Join War on the Rocks and gain access to content trusted by policymakers, military leaders, and strategic thinkers worldwide.
War is a brutal driver of medical innovation. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has forced clinicians and commanders alike to confront a hard truth: Survival depends not only on tactics and technology, but on the ability to deliver advanced care under fire, evacuate and resuscitate the wounded, and preserve fighting strength despite repeated attacks on healthcare systems.
Ukraine’s experience has reshaped combat medicine through necessity, resilience, and improvisation. The central question is no longer whether NATO can observe these lessons, but whether it can build a system bold enough to capture, test, scale, and field them at wartime speed. The NATO Centre of Excellence for Military Medicine and the Joint Analysis, Training, and Education Centre under Allied Command Transformation should not function merely as repositories of lessons learned. They should become the operating platform for a structured secondment model: pre-credentialed military and civilian medical professionals from allied and partner nations deployed to Ukraine to learn at the point of need, strengthen Ukrainian clinical capacity, identify what works under fire, and convert battlefield innovation into doctrine, training, procurement, and true interoperability.
This proposal emerges from my lived experience, namely, field engagement with Ukrainian military, civilian, volunteer, and partner medical networks since 2014, and especially after 2022. Where formal datasets are unavailable for operational security reasons, the argument relies on structured field observation, clinician testimony, and repeated patterns reported across the Ukrainian medical system. The message to allied and partner nations is simple: Beef up your military medical capabilities based on Ukraine’s experiences or pay the ultimate price in the next major war.
Russian missile and drone attacks on medical infrastructure and contested evacuation routes have forced Ukrainian medical teams to move lifesaving capability far forward. Published qualitative work on combat casualty care from point of injury to higher-level care in Ukraine describes a system in which blood, damage-control resuscitation, and select procedural skills have been moved forward because delay itself can kill. The lesson is not that every forward provider should become a surgeon, but that advanced resuscitation should be planned, governed, and available before a casualty reaches a hospital.
The most visible success on the ground in Ukraine is blood forward. Clinicians, volunteers and lower-level providers have expanded low-titer type O whole blood, emergency fresh whole blood, and related training for austere settings, including emergency fresh whole blood transfusion training. The same lesson appears in damage-control resuscitation guidance: Early balanced resuscitation can save casualties with severe hemorrhage, but mass casualty care cannot rely on improvised walking donors alone. While Ukraine has cooperated with select NATO allies on regulating blood, more interoperability is needed across the alliance in terms of cold chain, documentation, and legal authority.
Dried plasma is also crucial for far-forward resuscitation. It can be carried closer to the point of need, reduces dependence on frozen storage, and supports prolonged care when evacuation is delayed. However, it cannot carry oxygen or replace red cells or whole blood. Research on dried plasma for trauma readiness makes the case for treating plasma access as a readiness issue, not a boutique capability. Anecdotally and based on my own clinical spot checks, Ukrainian forces deploy plasma broadly when there is enough supply and could soon provide spray-dried plasma to scale.
Other innovations, including partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, are far-forward and controversial. The Ukrainian experience does not justify casual expansion of complex procedures like this beyond trained teams — military commanders should pay close attention to the outcomes. Non-compressible hemorrhage and long evacuation timelines force militaries to reconsider where advanced hemorrhage control belongs on the battlefield, as well as how to credential small forward-based teams. New catheters for this very purpose may be the difference between life and death. The partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta catheter is not medical bravado, and Ukraine should not be treated as a battlefield petri dish. Used properly, it is a controlled way to slow catastrophic bleeding long enough for resuscitation teams and surgeons to decide what is savable. Its value depends on the right casualty, the right clinician, the right timing, and the right system. Ukraine offers the operational environment to define those clinical limits.
Under chronic shortages — of blood, pain management, splints and tourniquets, pressure dressings, hemostatic gauze, intravenous and intraosseous catheters and needles, and active rewarming equipment, among others — selected damage-control tasks at stabilization sites have at times surpassed peacetime scopes of practice when the alternative was death before evacuation. Think basic medics performing advanced skills like needle decompression and surgical airways without the best medical kit. This is exceptional, context-dependent, and ethically uncomfortable, and it would be a mistake to romanticize. Militaries should train, govern, supervise, and equip forward medical teams in advance, rather than discovering these limits under fire.
Ukraine’s casualties expose another battlefield: antimicrobial resistance. Pre-existing resistance, mass traumatic injury, contaminated wounds, disrupted laboratories, repeated surgery, and international evacuation create a military and public-health problem that does not recognize national borders. I dealt with this issue in Ukraine during the novel coronavirus pandemic, and it has only gotten worse. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes the wartime spread of resistant organisms in Ukraine, while recent studies document changing bacterial patterns and resistance in war-related wound infections, as well as the broader impact of war on antimicrobial resistance.
In practice, clinicians often treat empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics because the laboratory information needed to target treatment, wound or blood culture results, organism identification, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and local antibiogram data showing which antibiotics are likely to work, is often unavailable or delayed. That escalation is understandable in combat, but it creates a cycle that undermines wound healing, rehabilitation, international evacuation, and return to duty. Organisms such as Acinetobacter baumannii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa overlap with pathogens prioritized by the World Health Organization bacterial priority pathogens list. Infection prevention is therefore not a boring paper drill but a warfighting function starting at point of injury.
Since conventional hospitals are vulnerable to missile, drone, and artillery strikes, Ukrainian teams have built dispersed, semi-hardened, temporary, and even underground medical stabilization sites. Some can provide first- or second-echelon care with portable imaging, ventilators, telemedicine, and limited medical procedures. Others have little more than an aid bag and dressings. This unevenness reflects the reality of distributed war, where medical command-and-control must work despite enemy attacks and scarce resources distributed across a 1,500-kilometer-long front.
Prolonged casualty care is now a baseline requirement. Evacuations that once took minutes can stretch for hours or longer because of ubiquitous surveillance, long-range fires, restrictive terrain, poor weather, and impeded routes. Ukrainian medics have learned to observe, resuscitate, document, and move casualties under light, noise, and communications discipline.
The restrictions of a combat environment have forced Ukrainian military medical teams to innovate casualty evacuation methods. When air and road movements weren’t possible, Ukrainian logisticians and international partners used railroads. One study found that medical evacuation trains made 74 journeys and evacuated 2,481 patients over eight months in 2022. The European Commission reported the evacuation of more than 5,000 Ukrainian patients for urgent treatment through the European Civil Protection Mechanism by April 2026. Given the presence of a preexisting rail network, medical evacuation by train is feasible throughout Europe. NATO planners should take this resource into account in planning for casualty management.
Ukrainian ingenuity and a broad coalition of military, civilian, academic, and humanitarian partners have accelerated the developments discussed here. Yet most allied engagement runs through the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Other actors, including security services, intelligence-linked formations, territorial units, volunteer medical networks, and non-state partners, often face barriers despite their heavy operational presence on the battlefield. Collecting lessons solely through formal channels will ensure NATO misses the places where innovation is the most consequential.
The challenge has shifted from invention to assimilation. Ukraine has learned at wartime speed, absorbing hard lessons paid for in blood within hours or days. Alliance institutions, on the other hand, slowed by bureaucratic layers, procurement cycles, certification rules, and political hesitation, lag dangerously behind. NATO allies and partners regularly observe battlefield lessons but too rarely convert them into funded, governed, repeatable practices. Existing experimentation efforts address parts of this gap, but too many outputs remain advisory rather than mandatory.
Ukraine has shown the value of blood forward, partial resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, needle decompression, intraosseous access, and far-forward damage-control procedures. However, allied and partner forces still lack common standards for who can perform them, with what equipment, under what authority in a sub-threshold NATO Article 5 setting, and with what clinical governance across national borders. Allied Command Transformation should feel empowered to turn these point-of-injury lessons into funded, measurable interoperability from battlefield care to surgical handover.
From a clinician’s perspective, the deep lesson from Ukraine is that combat medicine is strategy. A force that can treat and return its wounded to action can fight harder and longer. To accelerate doctrinal change, allied and partner nations should consider structured, voluntary deployment of clinicians into Ukraine. Medical augmentation is a powerful but underused tool for supporting Ukraine, strengthening collective defense, and reinforcing deterrence along NATO’s eastern flank.
Medical personnel — including surgeons, nurses, combat medics, paramedics, rehabilitation specialists, infectious disease clinicians, anesthetists, and critical-care teams — could work alongside Ukrainian counterparts at appropriate echelons to build capacity, provide mentorship, and develop interoperability. Short-term secondments from a few weeks to 90–120-day deployments, funded by sending states, could use pre-credentialed military and civilian personnel from defense, health, emergency medical, and trauma systems. A Ukraine-based reception and placement cell could match individual skillsets to units, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, training nodes, and stabilization sites.
Full quantitative datasets of joint trauma wounding patterns and comprehensive medical notes from point of injury to definitive and rehabilitative care are often impossible because of operational security. That does not mean learning is impossible. Multinational teams could capture structured, anonymized after-action notes: what worked, what failed, what supplies were decisive, which handoffs held, and which clinical patterns repeatedly saved lives — converting these qualitative lessons into short vignettes, checklists, and specialty-specific practice notes that returning clinicians bring back to their units. This is practical data generation — not perfect, but usable, secure, and fast. Such a mission necessitates structure and should be allied-led, as well as clinically governed, with defined objectives, measurable outputs, and a clear pathway for converting field experience into doctrine.
Medical augmentation should function as a reciprocal partnership, not a one-way extraction of Ukrainian wartime lessons. It should strengthen Ukrainian clinical capacity while creating a sustainable pathway for shared learning, governance, and interoperability between allies and partners. Each receiving team should have a Ukrainian clinical sponsor, clear language support, documentation, operational security rules, escalation pathways, and an agreed scope of practice. Because clinical culture and language differences can be as dangerous as skillset gaps, secondees should deploy in small, paired teams with interpreters or bilingual clinicians as needed, and operate under Ukrainian clinical leadership and governance. To be sure, ad hoc medical exchanges have helped since 2022, but to be reproducible pathways of support and exchange, sustainability is required. Mentorship, governance, and long-term partnership require a structured approach.
Of course, risk cannot be ignored. Any deployment into an active conflict zone carries the possibility of casualties, especially near the point of injury. But risk is manageable: Missions should be national, voluntary, non-combatant, and humanitarian. Personnel should work under Ukrainian command-and-control, primarily at stabilization sites, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, or training nodes, and remain exclusively assigned to medical duties protected by international humanitarian law.
This proposal has mutual benefits. Ukraine gains increased combat medical capacity. NATO allies and partners get sharper clinical judgment, more credible interoperability, and a medical force inoculated against peacetime assumptions by real-world experience.
Ukraine is the most consequential combat-medicine laboratory in generations. Allies and partners should formalize clinical data exchange, standardize blood and damage-control resuscitation across echelons, adapt evacuation planning to contested skies, and treat antimicrobial resistance as a readiness threat. While workshops and exercises are useful, structured medical augmentation would turn lessons into shared practice.
The core truth is simple: Good medicine preserves combat power as well as human lives. In future wars, tanks, missiles, drones, and software will not decide victory alone, but alongside the combined skill, courage, logistics, governance, and innovation of those who deliver medical care under fire.
John Quinn is a doctor of medicine who has worked and volunteered in Ukraine since 2014, including as acting chief Medical Director to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. His work has focused on prehospital care, combat casualty systems, medical resilience, and translating frontline lessons into safer clinical practice. This article is offered in tribute to Ukrainian medical colleagues who risk their lives to save others, and to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Image: ArmyInform
