Russia has declared that it will move to a new stage of its drone programme that includes weapons capable of selecting and striking targets without a human controller. The development follows reports that unmanned aerial vehicles are responsible for roughly three quarters of the injuries and deaths on the front lines of the war in Ukraine.

The widespread use of drones has prompted both Russian and Ukrainian forces to abandon large, fixed formations in favour of smaller, mobile units. This shift has intensified competition in electronic‑warfare capabilities, with two principal technical methods emerging to counter radio‑frequency jamming. One method relies on a hard‑wired fibre‑optic link from a ground controller to the drone, while the other uses artificial‑intelligence software that enables the drone to autonomously detect and engage targets. Laying fibre‑optic cables in the conflict zone has reportedly damaged ecosystems and agricultural land.

Autonomous drones that can choose and fire on targets are classified as lethal autonomous weapons systems, or LAWS, sometimes described as “killer robots”. International bodies define LAWS as systems that, once activated, apply force based on sensor input without direct human orders. The term was coined by Human Rights Watch in 2012 and the organisation campaigns for a pre‑emptive ban, arguing that delegating life‑and‑death decisions to software erodes accountability.

Under current norms no individual manufacturer, programmer or commander can be held liable for an illegal strike by a LAWS, and the weapon itself cannot be prosecuted. The systems are relatively inexpensive to produce and can be manufactured by private companies outside direct state control. Key components such as high‑resolution cameras, machine‑learning processors and small propulsion units have civilian applications in logistics and agriculture, making traditional export‑control regimes largely ineffective. The software that directs a LAWS cannot be counted, inspected or verified through satellite imagery.

Since 2023 the United Nations General Assembly has adopted three resolutions urging regulation or prohibition of LAWS. In the 2023 vote Belarus, India, Mali and Russia opposed the resolution; in 2024 Belarus, North Korea and Russia opposed; and in 2025 the United States, Belarus, Burundi, Israel and Russia opposed while China abstained each time.

European response

Within the European Union Austria joined a coalition at the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in 2018 that called for a ban on autonomous weapons and presented the first EU‑backed resolution on the issue in 2023. France has argued that military AI applications should be excluded from the EU’s forthcoming AI regulation on national‑security grounds. The EU continues to refer to the CCW as the proper forum for LAWS discussions, but progress is blocked by Russia’s veto power.

Strategic arguments and criticism

Moscow claims that autonomous drones can lower the likelihood of human error and miscalculation because machines process sensor data faster than exhausted operators. Russian defence officials assert that LAWS could be considerably more effective than piloted drones, especially in densely built urban areas. Critics counter that the core issue is the delegation of lethal authority to machines, noting that misidentifying civilian objects could cause casualties with unclear legal responsibility. If a LAWS malfunctions, proponents are expected to treat the incident as a technical fault rather than a breach of humanitarian law.

Economic and social dimensions

European defence firms are reconfiguring production lines to supply AI‑enabled drones, a move that could generate high‑skill employment in software and systems integration. The same AI and drone technologies are being marketed for civilian purposes, raising concerns about a militarised labour market. Trade unions across Europe have voiced ethical concerns and warned that an arms race could divert public spending from social programmes. Funding autonomous weapons programmes could place financial burdens on taxpayers while profits accrue to a limited group of defence companies and shareholders.

Outlook

In the near term both Russia and Ukraine are expected to keep refining autonomous capabilities and to seek methods to protect their systems from jamming. Western nations have condemned the development of LAWS but have not enacted a comprehensive ban, leaving the option of using autonomous weapons open for future conflicts. The EU could respond by widening export‑control lists to include AI components, supporting independent verification research and promoting a new multilateral treaty addressing software‑driven weapons. The conflict in Ukraine continues to serve as a testing ground for next‑generation lethal autonomous systems, and the probability of these weapons spreading beyond state control is increasing. Casualty figures illustrate the human cost, while the ethical implications are set to affect societies throughout Europe.