Ukraine is building a wartime society model: why the experience of national resistance is increasingly compared to Israel

In Ukraine, a new state logic is becoming increasingly clear: not only the military but also society as a whole must be ready to defend the country. This is precisely what is discussed in the material about preparing citizens for national resistance, published on April 16, 2026. The focus is on the new law, the expansion of the training system, the launch of special centers, the restructuring of training in schools and universities, and a direct appeal to the Israeli experience as one of the benchmarks.

For the Israeli audience, this topic sounds particularly familiar. In Israel, the very idea that the country’s security relies not only on the army but also on the readiness of society has long been part of the national model. Ukraine is now trying to build something similar in its conditions — under war, under the threat of a prolonged conflict, and under the need to pass skills to the next generation.

At the same time, the Ukrainian approach is not limited to slogans. It is already about systemic changes: from school subjects and student training to new rules for public service and the development of regional training centers. That is why the news is important not only as an internal Ukrainian story but also as an indicator of how the country institutionalizes the experience of war.

Why Ukraine is betting on a prepared citizen

The key idea of the new stage of reform is simple: the state is protected not only by the army but by the entire society.

In the Ukrainian discussion, this is presented as a transition from disparate initiatives of enthusiasts to long-term, professional, and mass work that should cover tens and hundreds of thousands of people annually. Among the countries whose doctrinal experience was considered, Israel, the Baltic countries, Northern Europe, and Switzerland are directly named.

This is an important moment.

Ukraine is not just copying foreign schemes but trying to combine its own combat experience with what has long worked in countries living in the logic of total defense. The essence of this model is that not only a professional military but also a citizen, local authorities, the education system, business, and the volunteer environment should be able to be useful for the country’s defense.

For Israel, this reads almost without translation. That is why Ukrainian discussions about children not forgetting the experience of their parents and basic skills becoming everyday life resonate so strongly with the Israeli view of state resilience. The only difference is that Ukraine comes to this model through full-scale war and a very harsh price of mistakes.

What exactly the new law changes

One of the most noticeable innovations concerns the restructuring of youth training. Schools are already transitioning from old, formal models to a more practical course. The subject “Defense of Ukraine” is being updated, classes are structured in blocks, and the focus is shifting from theory to the consolidation of real skills.

In universities, the changes are even more radical. Mandatory training in the new format should start on October 1, 2026, and instead of the previous weak and often formal model, the subject “Fundamentals of National Resistance” is introduced.

At the same time, basic military service for men is maintained: in peacetime, it should last five months, and in wartime — three.

There is also another fundamental turn: the law separately distinguishes between national resistance and the resistance movement. The first is the broad preparation of society. The second is a much more sensitive and specific area related to the actions of people in occupied territories, underground work, intelligence, and armed resistance. In the Ukrainian logic, this is no longer a journalistic metaphor but a legally and organizationally formalized part of the defense system.

Where Ukraine faces reality

On paper, the new model looks coherent. In practice, Ukraine faces problems that must be solved for any defense reform to work fully: money, instructors, material base, logistics, and coordination between the state, local authorities, and the education system.

This is where the article becomes particularly substantive.

On the one hand, the authorities talk about creating regional centers for preparing citizens for national resistance, involving veterans, public organizations, educational institutions, and even the private sector. On the other hand, the participants in the process openly admit that in the coming year, full-scale quality firearms training is unlikely to be achieved.

The reason is not a lack of desire but a banal lack of resources: ranges, ammunition, weapons, equipment, instructors, and sustainable funding are needed.

The argument of veteran and instructor Nikolai Kuznetsov, who worked with training programs at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and the Kyiv School of Economics, sounds particularly indicative. He essentially describes the defense reform as a very expensive and labor-intensive process, where one cannot pretend that one person can equally well teach tactical medicine, firearms training, topography, UAV basics, and actions in crisis situations.

Moreover, the question of teacher motivation arises. A veteran with combat experience can find better-paid work in the related defense industry than teaching for relatively modest money. This makes the Ukrainian reform not only military and educational but also personnel-related. News — Israel News | Nikk.Agency in this context can view what is happening as an indicator that real defense resilience is built not with slogans but with expensive, complex, and multilayered infrastructure, where the state has to compete for competent people.

Why Israel is mentioned again here

Israel appears in this discussion not by chance. For part of Ukrainian society, the formula “to be like Israel” sounds like a symbol of a country where readiness for threats has become part of the civic norm, not just a function of the army.

But the Ukrainian situation is more complicated.

Ukraine simultaneously takes Israeli and Northern European experience as a doctrinal guide and at the same time considers itself a country that has already developed its own advanced practical developments in the conditions of real war. And this is perhaps the most interesting turn of the whole story: Kyiv looks at Israel as a model of total defense logic, but it already claims to be a country whose combat experience will now also be studied by others.

For the Israeli reader, there is an important hidden question here. Can a state quickly integrate military experience into the everyday civilian system without destroying society and turning training into a bureaucratic formality? Ukraine is trying to answer precisely this.

What this means for the state and society after the war

The new Ukrainian approach goes far beyond class hours and new subjects. One of the most sensitive points of the law is the requirement that a year after the end of martial law, only men who have completed military service in one form or another will be able to apply for public service positions. In the logic of the authors of the law, this should change the very culture of public service and make defense responsibility part of the career norm.

This decision will undoubtedly cause controversy.

But in the Ukrainian argumentation, it is presented not as a technical filter but as an attempt to create a new type of official — a person for whom the connection with the country’s defense is not something external. For Israel, such an approach again does not look exotic: the idea that the state system should not be detached from the reality of threats has long been understood on an instinctive level.

The main conclusion from this whole story is different. Ukraine is no longer discussing whether it needs mass preparation of society for war. This question is closed for it. Now it is debating how exactly to do this, who will train people, where to get the money, how not to slide into imitation, and how to combine military necessity with the normal life of the country.

That is why the current Ukrainian discussion is so important for Israel. It shows how a warring-type state is trying to turn the front-line experience into a system that will work in schools, universities, municipalities, and the state apparatus. And if this project really works, Ukraine will become not only a country studying the Israeli model but also a country whose experience others will begin to study over time.