Foreign Fighters 2.0: The Interplay of Technology and Lived Experience in the Russia-Ukraine War

This is part of a series on “The Digital in War: From Innovation to Participation,” co-produced by Carnegie’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program and Swedish Defense University.

Introduction

In a café in central Kyiv during the summer of 2023, I witnessed an encounter between two prospective foreign fighters that vividly encapsulated the transformation underway in contemporary warfare. Ramon, a young Spanish technology professional who had never handled a firearm, sat across from Trevor, an African American Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran grappling with PTSD. As they discussed encrypted messaging apps, cybersecurity, and drone warfare tactics, their conversation underscored a profound shift in who is joining modern conflicts and how they engage once they arrive. Historically, foreign fighters have been predominantly defined by prior military experience and ideological zeal; however, the Russia-Ukraine war is attracting and requiring a distinctly different kind of participant—one whose value on the battlefield is increasingly linked to technological proficiency rather than traditional combat skills.

This article investigates how digital technologies are fundamentally reshaping foreign fighter participation in contemporary warfare, based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in Ukraine between August and September 2023. By closely observing and engaging with fighters like Ramon and Trevor, both in person and through ongoing digital interactions, I argue that the digitalization of warfare is not only attracting foreign fighters with technical expertise rather than conventional combat backgrounds, but also altering the social and operational dynamics through which both new and traditional fighters engage with conflict environments. These emergent participants, whom I term “foreign fighters 2.0,” embody a convergence of civilian technical expertise and military operations, potentially redefining conventional boundaries between combatants and civilians.

At the heart of this transformation is the growing phenomenon of “participative warfare,” a form of conflict participation characterized by digital involvement that extends far beyond traditional physical battlefields. While much existing research has examined digital warfare’s remote dimensions, such as online propaganda, crowdfunding of military supplies, and cyber operations, comparatively little attention has been devoted to how these digital tools reshape the experiences and identities of those physically entering combat zones.¹ By ethnographically exploring foreign fighters’ lives, this article contributes uniquely to our understanding of how digital technologies simultaneously democratize and complicate participation in contemporary warfare.

The implications of this transformation extend beyond academic interest, presenting tangible policy challenges. How should states and international bodies regulate the involvement of civilians whose primary asset is technological rather than military expertise? What are the implications for military recruitment, operational security, and the legal definitions of combatants when digital proficiency becomes as vital as combat readiness? Furthermore, this explorative research illuminates paradoxes inherent in digitally mediated conflicts—such as how increased digital connectivity and surveillance intensify the importance of face-to-face interactions and secure analog spaces for trust-building and authentic communication.

First, I briefly outline key concepts underpinning my analysis, including participative warfare and the persistence of traditional practices amid technological innovation, drawing lightly on David Edgerton’s notion of the “shock of the old.” Next, I provide detailed case studies of Ramon and Trevor, whose divergent backgrounds and motivations illustrate broader changes in foreign fighter participation. Finally, I analyze the paradoxes of digital warfare uncovered during fieldwork, demonstrating how simultaneous reliance on and suspicion toward digital technologies reshape military interactions and operational practices. Ultimately, fully understanding today’s foreign fighters requires recognizing digital and physical realms as inseparable dimensions of contemporary warfare.

Digital War and the Evolution of Foreign Fighter Participation

The rise of digital warfare fundamentally transforms the landscape of contemporary conflict by blurring traditional distinctions between combatants, civilians, and remote participants.² Scholars describe this phenomenon as “participative warfare,” characterized by digital involvement extending beyond conventional battlefield boundaries.³ Digital platforms have become essential for narrative construction, information dissemination, and collective mobilization, enabling global civilian engagement through crowdfunding, open-source intelligence gathering, and logistical coordination.⁴

These digital technologies profoundly reshape the profiles of individuals physically traveling to conflict zones. Historically, foreign fighters were often characterized by their military skills or ideological motivations.⁵ However, contemporary conflicts such as the war in Ukraine indicate a broadening of this profile. With minimal logistical barriers (often just a smartphone, encrypted messaging apps like Telegram, and a budget airline ticket) foreign fighter participation is now accessible to technically skilled civilians.⁶ Ukraine’s conflict exemplifies this shift: Thousands of foreign participants are engaging in complex electronic warfare and drone operations, making technical proficiency in cybersecurity and digital systems as critical as traditional combat experience.

With minimal logistical barriers (often just a smartphone, encrypted messaging apps like Telegram, and a budget airline ticket) foreign fighter participation is now accessible to technically skilled civilians.

Yet, paradoxically, this increased technological mediation simultaneously heightens the importance of face-to-face interactions and secure analog environments, highlighting a persistent tension between digital and physical dimensions of modern warfare.⁷ Understanding this duality is crucial for both academics and policymakers grappling with the evolving nature of combatants and the regulation of civilian participation in warfare.⁸

Methodology

This article draws on ethnographic fieldwork conducted over three weeks in Ukraine between August and September 2023 and in March 2025, supplemented by ongoing digital interactions with participants. Initially focused on humanitarian organizations, the research shifted organically after chance encounters with foreign fighters revealed significant insights into the evolving nature of digital warfare participation.

Primary methods included participant observation and semi-structured interviews with foreign fighters either serving in or attempting to join the International Legion for the Defence of Ukraine (ILDU) and other units. Thanks to my chance encounter with Ramon and Trevor, I was able to follow them as they navigated their way into the ILDU, meeting with other unit members and ethnographically immersing myself into their world. I also conducted sixteen other formal interviews during this period, though the mainstay of my research with the war volunteers was ethnographic. Participants were accessed through chance encounters and snowball sampling, with interactions occurring predominantly in cafés, bars, and informal social gatherings in Kyiv. Ethical considerations were paramount because of the sensitive wartime context; all participants provided informed verbal consent, identities have been anonymized, and identifying operational details are omitted to ensure security.

Data collection emphasized understanding both digital and physical dimensions of participation, capturing how fighters navigated interactions across online platforms and analog spaces. Field notes were recorded daily and interviews audio-recorded where permissible. Supplementary data included analysis of relevant social media and Telegram channels, although the primary analytic focus remained ethnographic, foregrounding participants’ lived experiences to illuminate key transformations and paradoxes of digitized warfare.

Foreign Fighter 2.0? Emergent Profiles in Modern Warfare

My first encounter with Ramon and Trevor occurred in a café in central Kyiv during my fieldwork in late 2023. I struck up a conversation with Ramon, and after a pause, he asked expectantly in a soft Spanish accent, “Are you a volunteer too?” The café was largely empty. I assumed he thought I was one of the thousands of informal aid volunteers. I explained my role as a researcher interested in humanitarian organizations in Ukraine and invited him to join me.

Ramon explained that he had just arrived in Ukraine and was now waiting to meet a contact he had met online who would help him get into volunteering. He was a skinny, nerdy-looking guy in his mid-twenties, clearly not ex-military, and his excited, nervous demeanour suggested to me he was a fresh-faced aid worker on his first assignment. Yet something about the way he awkwardly enunciated the word “volunteer” made me do a double-take and question my assumption that he was a humanitarian volunteer. Before I could press further, we were interrupted by the unmistakable arrival of his contact, Trevor.

Trevor brought a very different energy to the table. His frenetic, animated presence filled the space as he immediately launched into sharing his life story. Within minutes, he revealed his background as an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, his forced medical retirement, and his subsequent struggles with complex PTSD. Only then did I realize that Ramon was not meeting Trevor to make his way into the humanitarian world, but to try to join ILDU. This chance meeting of two ostensibly different war volunteers—a tech professional and a military veteran—would help illuminate the larger transformation happening both on the battlefields of Ukraine and within Western society.

The Tech Specialist

Ramon’s skills are an asset in a landscape where traditional warfare intertwines with the digital. Modern combat requires expertise beyond the barrel of a gun; proficiency in cyber systems, drone operations, and communications—areas where Ramon’s aptitude shines—is essential.

Ramon exemplifies an emergent archetype in modern warfare: the technically skilled civilian whose expertise has become increasingly vital in contemporary conflicts. As we spoke over several meetings, he revealed his impressive background in electronics, cybersecurity, and innovative computing at a multinational technology corporation. Despite his youth and lack of military experience, these skills positioned him as a valuable asset on Ukraine’s increasingly digitalized battlefield.

Ramon had become drawn to the conflict through the media coverage on social media, especially video footage he watched online. That said, he had grown up in a social environment that was very anti-military. When he was young, he had dreamt of becoming a robotics engineer. He was only in his early twenties, but had already worked in electronics, at a cybersecurity company, and then at a large multinational technology corporation where he won a global award for his innovative work in computing. Now he had taken an indefinite leave of absence from his fast-track career and traveled to Ukraine, initially concealing his true intentions from most friends and family under the guise of “interrailing and doing volunteer work in eastern Europe.”

Ramon was naturally humble, but didn’t shy away from emphasizing his skills: “I have this good career. I’m really good with computers. I’m really, really good.” I didn’t doubt him, but if so, I asked, why leave? “The work and consulting is fucking boring. I got burnt out really bad,” he explained. Then a friend who had joined ILDU reached out because he was facing problems with his computer, including cybersecurity attacks apparently from Russian hackers. Ramon gave him some pointers on how to protect himself from cyber attacks, and eventually this friend persuaded Ramon to join ILDU as well. Ramon saw in Ukraine the promise of being part of something special and historically significant. He clearly had a moral—even ideological—motivation: “This is a fight against fascism, basically . . . And I truly believe in the European project.” Yet the war was also an opportunity. “If I want to make a career for myself later in the defense sector, where can I learn more than here, right now? So I have already some contacts here. I’m trying to get them to teach me how to make kamikaze bombs and things like that.”

“This is a fight against fascism, basically . . . And I truly believe in the European project.”

The Veteran Adapting

Trevor’s story stood in sharp contrast to Ramon’s. His initial boundless energy at our first café meeting masked a complex narrative of military service, trauma, and a search for renewed purpose. In our conversations, Trevor framed even his civilian life through martial metaphors: “I grew up in a battleground where I was one of, like, two minorities.” His path to Ukraine was shaped by profound personal trauma, including the devastating experience of finding his best friend, a fellow veteran, dead by suicide one morning.

As our meetings continued, often extending into late-night conversations, Trevor revealed how the invasion of Ukraine had become an obsession that contributed to the collapse of his marriage. Like Ramon, he had become fixated on the endless reams of footage from the war that reverberated through his social media apps. “I tried to come. I was married at the time. I’m still technically married, but my wife was just like, no! And I kicked off. I was just like, this is it, this is World War Three!” The conflict represented for Trevor not just Ukraine’s survival but his own: “I just felt, like, the calling, and I was like, I want to go. I need to go. And it’s like, I’m helping out Ukraine, right? But they’re helping me out. I have, like, a fucking purpose again.”

“I just felt, like, the calling, and I was like, I want to go. I need to go.”

While Trevor came from a more conventional military background and had combat experience, he was also trained as an engineer and after being discharged became somewhat reclusive yet interested in computers and technology. Like Ramon’s, Trevor’s journey to Ukraine was thoroughly digitized, facilitated by digital platforms and online communities. Over beers, he showed me his smartphone, scrolling through seemingly endless Telegram messages from prospective recruits. “Look for yourself,” he said, “that’s just from today.” His own recruitment process had involved a complex web of digital connections: initial contact through Reddit forums, verification via Telegram, equipment sponsorship through the “Protect a Volunteer” online charity, and coordination of medical supplies through Polish-Ukrainian online contacts. Now he had become the digital interlocutor, having spoken with Ramon online and finally met him in that café in late August to guide him through the process of joining ILDU.

Paradoxes of Hyperconnected Warfare

As I spent more time with Ramon, Trevor, and their wider group of war volunteers, the paradoxes inherent in their relationship with digital technology became increasingly clear. Despite sophisticated reliance on digital platforms for recruitment, coordination, and operations, volunteers consistently exhibited deep skepticism toward digital communications, fearing surveillance and compromised security. Ramon and Trevor, for instance, quickly dismissed popular apps like WhatsApp and Telegram in favor of Signal—ostensibly a more securely encrypted platform—emphasizing digital vigilance in a highly surveilled environment.

Such concerns are not unfounded. Early in the conflict, Russian forces reportedly targeted a training base after detecting multiple foreign SIM cards clustered together, resulting in significant casualties.⁹ This incident underscored the inherent vulnerability of digital technologies, prompting fighters to rely heavily on secure, analog environments for critical communications. I observed as spaces like strip clubs emerged unexpectedly as vital sites for authentic, secure discussions precisely because they enforced strict prohibitions on phones, effectively insulating conversations from digital surveillance. These analog spaces became crucial, offering an unmediated environment for trust-building and sharing unfiltered truths about combat realities.

Beyond mere security precautions, the necessity of physical spaces points to a deeper process of emotional and interpersonal bonding essential to military cohesion. While digital platforms act as gateways facilitating initial recruitment and logistics, the transition from virtual to physical presence is marked by profound emotional connections formed through face-to-face interaction. In-person camaraderie, often fostered through shared hardships, informal gatherings, and collective experiences, solidifies bonds that digital interactions alone cannot replicate. For instance, foreign fighters sometimes used GoPro action cameras to capture authentic, unfiltered combat experiences, not only for social media and promotional purposes but as a reflection of their deeper need for emotional validation and collective memory shared offline.

These ethnographic insights highlight that despite warfare’s technological advancements, the fundamental human experiences of trust, camaraderie, and collective resilience remain deeply rooted in physical, face-to-face interactions. The Ukraine foreign fighters’ persistent reliance on analog spaces amid pervasive digital surveillance illustrates what Edgerton termed the “shock of the old”—traditional practices enduring and intensifying alongside technological advancements.¹⁰ Recognizing and managing these paradoxes holds significant policy relevance, particularly concerning operational security, combat effectiveness, and the integration of civilian technical specialists into military contexts.

Conclusion

This examination of foreign fighters in Ukraine underscores a fundamental transformation in the interplay between technology and participation in contemporary warfare. The experiences of Ramon and Trevor illustrate the rising significance of civilian technological expertise alongside traditional combat roles, potentially reshaping recruitment dynamics and operational effectiveness. Yet while digital technologies have facilitated broader and more accessible participation in conflict, they have simultaneously underscored the enduring necessity of face-to-face interactions and secure analog spaces. Trust-building and operational cohesion—critical to effective combat units—depend heavily on sustained physical interactions following initial digital recruitment efforts and are arguably intensified by the hyperconnected state of the battlefield.

While digital technologies have facilitated broader and more accessible participation in conflict, they have simultaneously underscored the enduring necessity of face-to-face interactions and secure analog spaces.

While historical analogies to past foreign legions exist, the current scenario in Ukraine distinctively emphasizes how ubiquitous digital technology, such as smartphones and laptops, profoundly impacts the practicalities of recruitment, coordination, and engagement in contemporary conflicts. This research underscores the critical need for policymakers to develop responsive frameworks capable of navigating these hybrid warfare dynamics, balancing technological advancement with the enduring necessity of human interaction and trust.

Finally, while this article focuses ethnographically on Ukraine, many of the dynamics it traces (particularly the integration of civilian tech expertise into conflict zones and the reliance on digital infrastructures) are increasingly visible in other theaters of war, including Somalia and Mali. Indeed, prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, similar patterns were already emerging among foreign fighters and local armed actors in these regions, where digital tools have become both assets and vulnerabilities.¹¹