South Korea, U.S., Europe not learning lessons of drone war in Ukraine, roundtable experts warn

Home > National > Politics

South Korea, U.S., Europe not learning lessons of drone war in Ukraine, roundtable experts warn

Published: 20 Mar. 2026, 18:06

MICHAEL LEE
[email protected]

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

From left: Andrii Vieshkin, Ukrainian charge d’affaires in Seoul; Jorn Beissert, German deputy head of mission in Seoul; Mykhailo Samus, director of the New Geopolitics Research Network; Nataliya Butyrska, senior fellow at the New Europe Center; Ugo Astuto, ambassador of the European Union to Korea; moderator Krystyna Zeleniuk, associate fellow at the New Europe Center; Go Myong-Hyun, senior research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies; and Frederic Spohr, Head of the Friedrich Naumann Offices in Korea and Taiwan, pose for a group photo at the offices of the EU delegation in central Seoul after their panel discussion on the global instability resulting from Russia's war against Ukraine and its implications for the Korean Peninsula on March 20. [MICHAEL LEE]

Experts warned that South Korea, the United States and European countries remain “unprepared” for the kind of drone warfare Russia is employing against Ukraine at a panel discussion hosted by the European Union delegation and the embassies of Germany and Ukraine on Friday.

Mykhailo Samus, a military expert and director of the New Geopolitics Research Network, said that large-scale drone combat has exposed deep gaps in air defense systems designed for a different era, and closing them will require far closer cooperation with Kyiv.

Samus noted that fighter jets, once central to air defense, are “not very effective” against systems such as the Iranian-designed Shahed drones used by Russia. Traditional doctrines, he added, no longer match the realities of the battlefield.

The panel brought together Ukrainian, European and South Korean experts to examine how Russia’s war has affected global stability and its implications for the Korean Peninsula. The discussion also reflected growing concern about the war’s broader ripple effects, from deepening Russia-North Korea cooperation to shifting perceptions of the United States as a security guarantor.

More than four years into the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the conflict is increasingly seen as both a grinding war of attrition and a laboratory for new forms of combat, particularly in the use of drones, electronic warfare and layered defense systems.

For Samus, the transformation of warfare is already complete. While noting that the basic objective of war — detecting and destroying the enemy — has not changed, he highlighted the different ways in which that objective is achieved.

Describing Ukraine’s battlefield as a dense network of overlapping systems that combine electronic warfare, physical interception and other non-kinetic methods, he highlighted Russian “multilayered” tactics, which center on inexpensive drones deployed in large numbers to overwhelm conventional defenses.

To counter them, Ukraine has developed what he called “small air defense,” a decentralized approach that differs from traditional antimissile and air defense systems. Samus noted that Ukraine has deployed tens of thousands of such systems, integrating electronic disruption with kinetic responses. Even so, he expressed concern that shortages, particularly of interceptors, will become more acute as the United States focuses on military operations against Iran and defending its assets in the Persian Gulf.

A student soldier of the Yatagan School for Unmanned Aerial Systems launches a training target drone during drills in the Kyiv region of Ukraine on March 19. [AP/YONHAP]

Samus said Ukraine has offered to share its experience with Western partners, but warned that adaptation has been slow.

“European countries haven’t changed a lot,” he said, referring to both military doctrine and institutional thinking.

He also pointed to shifting political dynamics. In his view, former U.S. President Donald Trump has focused more pressure on Ukraine than on Russia in attempts to end the war, while Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to consolidate gains in eastern Ukraine through negotiations without paying the cost of major offensives.

“If they want to gain this territory, they need to sacrifice thousands of lives,” Samus said, warning that Putin would only use negotiated gains in territory held by Ukraine to launch another war. “We need to continue fighting,” he added.

His remarks were echoed, in different ways, by other speakers who suggested that the war’s trajectory is shaped as much by political calculations as by battlefield developments.

Nataliya Butyrska, a senior fellow at the New Europe Center, argued that the premise of a near-term peace remains flawed.

“Russia doesn’t want peace,” she said. “It’s not possible, in their view, to have Ukraine as a sovereign country,” she said, referring to Russia.

People take shelter inside an underground passage during Russian missile and drone strike on Kyiv, Ukraine, on March 16. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

She also noted that ending the conflict could create internal pressures for the Kremlin. “It’s not in the interest of Russia to have soldiers come home to a destroyed economy,” she said.

She added that the war “is not just between Ukraine and Russia,” but rather part of a broader network of conflicts and alliances, pointing to Iran’s provision of missiles and drones to Russia.

Frederic Spohr, who heads the Friedrich Naumann Foundation’s offices in Korea and Taiwan, urged more cooperation between European and liberal Asian countries while warning that various conflicts worldwide are accelerating cooperation among authoritarian states while testing the cohesion of democratic alliances.

While pointing to growing intelligence-sharing between Germany and South Korea, particularly in response to North Korea’s involvement in the war, he noted that Pyongyang “has gained valuable battlefield experience, including improvements in missile guidance systems and drone operations,” adding that similar patterns are visible in China’s military learning.

At the same time, Spohr expressed concern that economic pressures could weaken Western resolve. Rising energy costs in Europe, he said, risk pushing some governments toward a softer stance on Russia.

“My fear is that countries might become soft on Russia,” he said. Such a shift, he added, would embolden Moscow and deepen its cooperation with North Korea.

He also noted that the United States is increasingly seen as less reliable, a perception that is already influencing economic and strategic decisions. South Korean companies, he said, are considering expanding production in Europe, including in Germany.

Yet even as calls for cooperation grow louder, participants acknowledged significant constraints.

According to Butyrska, South Korea has shown interest in Ukraine’s defense technologies, particularly in air defense and drones, but its ability to provide direct military support is limited by domestic laws restricting arms exports to countries at war.

She described potential cooperation between Ukraine and South Korea as a “win-win,” while acknowledging Seoul’s legal restrictions on selling arms to countries at war.

However, she noted that Japan has moved more quickly to adjust its policies and expand support for Ukraine, reflecting a broader shift in its security posture.

For South Korea, the war has also reshaped its relationship with Russia.

Go Myong-hyun, a senior research fellow at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said ties between Seoul and Moscow that were once largely transactional have taken on new strategic weight.

He noted that Russia’s growing role in East Asia presents a particular dilemma for South Korea. “The question is how we combine deterrence with very thoughtful engagement,” Go said.

He also observed that winning the war is a “personal goal” for Putin, adding that “no outside power, including China, is likely to force a change in Russia’s course.”

For Samus, however, the most urgent lesson lies in the rapid evolution of the battlefield itself.

The spread of cheap, adaptable drones has exposed vulnerabilities in even the most advanced defense systems. Without rapid adaptation, he warned, those weaknesses will persist.

“The doctrine of armed forces and the mentality of officers must change,” he said.

BY MICHAEL LEE [[email protected]]