NATO's smaller militaries have settled on a strategy against Russia: buy autonomy, not bodies. Norway, with fewer than 6 million citizens against Russia's 143 million, is leading the argument that weapons able to operate without a soldier at every trigger can offset a manpower gap no ally can close through recruitment.

Maj. Sebastian Langvad, a Norwegian Army officer and lecturer at the Norwegian Military Academy, told Business Insider that advancing technology is steadily eliminating the need for humans in certain combat roles, such as pulling a trigger. For nations with limited manpower, that shift carries particular weight.

"We can compete with Russia when it comes to technology and funding, but we cannot compete when it comes to putting soldiers in the field," Langvad said. "We have more to gain from breaking that link between volume of combat power and the amount of people."

Wage levels sharpen the arithmetic. Each individual Norwegian soldier costs far more, relatively speaking, than a Russian one, Langvad noted — the same budget buys fewer riflemen.

What does autonomy change for small armies?

The core change is force multiplication. Greater autonomy means militaries no longer need one soldier per weapons system. Estonia's defense ministry made the case directly in its 2026 Defense AI Strategy, stating that AI and autonomous systems can create "asymmetric and cost-effective advantages, despite the size discrepancy vis-à-vis the adversary."

Industry executives across the alliance are drawing the same conclusion:

• Agris Kipurs, CEO of Latvian drone maker Origin Robotics, said smaller nations need weaponry that lets fewer operators do more tasks, "and pretty much the only answer to that is autonomy."
• Eliot Pence, founder of Canadian firm Dominion Dynamics, which builds autonomy, communications and command-and-control systems, said "Canada has a real need for autonomy," partly because it has one of NATO's lowest per-capita soldier ratios. "The ability to extend command and control across this vastness is not just sort of a nice-to-have; it's a need to have."
• David Roberts, CEO of ARX Robotics UK, whose German parent company fields systems in Ukraine and with Western militaries — Britain has ordered an initial batch of its GEREON robots — said one soldier controlling a single system won't work "for a smaller force like the British Army trying to control the number of systems required for its length of front line." As a result, he argued, "autonomy will be required to cope."

How far can machines replace the soldier?

Langvad drew a clear boundary. Technology cannot yet replace human soldiers at the front and likely will not for years. "The human still has an unsurpassed combination of flexible modes of mobility, decentralized intelligent decision-making, and often being readily available," he said.

But he insisted militaries should accept that "there is no intrinsic value to the human on the front line." Every feature that made the human soldier ubiquitous throughout history, he argued, "can logically be replaced by a combination of different technologies if used correctly" — even if that technology is not yet fully realized. He carved out an exception for peacekeeping and state-building missions, where the physical presence of soldiers matters in itself.

Notably, Langvad said a weapon autonomous enough to take over every role of a human in a foxhole is "quite close to existing," and that the next limit will likely be ethical constraints imposed by militaries rather than a technological barrier.

Autonomous systems also protect the force itself. Langvad noted that wealthy countries can send machines where soldiers would otherwise die, preventing unnecessary sacrifice of human lives.

What has the war in Ukraine proven?

Ukraine's fight against Russia's invasion has accelerated the entire trend. Drones now run reconnaissance, strikes and even medical evacuations, while ground robots haul supplies, recover the wounded and operate weapons. Ukrainian officials attribute the vast majority of Russia's front-line casualties to drones; Russia, in turn, invests heavily in uncrewed systems and has used them against Ukrainian troops.

Autonomy levels vary. Some systems are simply remote-controlled; others identify and track targets. Even as autonomy grows, Ukraine says humans still make the final decision to fire.

Langvad said Ukraine has "supercharged" an existing move toward remotely operated weaponry and described its approach as the right "core military logic" — while cautioning that each country must adapt the lessons to its own force.

Norway is following suit at a smaller scale. Its defense ministry published its Drone Strategy for the Defence Sector last December, stating that uncrewed systems let high-risk operations "be carried out without endangering personnel" and can "supplement and replace large, personnel-intensive, and costly platforms, achieving similar military effects at a lower cost."

For defense procurement chiefs in small allied states, the strategic read is straightforward: the next procurement cycle decides whether autonomy closes the gap Russia keeps open with raw manpower.