What happens when a country decides that patriotism must be engineered rather than earned? The answer may be unfolding in today’s classrooms, where military logic increasingly shapes education and childhood itself. A recent discussion surrounding Russian schools introducing drone-building lessons raises an uncomfortable question: are schools teaching skills for the future - or preparing children for conflict?

The idea is not new. History offers a clear precedent. During the late Soviet era, mandatory military training in schools taught students how to assemble rifles, march in formation, and prepare for civil defense scenarios. According to historians reflecting on these programs, many students found the lessons exciting - not necessarily because of ideology, but because they broke the monotony of everyday school life. For some, military exercises were simply more engaging than sitting at a desk.

Yet beneath the appeal lay a deeper purpose. Military education did not just teach technical skills; it reinforced obedience, normalized hierarchy, and framed discipline as a patriotic virtue. The classroom became a space where conformity was rewarded and deviation discouraged. Those who did not fit the mold - less athletic students, boys with long hair, or outspoken personalities - often faced humiliation or exclusion. Patriotism, in this context, was less about civic responsibility and more about social control.

Today’s shift toward teaching students to assemble and operate drones echoes this history in unsettling ways. The tools have changed, but the underlying logic feels familiar. Instead of Kalashnikov rifles, it is unmanned systems. Instead of Cold War civil defense, it is digital-era warfare skills. The message remains similar: technical competence is tied to loyalty, and patriotism is linked to preparedness for conflict.

Supporters argue that these programs simply reflect technological reality. Drones are everywhere - in agriculture, filmmaking, logistics, and emergency response. Teaching children how they work could be seen as modern STEM education. But critics warn that context matters. When military narratives dominate public discourse, teaching drone assembly is unlikely to remain purely neutral. Skills are never value-free; they are shaped by the narratives surrounding them.

The most provocative question is whether this represents education or conditioning.

Modern warfare increasingly blurs civilian and military boundaries. The same drones used for aerial photography can be weaponized on battlefields. The same digital literacy that empowers innovation can support surveillance or targeting systems. When schools adopt these technologies without critical discussion, they risk normalizing militarization as an inevitable part of everyday life.

There is also a psychological dimension. Children absorb social signals quickly. When patriotic identity becomes associated with military readiness, dissent or skepticism may be interpreted as weakness or disloyalty. This dynamic does not require overt propaganda; it emerges naturally when institutions reward one worldview over others.

Historically, societies that heavily militarized youth education often framed it as necessity rather than ideology. The argument was always safety, preparedness, survival. Yet such programs can create long-lasting cultural effects - fostering acceptance of authority and reducing space for critical debate. Patriotism becomes less about questioning leaders and more about serving them.

None of this means that teaching technology or national history is inherently problematic. The issue lies in balance. Democracies thrive when patriotism coexists with critical thinking, debate, and pluralism. When education emphasizes only loyalty and readiness for conflict, the result may be citizens who know how to obey but not how to question.

The introduction of drone-building lessons in schools therefore symbolizes something larger than curriculum reform. It reflects a world where geopolitical tensions increasingly infiltrate daily life and where states compete not only for territory but for the minds of future generations.

The uncomfortable truth is that patriotism imposed from above often signals insecurity rather than strength. Genuine loyalty grows from trust, opportunity, and freedom - not from drills, uniforms, or technological training framed by conflict.

As societies grapple with rising tensions and rapid technological change, one question demands attention: are we educating children to build the future, or preparing them to fight it?

The answer may define not only the next generation’s skills - but their understanding of citizenship itself.

‍