Germany Calls For a Drone Wall on NATO’s Eastern Flank

Including across Ukraine. But how would it work?

Courtesy Helsing AI. Used with permission.

Gundbert Scherf isn’t mincing words. The CEO of German defense AI firm Helsing just dropped a bold proposal: NATO could erect a drone wall along its eastern flank within a year.

Not a metaphorical wall.

A literal wall of armed, autonomous, AI-guided flying machines.

And not in 2030.

Not when the paperwork clears.

By 2026, if the West has the will to act.

If you’re picturing a Skynet-meets-the Maginot Line mashup, you’re not entirely wrong. But behind the ambitious claim lies a very real shift in how Europe, and NATO as a whole, is thinking about modern defense.

In a recent interview with dpa, Scherf called for “a conventional deterrent on NATO’s eastern flank using new types of combat drones.”

His vision? A defensive network composed of autonomous drones, like Helsing’s HX-2, supported by a mesh of satellite surveillance, reconnaissance drones, and advanced battlefield AI.

“A drone wall could be erected within a year,” Scherf said bluntly. “You also need reconnaissance systems, satellites, and probably reconnaissance drones.”

This drone wall would include Ukraine, perhaps along the current lines of fighting.

No talk of armored divisions. No obsession with parity in tanks or fighter squadrons. In fact, Scherf dismissed that Cold War calculus as obsolete.

“We’re still counting tanks, ships, and planes. That’s the wrong mindset.”

And he’s right.

The drone revolution doesn’t just supplement existing defense strategy, it shatters it.

The HX-2 kamikaze drone, already in production for Ukraine, is fast, jam-resistant, semi-autonomous, and deadly accurate. With swarm capability built into Helsing’s Altra software, these drones can operate as cohesive units, striking targets without requiring persistent operator control.

Actually, I made a video about these HX-2 drones for my YouTube channel, and yes, they have a passing resemblance to Star Wars’ X-Wing fighters:

In short, imagine thousands of flying landmines constantly scanning, swarming, and neutralizing threats.

That’s the wall.

What about minefields? Well, minefields are useful, but they’re also messy, time-consuming to deploy and clean up, and make a zone uninhabitable for some time.

What Scherf is proposing is an “airborne minefield” that can move to where it’s needed. It’s time to rethink defenses and fortifications as we once knew them.

How a Drone Wall Would Actually Work

Tactically, a drone wall isn’t a single, monolithic defense line like NATO’s Cold War-era Fulda Gap fortifications. It’s a layered, adaptive, intelligent network of airborne and ground-based systems working in concert across several domains.

Let me emphasize “adaptive”. This wall could be quickly and easily strengthened in the places more at risk of incursion and drone resources diverted from places along the front that are relatively safe.

First, persistent reconnaissance would be essential.

Surveillance satellites, like those operated by Helsing’s partner Loft Orbital, provide top-down views of troop movements, logistics hubs, and possible incursion routes across NATO’s eastern frontier. Think Kaliningrad to Romania.

In parallel, high-endurance UAVs patrol the no-man’s-land with electro-optical and IR sensors, detecting anything from heat signatures to camouflage nets.

Next, autonomous interception.

Once a target is flagged, HX-2-style drones can be scrambled (or already loitering) to intercept. These drones aren’t tied to a comms leash. If Russian jammers cut the link, onboard AI keeps them hunting.

In swarm mode, these drones coordinate like a pack of wolves. Some saturate air defenses. Others target command vehicles or artillery. All without needing real-time human micromanagement.

Finally, human-in-the-loop ethics are essential.

Helsing insists that its drones maintain human oversight for lethal decisions. Operators can intervene, re-task, or abort. But the wall’s strength lies in resilience, not reliance. Even if you jam it, even if you blind it, it keeps fighting.

Let’s game it out. An actual Russian incursion might look something like this:

0400 Hours, Kaliningrad Oblast Border

It starts like any other gray, Baltic morning — thick fog, light drizzle, and the quiet tension of men who know what’s coming. A Russian combined-arms battalion group, armor-heavy, crosses into Lithuanian territory in the pre-dawn hours.

No declaration of war. No warning shots. Just armored tracks grinding forward in a move designed to test NATO’s defenses.

It’s not a full-scale invasion. Not yet. But it’s enough to trigger NATO’s Article 5 contingency protocols. Enough to wake up NATO at zero-dark-thirty.

0413 Hours: Targets Acquired

Twelve thousand feet above the border, a Loft Orbital micro-satellite picks up thermal signatures, armor in a column, moving fast. Within minutes, AI at NATO’s new Baltic command node parses the data. Cross-checks with radar returns. Flags movement patterns. Confirms: hostile incursion. Priority one.

Nearby, persistent surveillance drones like the EuroMALE and American MQ-9s pick up their cues and vector toward the incursion corridor. They’re not armed. Their job is eyes and ears only.

But that’s enough. The wall is awake.

0422 Hours: The First Wave Launches

From concealed positions across Lithuania and Poland, some in hardened bunkers, others launched from the backs of commercial trucks or disguised trailers, HX-2 drones and MILREM ground UGVs with anti-tank (AT-4) rockets start to launch in waves.

No drama. No fanfare.

Each airborne drone is already armed with a multi-purpose shaped-charge warhead. Each is fed target packets and mission parameters by the Altra AI battle manager across Link 16. The swarm goes up. Silent, fast, and fully operational. Their objective: hit the armored spearhead before it gets too far inside NATO territory.

They don’t need GPS. They don’t need human joystick jockeys in Nevada. They ride digital terrain maps, IR signatures, and real-time updates from high above.

0428 Hours: Russian Jammers Engage

As the swarm closes in, Russian electronic warfare units light up. The same jamming systems that devastated Ukrainian drones now flood the air with noise.

But the HX-2s don’t blink. Their mission continues, powered by onboard AI and terrain-matching algorithms. They re-identify targets independently. They adapt mid-flight.

Multiple Russian 2S6 Tunguska air defense systems see something on the radar, but their system isn’t high-resolution enough to resolve drones.

Some get lucky and hit a few drones. But not enough.

0432 Hours: Swarm Contact

The first wave hits a Russian armor column just 7 kilometers into Lithuania. The HX-2s dive on tanks, mobile artillery, and radar vehicles. Some come in from above, others from the flank. There is no warning. No radar lock. Just impact.

Thermal footage from a NATO drone captures the moment a Russian BTR-82 explodes into a rising column of smoke, its crew never saw it coming.

Seconds later, another tank turret spins through the air like a hubcap from hell.

Tracked ground drones hit targets of opportunity with their anti-tank launchers.

0435 Hours: Counterbattery Fire and Chaos

Russian forces scramble to respond. Artillery opens up on suspected drone launch sites. But the drone wall was built with mobility in mind. Launchers are already on the move, switching positions every few minutes.

Meanwhile, more HX-2s arrive, fresh from Polish launch zones, targeting command vehicles and communications hubs. Not to kill every soldier. Just to decapitate the spearhead.

Russian momentum stalls.

0500 Hours: A Message Received

At NATO HQ in Brussels, the first reports are in. Over 30 Russian vehicles were destroyed. No NATO soldiers engaged. Zero friendly casualties. Airspace remains contested but unbreeched.

The drone wall worked.

And Moscow just got the message: this border is not unguarded. It’s alive. It thinks. It fights back faster than any tank battalion ever could.

This Is Deterrence, Rewritten

By the end of day one, the incursion has stalled. Russian commanders hesitate, unsure how many more drones are in the sky, how many launchers are hidden nearby, how much damage they’ll absorb just to probe the line.

The drone wall didn’t just stop an advance.

It disrupted the tempo.

Shattered the initiative.

Rewrote the playbook.

NATO’s eastern flank has a new guard dog, and it doesn’t sleep, doesn’t eat, and doesn’t wait for a sitrep to kill tanks.

The strategic calculus here is cold, brutal, and efficient.

Deploying a permanent, manned military force along NATO’s eastern border would take years, cost billions, and provoke escalation.

A drone wall? It’s scalable, mobile, and cheap compared to armored brigades or airbases.

And it’s exactly the kind of asymmetric response that fits the modern threat profile. Russia, despite its manpower advantage, is struggling against cheap drones in Ukraine. Fielding thousands of semi-autonomous hunter-killers on NATO’s border fundamentally shifts the risk equation for any potential incursion.

Let’s call it what it is: preemptive disruption at machine speed.

During the Cold War, NATO’s primary objective was to slow or halt a Warsaw Pact blitzkrieg through the Fulda Gap long enough for reinforcements to arrive — what was charmingly referred to as “delaying the apocalypse”.

That playbook was built around tanks, artillery, and static defenses… fighting fire with fire. Massive tank-on-tank battles. Air superiority. Tactical nukes on standby.

But the battlefield has changed. We’re not trying to stop columns of T-80s. We’re trying to deny access to battalion tactical groups, hypersonic missiles, and swarm drones — all while avoiding nuclear escalation.

The drone wall isn’t about holding ground. It’s about creating a moving zone of pain, a no-go zone where any adversary must burn precious resources just to make a dent.

It’s the Iron Curtain 2.0, only now it flies, thinks, and updates its firmware mid-mission.

Of course, no system is perfect. There are real concerns.

If Russia fields its own autonomous drones (and they will), we may witness the first true AI-on-AI battlespace, where human operators are increasingly sidelined. The implications for escalation, ethics, and accountability are profound.

Also, what happens when a drone mistakes a refugee column or friendly unit for a threat? Despite human-in-the-loop safeguards, automation creates a faster, murkier fog of war.

What’s more, Russian artillery and missiles could potentially destroy fixed launch hubs or drone warehouses, unless NATO disperses its drone infrastructure across mobile platforms, civilian vehicles, or hardened bunkers.

So yes, it’s revolutionary… but not invincible. Like all tech, it buys time and advantage, not a guarantee.

Gundbert Scherf didn’t just throw out a sci-fi fantasy. With HX-2 drones entering the Ukrainian fight, satellites already tracking troop movement, and AI-powered targeting software getting field-tested in real-time, the bones of a drone wall already exist.

What’s missing? Scale. Coordination. And political will.

And NATO, for all its bureaucratic inertia, has proven recently that it can move fast when it wants to. Sweden joined in record time. Ammunition factories are humming. European air defense integration is happening.

The only question now is: Will NATO build the drone wall before it’s needed or after it’s too late?

Because one thing is certain: future wars won’t be fought trench to trench. They’ll be fought bit to byte, drone to drone, and in the milliseconds between sensor and trigger.

And NATO’s future might just hinge on whether we let AI stand the watch.

Слава Україні!