Connect with us

World

Mass drone warfare is Europe’s rising security threat

Published

on

Mass drone warfare is Europe’s rising security threat

Modern wars consume drones at a much higher rate than traditional ammunition. Ukraine uses approximately 9.000 drones per day, roughly 270.000 units monthly. Estimates suggest that Iran can produce approximately 400 Shahed drones per day, for a monthly capacity of up to 12.000 units.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

This staggering churn is pushing the EU towards mass-scale industrial production, as existing drone stockpiles and manual manufacturing cannot keep pace with battlefield losses.

The bloc’s inability to scale production is creating a strategic dependency on external suppliers like the US or China, leaving its borders vulnerable to disposable, “cheap” warfare that the current industrial pace cannot sustain.

To counter this vulnerability, the EU has launched the 2026 European Drone Defence Initiative (EDDI), to build a multi-layered, 360-degree shield of interoperable counter-drone systems by 2027.

Advertisement

Complementing the EDDI is the Drone Alliance with Ukraine, which leverages battlefield-tested expertise to co-produce millions of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Utmost strategic importance

Drones went from niche tools to key war instruments because of three advantages: low cost, constant surveillance, and precision strike capability.

In Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, both sides rely on drones for reconnaissance and targeting. Commercial quadcopters, which can cost just a few hundred euros, spot enemy positions and guide artillery in real time. This shortens the time between detection and destruction from hours to minutes. Larger systems, such as Turkey’s Bayraktar TB2, were used to destroy supply convoys and air defence systems early in the conflict, which set a new international war standard.

“Drones evolve technologically every three to six months. So, it’s also challenging to buy millions of drones that will be obsolete in 12 months from now”, shared Nikolaus Lang, Global Leader at BCG Henderson Institute.

Drones are cheap to produce, but expensive to defend against. In traditional wars, destroying a target required expensive aircraft or missiles, until Ukraine showed that today, a cheap “kamikaze” drone can destroy equipment worth millions.

Advertisement

Russia used many Iranian Shahed drones, each relatively inexpensive, to strike Ukrainian infrastructure. But defending against them requires pricey air-defence missiles or fighter jets, which creates a strategic imbalance where the defender spends far more than the attacker.

“Europe needs cheaper and quicker solutions”, said Jamie Shea, former NATO official, Senior Fellow at Friends of Europe and Senior Advisor at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. “The EU uses very expensive means to neutralise drones. You’ve seen in Iran, where $3 million missiles are used to shoot down drones of just a couple of thousand dollars”, he said.

Military analysts from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies describe drones as one of the most disruptive economic shifts in warfare in decades.

Drones also democratise air power. In earlier conflicts, only advanced dominated the air, but this changed during the Nagorno-Karabakh War as Azerbaijani forces used drones to systematically destroy Armenian tanks and artillery.

In the Gaza Strip, both state forces and non-state actors use modified commercial drones for surveillance and attacks. Now even relatively small or poorly equipped groups can carry out aerial operations, which lowers the barrier for effective military force.

Advertisement

Europe falls behind

For Europe, urgency stems from external threats and internal weaknesses. Drone incidents near critical infrastructure quadrupled between 2024 and 2025. In September, Copenhagen and Oslo closed airports after “several large drones” caused 109 cancellations and 51 reroutes. A month later, Munich Airport closed twice in 24 hours for the same reason.

The strategic concern is that the EU is not yet structured for a “drone-saturated” battlefield or security environment. Recent incidents forced costly responses: for example, in September of 2025, approximately 20 Russian drones entered Polish airspace, so NATO deployed F-35 fighter jets to neutralize the threat, which cost at least €1.2 million.

To avoid this, Shea explained that the EU should develop advanced sensor technology, including a 360-degree sensor aperture that shoots down malicious drones.

Ramping up production

The EU supplies less than 30 per cent of its own military drone needs. By comparison, China and Ukraine produce millions of units annually, while the US is scaling up to hundreds of thousands.

To address this, the Commission launched an industrial push to fundamentally restructure drone design, production, and deployment. The goal is scale: faster production cycles, higher volumes, and lower costs, because modern drone warfare is less about sophistication and more about quick, adaptable mass production.

Advertisement

Traditional European defence procurement is slow, often taking years from concept to deployment. This approach seeks to shorten timelines through modular designs, faster testing, and continuous upgrades, enabling rapid drone adaptation. So, the Commission introduced AGILE (fast-track funding), the EU Defence Innovation Scheme, and BraveTech EU.

Low-cost production is another pillar, with initiatives focused on affordability, scalability, and dual-use manufacturing. The EU is engaging civilian industries (e.g., automotive, electronics) and SMEs, which are more agile than large contractors and better suited to rapid prototyping and innovation. Funding tools will support efforts across member states.

Europe has massively levelled up its defence R&D investments, but it’s still not enough, according to Lang. He pointed out that the “US invested more than $900 billion, Europe only $450 billion altogether”.

The EU will also rely on the Drone Alliance with Ukraine; a 2024 multinational military partnership created to secure Ukraine’s UAV supply through constant deliveries of drones tailored to frontline requirements.

The Alliance allowed the EU to establish a network of factories for Ukrainian-designed drones on European soil. So European firms can bypass traditional bureaucracy by testing new prototypes on the front lines in weeks rather than years.

Advertisement

The alliance is boosted by billions from frozen Russian assets, specifically set to scale up production of low-cost autonomous systems. This collaboration wants to deliver over two million drones annually by 2030.

These initiatives should reduce dependence on non-European suppliers, alongside efforts to secure supply chains for critical drone components (like semiconductors, sensors, and communication systems) within EU borders and among trusted partners.

A key tool is the planned “EU trusted drone” label, to certify systems that meet security and reliability standards. It’s designed to guide procurement decisions, encourage the use of European-made technologies, and ultimately create a more self-sufficient and resilient drone ecosystem.

EU policy meets military drones

Russia’s violation of NATO airspace (37 times since 2022) and the war in Iran pushed the EU to start redefining its defence strategy, shifting from civil drone regulation to security measures and funding initiatives.

The Commission’s 2026 Action Plan on Drone and Counter-Drone Security addresses the use of drones in conflicts that target critical infrastructure, borders, and airspace. It targets the EU’s real-time detection capacities and develops a unified defence approach against malicious operations.

Advertisement

It also boosts member states’ industrial cooperation and drone markets to reduce dependence on non-EU suppliers. Investing in the small niche companies, where innovation lies, is key. “Europe needs to create greater risk, expand our venture capital market, and simplify procurement regulatory barriers”, Shea argued.

The roadmap focuses on four priorities: boosting resilience through industrial ramp-up, improving threat detection through stronger surveillance, responding and defending with a coordinated strategy, and strengthening the EU’s defence readiness.

Detecting and tracking threats requires advanced AI-powered technological infrastructure. The Commission foresees accelerating technological development by using 5G networks to improve real-time threat detection.

The action plan is strong as “it identifies the problem and mobilises resources”, Shea said. Yet the EU needs to learn from Ukraine’s drone strategy: “Ukraine is doing 50 per cent of the work for us. It’s developing the intelligence and offering to share sensitive data. It’s also showing Europe how AI should be integrated into counter-drone technology”.

The EDDI is a key part of the action plan, and it acts as a shield for the bloc’s airspace. Through its multi-layered, interoperable system, the initiative detects, tracks and defends the EU from hybrid threats and drone incursions.

Advertisement

Running on AI-powered sensing and counter-drone technologies, the EDDI supports the Eastern Flank Watch, which is also part of the Commission’s Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030. It is an EU-NATO initiative to protect the EU’s border with Russia and Belarus, using specialised counter-drone technologies and boosting air defence, surveillance, and rapid threat response while improving cooperation with NATO operations, such as Eastern Sentry and Baltic Air Policing.

Security and defence remain national

Though the EU is shifting towards scalable, networked, AI-driven, and mass-produced warfare equipment, defence and security remain national, meaning that member states have individual defence priorities and budgets. Fragmented national procurement practices, critical infrastructure protection, and different rules governing drone and counter-drone systems obstruct Europe’s new defence strategy.

Shea warned that Europe should establish a common legal framework so that all member states can develop and test drone technology equally.

“European states need to monitor the same airspace all the time, so that somebody in France is looking at the same air picture as somebody in Poland or Estonia”, he underlined.

Another issue? Fragmented national investments in drone innovation. “Some countries, like Denmark or Germany, have been much more upfront than others, also in forming joint ventures with Ukrainian manufacturers”, Shea said.

Advertisement

Likewise, 80 per cent of EU procurement is at national level. “We need many more of these initiatives to overcome the fragmentation of defence procurement”, warned Lang.

According to Shea, the EU should also eliminate bureaucratic obstacles to enable sensitive information sharing, such as drone threat intelligence and airspace monitoring, between member states.

“Drones are getting faster and sharing information is fundamental, but the EU needs to ensure safe security protocols to encourage countries to share data”.

Advertisement

World

AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use

Published

on

AI notetakers promise easy meeting recaps, but some professionals question their use

NEW YORK (AP) — Launching an artificial intelligence tool to take notes and summarize important information from a virtual meeting can be alluring. Seconds after one of the agents attends an hour-long video conference, it can deliver a recap of key points and outline a to-do list for all the participants.

But the way popular AI notetakers accomplish those tasks makes some people avoid using them. The technology turns everything said during meetings into data. Confidential personnel information, corporate strategies, trade secrets and remarks that could later be seen as incriminating — all of it could end up in the wrong hands.

“There are huge risks to the organization on AI notetakers,” Amy Dufrane, the chief executive of human resources training and certification provider HRCI, said. “I don’t think companies should use it at all.”

An AI notetaker is a software application or device that uses artificial intelligence, speech recognition and large language models to record, transcribe and summarize conversations. The tools are intended to save time and improve participation, but professionals in a number of fields say there are reasons to be wary.

This article is part of AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health. Read more Be Well.

Advertisement

Chief among them is uncertainty about where the collected data is stored and for how long. Privacy advocates worry the companies behind the AI notetakers are creating voiceprints without consent. Voiceprints — a type of biometric profile similar to a fingerprint but tuned to the unique intonations and characteristics of one’s voice — can be used to access restricted or confidential information, including the contents of bank accounts.

Some tech companies resell data from the notetaking tools they created or use confidential meeting transcripts and recordings to train their AI models. There’s also the risk that conversations between an attorney and client could become fair game in legal proceedings; a New York federal judge in February ordered a criminal defendant to provide prosecutors with documents he created for his lawyers because it already had been shared with a third party, which was Anthropic’s Claude.

“People who use AI notetakers, they don’t always know where the data goes,” said Justin Daniels, an Atlanta-based corporate attorney at law firm Baker Donelson. “And in my context, if the data goes anywhere else and they’re not aware of it, that attorney-client-privileged conversation may not be attorney-client-privileged anymore.”

Here are some tips on the etiquette of kicking an AI notetaker out of a meeting, the risks of using one and how to protect yourself.

The first step when you join a meeting is check for bots

When you join a meeting, make it a habit to check whether an AI notetaker is present. It might appear as a meeting attendee, often labeled as an AI notetaker, or a pop-up message on the screen informing participants the meeting is being recorded. The latter could signal the presence of an AI notetaker.

Advertisement

Virtual meeting platforms such as Zoom and Google Meet let users know when recording is underway, but some meeting software does not make it clear when a notetaker is present, according to Thorin Klosowski, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior security and privacy analyst.

Sign up for Morning Wire:
Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Advertisement

Participants also may use personal notetaking devices that are separate from the meeting platform, in which case the other attendees wouldn’t necessarily know a discussion was being recorded and transcribed.

“You hope the other person would tell you that they’re doing that,” Klosowski said. “Asking everyone for consent before doing a sensitive meeting would be the most polite approach to take.”

If you’re unsure whether someone has deployed an AI notetaker, you can ask. You can also state at the beginning that a meeting is not authorized for recording.

A polite way to establish such a boundary is to say, “Our company policy is that this meeting cannot be recorded,” Dufrane suggested. This relieves the employee, such as a salesperson who wants to make a good impression, of having to be the “bad guy,” putting the onus on the company instead, she said.

Advertisement

Another option is to allow the notetaker for part of the gathering but turn if off at the end to dedicate time for more delicate topics.

“I won’t start talking about anything substantive until it’s shut off, because I just don’t want to take the risk,” Daniels said.

Assert your privacy rights to protect voiceprints

Many AI notetakers determine unique acoustic signatures, or voiceprints, for each speaker in the room, said Chris Pluymers, associate attorney at The Dillon Law Group in East Lansing, Michigan. That’s how the companies distinguish one speaker from another, labeling them with monikers “Speaker 1” or “Speaker 2.”

One way voiceprints are used is to verify the identities of bank account holders over the phone. If bad actors got ahold of a person’s vocal signature, they could use it to access files, commit fraud or take over accounts, he said.

Laws in some states govern how voiceprints can be created and stored and provide rights that individuals can assert to object to the use of an AI notetaker during meetings they attend.

Advertisement

In Illinois, voiceprints are considered biometric identifiers, similar to fingerprints, and are covered under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, which requires written notice and informed consent before an AI notetaker or other agent collects voiceprints. The law also mandates a documented data retention schedule and destruction policy, Pluymers said. But most companies using the tools have none of those systems in place, Pluymers said.

“In the world of AI, the world of data and privacy, the world of biometric identification, I don’t think you can have such a lax approach to it,” Pluymers said. “I think getting out ahead of it is crucial.”

Under the Illinois law, employees can say they don’t want to attend a meeting with an AI notetaker until they have assurances of where and why the data is being stored, and when it will be deleted, Pluymers said. They can also ask if there is a policy and written consent form to sign.

If an AI notetaker shows up at a meeting unexpectedly, a participant could say, “I prefer we keep this meeting without AI recording or transcript tools and I’d be happy to take my own notes and share a recap if that’s helpful,” Pluymers suggested. “Just being warm and genuine about it and asking them to respect your wishes.”

Know where your data goes

When working with AI notetaking apps, find out whether the companies that built them retain recordings, transcripts or metadata indefinitely or use them to train AI models, said Danielle Kays, a partner at Fisher Phillips who represents businesses on privacy and employment law matters.

Advertisement

“If there is some sort of speaker ID or voice recognition, really understand what that is and how it works,” Kays said.

Even when content is deleted, metadata about meetings can remain stored with the vendor, meaning sensitive business information could influence how the model behaves and in some cases could be memorized or reproduced, she said.

AI notetakers generate text, and that’s easier for outsiders to search through than video or audio files, according to EFF.

“Storing a bunch of video isn’t easy, it’s costly and hard to look through, but text is much easier to search and cheaper to store,” said Klosowski of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

___

Advertisement

Share your stories and questions about workplace wellness at [email protected]. Follow AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health at https://apnews.com/hub/be-well

Continue Reading

World

Argentinian flight instructor jumps to death from plane, 22-year-old student forced to land alone

Published

on

Argentinian flight instructor jumps to death from plane, 22-year-old student forced to land alone

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A flight instructor jumped to his death out of a small aircraft over Argentina, forcing the student pilot he was teaching to land the plane herself.

Leandro Andrés Bertazzo, 42, was on board a two-seat Cessna 150G on Saturday when he made the decision to jump out over the province of Córdoba, according to CNN, which cited its Argentinian affiliate TN.

“He made this tragic decision on board an aircraft with another person by his side,” Eduardo Álvarez, director of the Flying Parrot Córdoba flying school where Bertazzo worked, told TN. “It’s impossible to think about it or understand it, but the human mind is so complex.”

An undated photo of Leandro Andrés Bertazzo, a 42-year-old pilot who jumped to his death from a plane on Saturday, July 4 in Argentina. (Instagram/Leandro Bertazzo)

Advertisement

PILOT DECLARES MAYDAY BEFORE SEAPLANE COMES DOWN IN NEW YORK CITY’S EAST RIVER

Rosario, the 22-year-old student, later told authorities that Bertazzo told her, “You know what you have to do, carry on,” before taking off his gear, opening the door and leaping out, according to Álvarez.

Opening the door of a plane midair is incredibly difficult. Álvarez said it would be akin to trying to open the door of a car traveling 124 miles per hour.

Cessna 150m FRA150M climbing out after take-off with flaps deployed and hills behind. (aviation-images.com/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

FRANTIC SEARCH UNDERWAY FOR CREW AFTER BOEING 737 WRECKAGE FOUND BY OFFICIALS

Advertisement

Álvarez said that Rosario managed to land the plane safely, despite being in “complete shock.” There was no damage to the plane, according to TN.

Álvarez noted that Bertazzo had gone on a flight with another student earlier in the day.

A view from the main road of the flight school Bertazzo worked at, Flying Parrot Córdoba. (Google Maps)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Álvarez also told TN that Bertazzo had visited a psychiatric institute, something that was only known by his family prior to his death.

Advertisement

Prosecutors in Córdoba will lead the investigation into Bertazzo’s death. The plane he jumped from is now in police custody.

Continue Reading

World

Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in DC reflecting pool vandalism case

Published

on

Former US Olympian pleads not guilty in DC reflecting pool vandalism case

Former Olympic canoeist David Hearn denies damaging US President Donald Trump’s Washington, DC reflecting pool renovation.

A former US Olympian has pleaded not guilty to vandalising the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, in a case that has drawn national attention amid accusations that the administration of US President Donald Trump is trying to shift blame for a troubled renovation.

David “Davey” Hearn, a 67-year-old three-time Olympic canoe racer, entered his plea in federal court on Thursday after prosecutors accused him of “maliciously” damaging the “American flag blue” lining installed at the bottom of the reflecting pool at Trump’s request ahead of celebrations taking place at Washington’s National Mall for the 250th anniversary of the United States’ independence on July 4.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Federal prosecutors allege Hearn pulled at the liner on June 19, causing more than $1,000 in damage. He has been charged with destruction of government property, an offence that carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

Advertisement

Hearn denied the allegations. He admitted he stopped at the pool during a bike ride, reached inside and touched a section of lining that was already peeling away, but that he did not remove or damage it. He told The Associated Press he let go when a park employee told him to stop.

Hearn’s lawyers argue the prosecution is an attempt by the Trump administration to deflect attention from what they describe as a botched renovation project.

“This indictment reflects the administration’s effort to shift blame for their own failures,” they said in a statement. “The justice system exists to determine facts, not to provide political cover.”

The 620-metre (2,030-foot) reflecting pool reopened in June after Trump ordered the new liner to be installed across the bottom. He said he was compelled to go ahead with the $14.7m renovation after a friend visiting from Germany called the pool dark and disgusting.

But within days, algae began to spread across the surface, the water turned chartreuse green, and sections of the liner began peeling away.

Advertisement

Experts have explained that the dark new coat of paint at the bottom of the pool would elevate the temperature and allow algae to grow, and that algae blooms in water are common at this time of year, especially in shallow, stagnant water like that of the pool.

Trump blamed the issues on vandals, claiming without evidence that “corrosive and destructive chemicals” were poured into the pool and that vandals “took some form of knife or blade” and put a long “gash into the beautiful facade”, although no one has been charged over those alleged acts.

The US president warned that anyone who allegedly damaged the pool could face long prison terms. “Please remember that there is a 10 year prison sentence for the destruction, or even the attempted destruction, of such things — Which will be fully enforced!” he wrote on Truth Social.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 02: U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia on July 02, 2026 in Washington, DC. Pirro announced that former Olympic canoeist David Hearn has been indicted by a grand jury on charges related to alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP (Photo by Anna Moneymaker / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Getty Images via AFP)
US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announces on July 2, 2026, that former Olympic canoeist David Hearn has been indicted by a grand jury on charges related to alleged vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool [Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/AFP]

Last week, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced the indictment against Hearn, accusing him of intentionally damaging the liner.

The US Department of the Interior has said that at least six people were arrested on suspicion of vandalising the pool in the weeks after it reopened. National Guard troops and US Park Police were deployed to protect the site, which was fenced off during July 4 celebrations.

Thursday’s hearing drew a packed courtroom, with dozens of supporters waiting outside after Hearn entered his plea.

Advertisement

The reflecting pool’s problems have continued, with Trump acknowledging it will need to be drained again so the damaged liner can be repaired.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending