On 3 October, Belgian radar detected 15 drones over the Elsenborn NATO base near the German border. The swarm crossed into German airspace, confirmed by the local police. Hours later, Munich Airport was forced to shut down overnight after multiple drone sightings, stranding thousands of passengers.
These were not isolated incidents, but warnings. Small, dual-use drones–once marketed as toys or photography tools–have become a weapon of choice for states and non-state armed groups.
For over a decade, human rights groups have warned that drones erode civilian protections and lower the threshold for lethal force. Calls for regulation date back to 2013, yet little has been done. The result is evident, from disruption in Western Europe, to whole communities in Ukraine being terrorised daily by swarms of cheap, easily assembled drones.
Battlefield innovation to a weapon of terror
The Russian war in Ukraine shows the full consequences of unregulated drone warfare. The war began as a Russian attempt at rapidly overwhelming Ukrainian forces with a mechanized advance. Ukraine was successful in countering large advances through ambushes and tactical innovations.
Initially relying on large unmanned aircraft, Ukrainian forces progressively used small, commercially available drones first as means of reconnaissance, and later directly to strike targets. The innovations spread, and the war has evolved into a partial stalemate, where neither side is able to concentrate troops or materiel within 10-15 km of the frontline without being spotted and targeted by drones.
For civilians, the impact has been devastating. In the Lower Dnipro region, researchers documented how Russian drones deliberately strike cars, homes and even pedestrians. First responders – firefighters, medics – are attacked while aiding victims. Survivors describe “double-tap” strikes, where drones hit once and then return to target rescuers. Other civilians recount being pursued individually through the streets.
The pattern is clear: drone warfare is not about battlefield advantage alone. It is about breaking communities, instilling fear so pervasive that people flee their homes.
The legal blind spot
The pace of innovation has thus far outstripped accountability: today, drones are not explicitly regulated under any international treaty.
Overall, the Russian campaign of deliberately terrorising the civilian population is clearly a war crime. The drones in Ukraine are still manually operated, meaning responsibility is theoretically traceable. Yet, since they are built from cheap, readily available parts, and controls on their spread are minimal.
Furthermore, there is a clear incentive to embed artificial intelligence into drones, making them autonomous and harder to counter. Such developments could dilute legal responsibility even further, making any accountability unattainable.
The future of war?
Some Western observers are skeptical that the events in Ukraine represent the future of warfare. Unable to suppress each other’s air defences, both Russia and Ukraine rely on drones, as their air forces cannot operate close to the frontlines. Western militaries, on the contrary, may not require swarms of small drones to fight wars as they may have more effective means of achieving air superiority and conducting deep strikes.
Yet, the recent incidents in Belgium, Germany and Poland highlight a different problem: Western states are woefully unprepared to counter these swarms of drones. Hence any prospect of future military conflicts carries an outsized risk for civilians who may be subjected to drone terror, much like communities in Ukraine today.
The case for regulation
Cheap drones are not the only weapon that has an overwhelming potential to harm civilians. Anri-personnel landmines and cluster munitions were once defended as militarily useful. Nonetheless, the 1997 Ottawa Treaty and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions banned these weapons precisely because their civilian impact outweighed any legitimate military purpose.
Yet, despite their legal significance, these documents have not become decisive successes. Anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions are widely used in the Russian war against Ukraine (Russia is not a signatory to either treaty). Concerned with the prospect of war with Russia, several Eastern European countries have also begun their withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty. Thus, a regulation that is not adopted by all parties quickly becomes dysfunctional.
Regulating drones will face a similar uphill battle of securing buy-in from Russia and China, the latter being the main manufacturing force behind the cheap drone components. However, the numerous successful Cold War nuclear arms control treaties between the US and Soviet Union show that limited cooperation between adversaries is not unimaginable. More recent deals on grain shipments and prisoner swaps between Russia and Ukraine show that Russian leadership can adhere to rules when it sees advantage in doing so.
Much like Ukraine, Russia is vulnerable to drone attacks, with its 21 of its 38 large oil refineries recently successfully hit by Ukraine. Mutual vulnerability may create an opening for bilateral or multilateral agreements to regulate the use of drones.
No one should expect military drones to be outlawed entirely. But history shows a way forward towards limiting their most destructive effects.
