Ukraine’s Citizen-Built Corps Emerges as a Modern Military Force Amid Ongoing War

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

In the chaotic opening days of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a prominent agricultural businessman assembled a small volunteer fighting unit with little certainty about survival, let alone long-term success. What began as a group of just 30 individuals has since evolved into a formidable 40,000-strong corps, now regarded as one of the most capable and adaptive formations within Ukraine’s official defense structure.

Vsevolod Kozhemyako, the entrepreneur behind the initiative, has since transitioned into a senior advisory role within the Khartiia Corps, helping shape its operational philosophy. Reflecting on the journey, he emphasized that Ukraine’s long-term security hinges not only on international alliances but on the strength and modernization of its own armed forces.

The rapid rise of the Khartiia Corps mirrors a broader transformation underway across Ukraine’s military. Alongside other emerging formations such as the Third Army Corps and the Azov Corps, it represents a decisive break from entrenched Soviet-era doctrines that many soldiers have long criticized as rigid and outdated.

As diplomatic efforts to negotiate a peace settlement remain stalled and international focus increasingly shifts toward other geopolitical crises, Ukrainian leaders continue to press for firm security commitments from Western allies, particularly the United States. Yet within Ukraine, a growing number of military figures and civilians alike believe that the nation’s ultimate safeguard lies in its ability to build a resilient, self-reliant military force.

Ukraine’s armed forces have undergone significant changes since 2014, when Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of conflict in eastern Ukraine exposed deep structural weaknesses. Years of underfunding, corruption, and poor strategic planning had eroded readiness. The crisis triggered an influx of civilian volunteers and prompted long-overdue reforms aimed at professionalizing the military.

Those reforms proved critical in enabling Ukraine to withstand the initial shock of the 2022 invasion. However, as the war dragged on, some of the military’s systemic shortcomings began to resurface, including excessive bureaucracy, centralized decision-making, and a culture in which subordinates often hesitated to report problems for fear of repercussions. These issues, according to soldiers and analysts, have had tangible consequences on the battlefield.

Kozhemyako said his unit was deliberately designed to avoid those pitfalls from the outset. Drawing on his own experience as a volunteer fighter since 2014 and surrounded by veterans who were disillusioned with traditional structures, he sought to build a force that valued initiative, flexibility, and accountability.

Many early recruits came from civilian professions, particularly business, bringing with them a management-oriented mindset that influenced how the corps was organized. Rather than replicating conventional military hierarchies, the unit adopted a more decentralized approach, encouraging lower-level commanders to make decisions in real time.

To support this, the corps studied and adapted Western military planning frameworks, particularly those used by the U.S. Army. Among the most significant were Troop Leading Procedures, which enable rapid operational planning at the tactical level, and After Action Reviews, a structured process for evaluating missions and identifying lessons learned. These systems have been integrated into daily operations and continuously refined based on battlefield experience.

Technology has also played a central role in the corps’ evolution. The Khartiia Corps has become known for its aggressive adoption of cutting-edge tools, particularly unmanned systems. A drone assault conducted near Kharkiv in late 2024, described by military analysts as the first fully robotic attack on enemy positions, drew international attention and underscored the changing nature of modern warfare.

Such innovations are now routine within the corps. Soldiers operate ground-based robotic systems for logistics and casualty evacuation, reducing risk to personnel and increasing operational efficiency. Younger commanders, often in their early twenties, are entrusted with significant responsibilities, reflecting the corps’ emphasis on merit and adaptability over rank and tradition.

For many soldiers who have transferred from more conventional units, the cultural shift has been striking. Several described a noticeable absence of rigid formalities and non-essential routines that previously consumed time and energy. Instead, the focus is placed squarely on mission effectiveness and team cohesion.

Equally significant is the relationship between officers and enlisted personnel. In contrast to the hierarchical and often punitive environment of traditional units, the Khartiia Corps fosters a culture of mutual trust. Soldiers say this dynamic improves communication and decision-making, particularly in high-pressure combat situations where hesitation or misinformation can prove costly.

This approach has yielded measurable results on the battlefield. In late 2025, the corps spearheaded a counteroffensive in the Kupiansk region, reclaiming several villages and advancing toward the Oskil River. The area had been a strategic objective for Russian forces for months, yet they failed to achieve significant progress there despite sustained efforts.

Analysts at the Institute for the Study of War assessed that the operation demonstrated Ukraine’s continued ability to conduct effective counterattacks, particularly when Russian forces are stretched thin. While casualty figures were not disclosed, as is standard practice, the corps has reported no major operational setbacks.

Beyond combat performance, the Khartiia Corps has distinguished itself through its organizational model. Operating with a high degree of independence, it has developed its own recruitment pipelines, fundraising mechanisms, and public outreach strategies. Leveraging social media platforms and partnerships with public figures, the corps has built a recognizable brand that appeals to potential recruits and donors alike.

Military officials say this approach has influenced other units, with formations such as the Third Army Corps adopting similar strategies to address ongoing manpower challenges. In a war that increasingly depends on sustained mobilization, the ability to attract and retain personnel has become as critical as battlefield tactics.

Inside the corps’ command centers, the integration of technology and human capital is evident. Underground operations rooms are equipped with large digital displays streaming live reconnaissance data, allowing commanders to monitor frontline developments in real time. Personnel from diverse backgrounds, including former athletes and civilian professionals, now occupy key leadership roles.

Training remains rigorous, with a strong emphasis on preparing soldiers for the realities of combat. At the same time, commanders stress that operational decisions prioritize the preservation of human life, even if it means expending costly equipment. This philosophy marks a departure from older doctrines that often placed material considerations above personnel safety.

The Khartiia Corps is now working to expand its influence within the broader military by collaborating with other units that share its principles. A joint training initiative with the Third Army Corps aims to standardize best practices and address what commanders describe as a critical gap in basic training for soldiers and junior officers across the armed forces.

According to Khartiia’s leadership, approximately 300,000 Ukrainian troops are currently deployed along the front lines, with the Khartiia and Third Army Corps collectively accounting for around 80,000 of them. This concentration of personnel, they argue, provides a meaningful opportunity to drive systemic change from within.

Interest in the corps’ methods is growing, with commanders from other formations seeking to study and replicate its model. However, whether Ukraine’s senior military leadership will fully embrace these reforms remains uncertain. Deep-rooted institutional habits and resistance to change continue to pose challenges.

Even so, proponents of the new approach remain determined to push forward. They argue that the stakes extend beyond the current conflict, shaping the future of Ukraine’s military for generations to come. As Kozhemyako and his colleagues see it, the outcome will depend not only on external support but on the country’s ability to redefine how it fights — and how it prepares for the wars of the future.