Drone wall Shield or Illusion? Europe Considers a ‘Drone Wall

Debate is growing over the idea of a 'drone wall'—a defensive shield against Russia’s relentless attacks on Ukraine and recent border violations in Poland and Romania. But the key question remains: would it truly offer enough protection?

A “drone wall” refers to the capability to intercept and destroy large swarms of Russian attack drones right at the EU’s external border. The Munich-based defense company Helsing, which is already active in Ukraine with combat drones, called as early as spring for the rapid establishment of deterrence measures along NATO’s eastern flank. According to the company’s co-founder and co-CEO, Scherf, such a “drone wall” could be built within a year.

Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, together with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, previously visited the EU member states that had expressed interest in the ‘drone wall.

Also Germany’s foreign-policy politician Norbert Röttgen (CDU) now said on German Television  that the Russian war in Ukraine had effectively become a “drone war” at the front, and that this had already changed — and would continue to change — how wars were fought. He argued that NATO should have purchased such drones earlier and warned that allied rearmament to deter Russia must proceed urgently; intelligence agencies, he said, expected Russia to regain the capability for large-scale war in Europe by about 2029. (Report attributed to AFP.)

Invest in drone and counter-drone technology

In contrast, Waldemar Geiger, Managing Partner of the self-proclaimed independent German-language news portal hartpunkt.de, which has been publishing developments primarily in German security and defense policy since 2015, wrote earlier this year that industry promotion of a NATO “drone wall” is understandable commercially but risks becoming politically uncritically adopted. He noted that while drone systems have become capable and inexpensive and manufacturers have integrated advances such as GNSS-independent navigation and AI-based terminal guidance, so too have defenders been developing mass-capable countermeasures. Geiger argued that drones are a significant component of future warfare but not a panacea: environmental limits (fog, wind, cold), the physics of flight, and operational realities create gaps a “drone wall” cannot reliably cover. He pointed out examples from Ukraine showing that drones have not eliminated surprise or replaced artillery — many commanders still request more artillery rather than more drones — and warned that relying on an uncrewed, highly automated defense risks failure when weather or conditions prevent drone operations. Geiger concluded that NATO should invest in drone and counter-drone technology, but not at the expense of conventional forces such as artillery, tanks and infantry, nor as a shortcut to solving personnel shortfalls. Source: Drohnenwall an Nato-Ostflanke kommt (AFP report; commentary: Waldemar Geiger, hartpunkt.de).