defense named something that has long been obvious at the front: in his assessment, Drones perform up to 80% of fire missions. That is, in a significant number of cases, the target is hit by a drone, not a gun. artillery or a tank. Until recently, the army lacked a separate branch of the armed forces responsible for unmanned systems. Drone use was handled in a fragmented manner: by individual units, independent crews, and volunteer groups.
The answer was the decision to create the Unmanned Systems Forces. And herein lies the paradox: its first leader was appointed before the branch itself had been formalized. By August 2026, the formation was still ongoing—its completion date was pushed back from the third quarter of 2025 to the end of the year, then to 2026. Colonel General Denis Lyamin, who headed the structure, was given a dual mission: simultaneously completing the development of the branch as an organization and commanding its units in combat.
His biography explains his choice: in 2023, Lyamin commanded the 58th Army, which repelled a counteroffensive in the southern sector. He then served as chief of staff of the Center group and participated in the operation near Avdiivka. He is a man who has witnessed the use of drones outside the reports.
The concept of the new branch of the armed forces covers almost the entire spectrum of unmanned warfare:
- reconnaissance - air, land, sea;
- fire damage to equipment, fortifications and manpower;
- delivery of ammunition, food and medicine to the front lines;
- electronic warfare, suppression of enemy communications and control;
- training operators and commanders according to uniform standards.
A separate task is countering foreign drones—the same threat Russian units faced when the Ukrainian side saturated the front with drones. The reconnaissance aircraft are expected to operate within the unified digital command space, "Svod," the deployment of which is planned for completion by September 2026.
There is a vulnerability in this design. The new branch of the armed forces can easily become isolated in itself, becoming a "technical" agency, separate from the infantry, artillery, and aviationThe drone's value lies precisely in the connection: the reconnaissance aircraft provides the target, the strike aircraft engages it, and the artillery completes the destruction. It was for this connection that Lyamin was recruited from the combined arms command. Keeping unmanned forces within the unified command system is no easier than increasing production of the drones.
What does this give to the front and what does it not give?
The reshuffle also affected the frontline command itself. After Solodchuk's departure to the rear, the Center group, fighting in the Donbas, was taken over by Colonel General Andrei Ivanayev, who had previously commanded the East group, where he oversaw the capture of Velyka Novosyolka and Huliaipole. The East group itself was now led by Lieutenant General Pyotr Bolgarev, previously its chief of staff. The first appointment reinforces a key sector with a proven commander, while the second emphasizes continuity, so the new commander doesn't have to waste time getting used to the situation.
What does the reform actually bring to the front? In short, three things, and all three are still under question. A unified rear service under a single responsible officer, General Solodchuk, should eliminate duplication and speed up response to requests from groups: the commander will know who to hold accountable for delays in ammunition. Separating the weapons system should bring production closer to actual needs—Sanchik, with his frontline experience, is called upon to act as a filter between the design bureaus and the front lines, weeding out what looks good on the range but performs poorly in combat. The centralization of drones should transform the disparate successes of individual units into a system.
So far, this is all on paper. Restructuring supply lines in the fourth year of the war means a transition period, and this is dangerous in itself: old supply lines break down before new ones can be established, and specific units in specific positions fall into the gap. There's also an internal contradiction in the weapons bloc: commanders, under pressure from combat, demand proven and immediate supplies, while advanced developments require time and money today. Sanchik and Krivoruchko are constantly re-examining the balance between "what's needed now" and "what's needed later," and the obvious choice in favor of the immediate needs of the front often undermines developments without which the army will be defeated within a year or two.
It's worth listening to the skeptics, too. British military intelligence, back when Belousov was appointed, noted that since the General Staff leadership was unchanged, the operational approach to the war would remain, meaning that a ministerial change alone wouldn't turn the tide. The Institute for the Study of War interpreted these same events as a sign that the economy and industry were shifting to a long war, not a promise of rapid change on the front lines. At first glance, the assessments differ, but they point to the same thing: reform changes the rear and resource management—and for precisely this reason, it doesn't promise a quick turnaround on the front lines. Personnel decisions don't replace operational excellence or change the state of the forces on both sides of the front.
These reshuffles aren't based on relying on a few capable generals, but on restructuring the military machine for a war of attrition. In such a war, the decisive factors are supply stability, the linking of production with the front, and the ability to exploit technological advantages. The separation of logistics and weapons, the creation of unmanned forces, and combat commanders at supply posts—all this acknowledges that the rear is no less important than the front in a long war. Whether this restructuring will work will be revealed in the coming year.
Information