- 'Whatever Brussels proposes usually gets implemented in compromise that waters it down, less ambitious, less big, less effective,' says expert
ISTANBUL
The EU’s “Drone Wall” security initiative faces potential setbacks as experts warn that disputes over funding, leadership, and strategy could hinder progress.
Recently, Poland spotted nearly 20 suspected Russian drones, with similar incidents reported across Romania, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Suspected drone sightings have also disrupted airports in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Munich.
Following the incursions, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen officially announced an EU initiative to protect from drones.
But as the proposal moves from speech to strategy, a growing list of political and logistical challenges has left analysts questioning whether the plan can deliver.
Dispute over name
The so-called “drone wall,” first announced by Lithuania, was initially hailed as a landmark step toward collective defense, but its name soon revealed Europe’s divisions.
“There has been a lot of controversy over the very fact of naming it the drone wall in the first place, and in fact, they changed the name,” Matteo Ilardo, a Europe analyst at RENA, told Anadolu.
Calling it a “wall,” he explained, implied an “impregnable, geographically fixed” shield focused on the East – an image that unsettled larger Western states.
Echoing those concerns, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Europe should strengthen its overall air defense and deterrence capacities rather than rely on the idea of a “drone wall,” which he described as “not totally feasible.”
“It basically suggested that this was a primarily Eastern European thing, that this was going to be way more ambitious than what reality compels the Europeans to effectively be able to do,” Ilardo said.
The project has since been rebranded as the European Drone Defense Initiative.
But as Ilarda noted, “that already tells us two things: the level of ambition behind the initiative, and the divisions over what this is meant to be among member states.”
Collective shield or fragmented defense?
Despite von der Leyen describing the project as “a collective European shield,” the project remains bogged down by familiar EU disputes over sovereignty, funding and mutual trust.
“It will have to be a collective effort,” Ilardo said. “Although, of course, to what effectiveness will depend … it’s an average between ambition and what’s actually feasible politically and financially.”
Many eastern states, which would host most of the infrastructure, lack the means to fund it alone.
“They can’t really finance themselves the defense they need,” Ilardo explained. “Plus, they are the frontier for the rest of Europe.”
But beyond budgets lies the thornier issue of trust. Relations with governments such as Hungary and Slovakia have long strained the bloc’s cohesion.
“When it comes to anything as sensitive as intelligence, as defense, as procurement, there’s always a bottleneck,” he said.
Still, he argued, political friction will not be fatal.
“Even if Hungary will decide that it does not want to participate, I don’t necessarily think this is a significant risk,” he said. “There will be annoyances, obstacles, hindrances – but not necessarily constraints.”
Systemic challenges
Beyond politics, Europe faces a deeper challenge: outdated air defense systems and fragmented command structures.
“To have a system that works seamlessly across member states, you need to harmonize threat assessments, rules of engagement and technical standards,” said Ilardo.
Coordinating over 20 national forces under one framework, he added, “is far from easy.”
“Whatever Brussels proposes usually gets implemented in a compromise that waters it down, less ambitious, less big, less effective,” Ilardo said.
The envisioned system was initially designed to span nearly 6,000 kilometers (3,730 miles) along the EU’s eastern flank, from Finland’s border with Russia down to the Black Sea.
“Right now, Europe relies on very costly traditional methods of intercepting things that are not drones, but usually are missiles or jets,” Ilardo said.
For now, member states are experimenting with a mix of electronic warfare tools, kinetic interceptors, anti-aircraft systems and even laser weapons.
But each comes with trade-offs.
“To just bet on one single technology would either be ineffective from a cost point of view or take too long to implement,” he said.
Ukrainian expertise
Ukraine’s battlefield experience over the years has turned it into a key player in both drone manufacturing and anti-drone tactics.
“European countries are already investing in Ukraine for the development and production of drones despite the war,” Ilardo said. “That tells us how much they believe working with Ukraine would be useful.”
Still, integrating Ukrainian innovation into Europe’s defense industry will not be straightforward.
“In Europe, the defense system is very vertical, big companies working closely with governments,” Ilardo explained. “In Ukraine, it’s the opposite – a horizontal ecosystem made up of startups. If you try to integrate that into the European system, there will be frictions.”
“Europe either needs to amend its own defense system to allow for these realities on the ground in Ukraine, or invest in Ukraine for it to adapt to the European system,” he said.
‘Drone wall’ aimed at masking internal divisions?
In Moscow, the “drone wall” is seen less as a genuine defense project than a political gesture aimed at masking internal EU divisions, said Olga Krasnyak of Russia’s National Research University – Higher School of Economics.
“This suggests that the EU's efforts to bolster its military capabilities are hampered by a lack of resources and mounting domestic issues, including signs of economic recession, the migrant crisis, and, above all, the instability of domestic policy and the absence of political elites who genuinely pursue national interests,” she told Anadolu.
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the EU’s strategic sovereignty has been largely undermined by the strategic supremacy of the US, Krasnyak added.
She also argued that such defense efforts are merely a continuation of the West’s long-standing approach toward Moscow.
“Pointing to Russia as a threat is a well-known tactic for diverting public attention away from the EU's substantial problems,” she added.
