Technological warfare in modern times has created a psychologically distinct group of combatants whose moral injuries, identity dislocation, and institutional attitudes are systematically different to those of conventional combat personnel- yet whose individual-level psychological profiles combine into quantifiable international relations (IR)-level impacts on civil-military relations, escalation propaganda, and strategic risk-taking. This is interdisciplinary research that introduces the first comparative psychological study of drone/remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operators, cyber warfare workers and conventional combat veterans based on the 2019-2022 conflict period. The quantitative survey data (N=420; three groups, n=140 each) collected with the help of validated scales, such as the Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES, adapted), the PCL-5 (PTSD Checklist to DSM-5), the Military Identity Questionnaire (MIQ), and the Civil-Military Trust Index (CivMil Trust), were supplemented with 22 semi-structured qualitative interviews, which were analysed using NVivo thematic coding. Results indicate that the operators of drones/RPA were found to experience the most moral injury (M=4.87 vs. 3.42 when compared to conventional combat, d=1.37, p<.001), due to the so-called moral distance paradox, i.e. physical distance between one and the violence and close visual proximity to the effects of violence. Cyber warfare occupational-related participants reported the greatest experience of cognitive dissonance (M=5.12) and experience of algorithmic accountability gap (M=5.12). The first empirical data on an I-level-to-IR-level psychological pathway in technologically mediated warfare was confirmed by structural equation modelling (SEM; CFI=.947, RMSEA=.053). Exposure to COVID-19 greatly increased the moral injury of drone/RPA operators and cyber warfare practitioners (ΔR2=.071, p<.001), with cyber warfare practitioners reporting a unique sense of epistemic exhaustion of managing COVID-era information operations as an occupational extension. The quantitative results were validated and extended by six qualitative themes, saturated at n=18 of 22 interviews. The research paper presents and empirically validates the phenomenon of the so-called Technological Combatant Psychology as a theoretically and clinically distinct phenomenon with direct implications for military mental health policy, governance of civil-military relations, and management of crisis escalation.