What does the soldier of the future need to survive on a battlefield watched by drones, saturated with sensors and increasingly populated by machines?

NATO is looking for answers in Latvia.

As part of interconnected experiments led by NATO Allied Command Transformation (ACT), Allied military operators and industry are putting a striking mix of emerging technologies through their paces: uncrewed ground vehicles, drone-evading garments and virtual-reality training for combat lifesaving.

Taken separately, they may look like individual technology projects. Together, however, they reveal something bigger: a rethink of how soldiers could operate, survive and train in increasingly transparent and technologically dense battlespaces.

Robots move onto the ground

Uncrewed ground vehicles, or UGVs, could take machines into environments where sending soldiers is either inefficient or dangerously costly.

Depending on their configuration, such platforms can support missions ranging from logistics and reconnaissance to casualty evacuation. NATO’s experimentation matters because the real test is not whether a robot works during a controlled demonstration. It is whether it can operate alongside the communications networks, vehicles, soldiers and command structures that already exist.

That distinction is crucial.

Modern armies rarely have the luxury of replacing everything at once. New technology must work with old technology, often across forces from several different countries.

NATO says that is exactly the point of putting emerging systems to the test alongside existing military capabilities.

When hiding from drones becomes part of the uniform

Perhaps the most intriguing technology being examined in Latvia is far less dramatic than a robot: drone-evading garments.

Yet the concept addresses one of the defining problems of modern ground warfare.

Small unmanned aircraft have made observation from above increasingly accessible. Soldiers, vehicles and positions can potentially be located and tracked with technologies that would once have required far more expensive reconnaissance platforms.

That changes the logic of camouflage.

The challenge is no longer just hiding from the human eye. Future equipment may increasingly need to reduce how effectively personnel can be detected by the sensors carried by unmanned systems.

In other words, the centuries-old contest between detection and concealment is being technologically reinvented.

VR prepares medics for reality

The third element of NATO’s experimentation attacks the problem from another direction: training.

Virtual-reality combat lifesaving environments could let military personnel repeatedly practise high-pressure medical scenarios without reproducing every physical condition of a battlefield exercise.

For NATO forces, which must often operate as multinational formations, immersive technologies could also provide opportunities to standardise aspects of training and expose personnel to difficult scenarios more frequently.

But VR is not being presented as a magic replacement for real-world exercises.

The important question is whether immersive training can make personnel better prepared when simulation ends and the emergency is real.

Latvia as a proving ground for the future force

What makes NATO’s work in Latvia significant is not that any one of these technologies represents a science-fiction breakthrough.

It is the combination that matters.

Robotic vehicles could reduce the number of people exposed to dangerous missions. New garments could make soldiers harder to detect. Immersive training could prepare them for situations that are difficult or expensive to reproduce conventionally.

Together, they point toward a future land force where survivability increasingly depends on integrating humans, autonomous or remotely operated machines, sensors and software.

There is also a hard lesson behind this experimentation.

On the modern battlefield, technological advantage has an expiration date.

A new drone creates demand for a new countermeasure. A better sensor produces a better form of concealment. Automation changes tactics, which creates another requirement for training.

NATO’s experiments in Latvia therefore are not simply about discovering the next impressive gadget.

They are about answering a much more important question: Which technologies actually keep soldiers alive and make an Allied force more effective when innovation meets the realities of the battlefield?

That answer will not be found in a PowerPoint presentation.

It has to be tested.

‍