The Killboard: How Ukraine Turned Drone Warfare Into a Public Scoreboard
The idea is simple and brutal in its appeal.
The war has always had scoreboard moments.
Early on it was tanks counted on Telegram, later it was missile tallies on evening news. Hell, the UK Ministry of Defense still publishes a weekly tally of Russian units lost.
Now Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces have made scoreboard literal: a live, public-facing “killboard” that posts verified results from drone units in near real time.
Click through and you’ll find unit names, confirmed target types, daily tallies refreshing every few minutes. It reads like fantasy football for drone commandos (if fantasy football could coordinate loitering munitions and logistics), and it arrived with the same taste for drama its commanders have always had.
The idea is simple and brutal in its appeal.
Showcase the hits, prove transparency, and let the public watch the war in units, not blurbs.
Major Robert “Madyar” Brovdi turned up the volume by linking the dashboard in his widely read updates. The tone is often gleeful, which is deliberate: public recognition is now part of the incentive structure.
Units rack up confirmed strikes; their names climb in the ranking. Fighters get praise, families get proof, and the state gets a visible metric of performance it can point to on hard days.
There’s a practical logic too.
In a conflict defined by sensors, loiter time, and the speed at which a strike can be observed and verified, centralizing verification reduces fog.
The Unmanned Systems Forces say results are released only after confirmation by the General Staff. That should calm complaints about inflated claims. It also helps donors, policymakers, and rear-echelon managers see which units are productive and where gear is actually being used, a refreshing bit of effective transparency in wartime procurement.
Yet beneath the dashboard’s color-coded clean lines is a complicated human story.
Public gamification nudges behavior. Soldiers respond to praise the same way most of us respond to likes, it’s dopamine with consequences. The killboard doesn’t merely reflect performance; it shapes it.
Units that climb the board earn recognition and tangible rewards through Ukraine’s points-and-market system, (tied to Brave1) where accrued points can procure surveillance kit, spare parts, or ammunition. That’s an efficient feedback loop when the aim is to keep systems flying: show results, reward crews, spin the resupply wheel.
Note: There is no public link to the reward marketplace.
But incentives are blunt instruments.
Where you prize-score, you risk score-chasing. There are already reports from the field of perverse effects: lower-value targets yielding fewer points get skipped, and operators might postpone strikes waiting for high-value, high-point opportunities.
That’s not the sort of problem that gets solved by a software patch. It’s the human math of reward systems. If you make public metrics the currency of honor, you will get gaming, and sometimes you will get bad tactical choices.
This is not theoretical.
The program’s architects know the risk and have started adjusting the scoring rules. They also lean on culture. Ukrainian drone crews take pride in the units they belong to.
The leaderboard amplifies unit cohesion in a way that traditional medals and after-action reports did not. Recruiters use that social proof. The killboard banner that greets visitors doesn’t hide its HR ambition: “15,000 new vacancies in the Unmanned Forces.”
If you’re 20 and online, the dashboard looks less like war news and more like a list of top-performing teams you want to join. That’s brilliant recruitment theatre.
There are ethical tightropes too. Publicizing strikes in near real time creates transparency for families and allies, but also for adversaries.
Every verified hit packages tactical information: when, where, and how a unit operates. That’s useful intelligence for an enemy skilled in intelligence gathering.
There’s also the moral dimension of turning destruction into a public metric. Celebrating effectiveness is part of wartime morale; but fetishizing kills can skew how conflict is perceived back home.
In the long run, democracies survive public wars by making their public understand the costs. Turn that calculus into a leaderboard and you risk making nuance vanish.
Operationally, the killboard rewards units that can prove kills… those with good comms, reliable video feeds, and fast verification chains. That privileges well-equipped, networked crews and advantages units near logistic hubs.
Small, improvised teams that operate off-grid or whose feeds are denied by jamming will sit lower on the list, regardless of battlefield efficacy. The metric favors visibility as much as impact.
Still, the system has power.
It ties donors’ money to measurable output, which in a world of grant fatigue and competing crises is persuasive. It helps the military identify bottlenecks. It creates top-of-the-pyramid leaders who can mentor others, and that professionalizes an otherwise ad hoc collection of brigades, volunteer groups, and private contractors.
For adversaries, the scoreboard is a psychological weapon.
Russians watch too, and the public humiliation of repeated entries under a unit’s name works on the morale calculus of both sides. For Ukrainians, especially volunteers and families, the live tally is a daily reminder that something tangible is being achieved.
It’s a rallying point in the information space, which matters as much as any piece of metal on the ground.
If there’s a lesson here, it’s about incentives: design them carelessly and you’ll get what you reward.
Ukraine’s experiment is a test in social engineering under fire. It pairs transparency with motivation, public recognition with tangible supply-chain benefits.
That’s modern warfare’s awful efficiency: make the fight measurable and you make it fundable. But keep the metrics honest, or the metric becomes the mission.
For readers asking whether this will spread, expect parts of the idea to be copied.
Democracies love accountability. Authoritarian rivals love spectacle.
Somewhere in between sits the danger: scoreboards that reward visibility over effect. The smarter path is what Ukraine seems to be trying: continuous calibration. Fix scoring anomalies, protect sensitive metadata, and keep the verification chain tight. Use the board to recruit, not to chase vanity strikes.
In a war where attention is a resource almost as scarce as shells, the killboard converts attention into operational currency.
It’s clever. It’s risky. And for now, until someone proves the opposite, it’s working.
Слава Україні!