Russia launches AI-piloted drones in Ukraine. What comes next?

What happened: Russia recently crossed the line of using fully autonomous drones to kill three Ukrainian citizens. And while they are hardly the first country to develop the technology to do so, they are the first to be willing to try. 

Why it matters: Now that the door has been opened, will other nations feel the need to follow suit? Will Ukraine, in particular, now feel justified to deploy its own autonomous drones to strike deep into Russia? This story matters because the answers to those questions could have a dramatic impact on the nature of combat and a nation’s willingness to go to war, potentially lowering the bar for killing because of a reduced risk of dying. 

The backstory: A new stage in the war

After more than four years of fighting, it’s rare to see something new in the war between Russia and Ukraine. However, Russia crossed a line in a recent attack that nations around the world have—at least, as far as we know—been reticent to touch. A drone strike in the city of Zaporizhzhia in southeastern Ukraine left three civilians dead after Russia utilized autonomous drones that were neither piloted nor controlled by humans. 

Both Ukraine and Russia have integrated artificial intelligence into their attacks for some time, but until recently, a human hand has always made the final decision before a strike. However, the recovered wreckage from Zaporizhzhia revealed that the drone had been programmed to travel to a specific gas station and target propane tanks. It was given landmarks to look for as it flew in order to stay on course, but was otherwise left to find its own way. 

Because these drones do not rely on radio signals or other communications to guide them, they cannot be jammed in the same way as more conventional weapons. And, given how that feature would be especially useful for Ukraine, it seems likely that they could see the Russian attack as a green light to respond in the same way. 

How will Ukraine respond?

Ukraine has been experimenting with similar autonomous drones for some time, reportedly using them in Russian-occupied Crimea to target fuel storage sites and military equipment. No civilians were killed in these attacks, but that result seems more dependent on circumstances than intent. And Ukraine has considered plans that went well beyond military targets. 

As Simon Shuster recently reported, until his replacement last month, former Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov was developing a plan to use as many as 1,000 AI-guided drones a night to target Moscow’s airports in a bid to stop international flights and frustrate many of the country’s officials and oligarchs. The hope was that the combination of fear among the general public and anger among the rich and powerful would apply enough pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin to prompt meaningful peace talks.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky eventually suspended the project over concerns that the collateral damage could prove too costly. However, that suspension could be relatively short-lived. 

Fedorov is one of the leading candidates to challenge Zelensky whenever Ukraine holds its next round of elections, and he is polling at comparable levels to the sitting president. Zelensky continues to argue that wartime elections could “destroy” the country, but pressure is mounting. Should Fedorov win, or the threat of his victory cause Zelensky to reconsider the AI-driven drone strikes, it could dramatically escalate the fighting. 

And that is particularly the case given that autonomous technology similar to what Russia used in Zaporizhzhia is really the only way to mount an attack of that magnitude. 

Why the human element still matters

Russian interference makes piloting the drones unreliable, leaving Starlink and AI as the only viable options for flying that deep across enemy lines. To this point, Elon Musk has not allowed Ukraine to use his systems over Russian territory, leaving AI as the most likely option. 

The problem is that autonomous drones can, at best, be programmed to attack something “that matches, or resembles, the image of the target.” The “or resembles” part of that equation still leaves a lot of room for error. And the highest safety setting most manufacturers can achieve is 90 percent certainty.

Still, for as dangerous and relatively untested as the technology is, will nations find the prospect of being passed by to pose an even greater risk? It seems like many have already decided that the answer is yes.

An AI arms race has been going on for quite some time among the world’s most powerful nations, and autonomous attack drones are simply the latest in a series of shifting frontlines for that struggle. Most countries recognize the risk, which is why 156 nations signed a UN General Assembly resolution last November “expressing deep concern over the risks of A.I.-enabled weapons, believing they could lead to unpredictable escalations of conflict.”

Notably absent from that list of signees, however, were the United States, China, and Russia. 

And while the scope and scale of Russia and China’s development of AI-guided weaponry is unclear, the Department of Defense has requested $54.6 billion in next year’s budget—on top of the billions already invested—for the continued development of autonomous weapons. 

To this point, our government remains committed to keeping humans involved in their deployment, particularly in making the final decision on whether to strike. That resolve could be tested, though, if holding back means falling behind. 

Ultimately, this story demonstrates that we’ve perhaps been too quick to move beyond the human element when calculating the risks associated with artificial intelligence. AI taking over the world makes for a better movie, but humanity exploiting AI to destroy one another seems like the more likely outcome. And recognizing that the real battle is still against human nature is relevant to far more than what’s going on in Russia and Ukraine.

Spiritual application: Who is your neighbor?

The biggest threat from autonomous warfare is that it will make death cheap. As WJ Hennigan put it, “The fear of body bags has been one of the greatest deterrents to conflict in history. Mass-produced, expendable robots do not carry the human or financial costs that have tempered the urge to go to war for centuries.”

It’s human nature to weigh the cost of something according to its impact on your life. To some extent, it’s necessary. However, if the impact on us is the only consideration, then we’re not living up to the Lord’s calling on our lives. Fortunately, we’re hardly the first generation to struggle with this problem.

Throughout Scripture, we find examples of people justifying violence because it was expedient. Every time it happens, though, life gets a bit cheaper on the other side. And once you start down that path with strangers, or even with your enemies, it gets much simpler to begin applying the same thoughts to your friends and countrymen as well. 

You see, when Jesus expanded the definition of our neighbor to include even those we would consider an enemy (Luke 10:25–37), he did so because when we start drawing up the lines for who matters and who doesn’t, our fallen natures will keep making that box smaller and smaller until, eventually, we’re the only ones in it. Maybe we’ll recognize that trend and keep it big enough to include family and a few friends, but it will never be as broad as when we leave that determination up to the Lord. 

That’s important because most of the people God will call us to help, and those who are most in need of the gospel, will reside outside of the box we would draw. If we allow ourselves to see them as anything less than fellow humans who are loved by God and made in his image, then our ability to share the good news of Jesus with them will be greatly hindered. 

So while we are not capable of caring equally about the plight of everyone around the world, that doesn’t mean we get to see them as anything less than a person God has called us to love. And keeping that fact in mind is particularly important when circumstances would otherwise make them our enemies. 

Where do you need that reminder today? 

God is good

In preparation for the two thousandth anniversary of Christ’s baptism, King Abdullah II of Jordan announced that his country would spend $120 million to build a Baptism museum, a pilgrim’s and visitor’s village, and ecological walking trails around the historical site where John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Working in coordination with the Catholic Church and Cardinal Pizzaballa, they hope to make the site “a prophetic sign of unity, peace and living faith for the whole world.” 

Kingdom impact

Cardinal Pizzaballa concluded the announcement by praying “May God accompany us all on this preparatory process for this important event.” Given the current tensions in the Middle East, particularly in such close proximity to Israel, if work on the baptismal site over the next four years can serve as an example of peace rather than conflict, perhaps God can use the buildup toward 2030 as an example for others to follow.  

Prayer point

Will you pray that God would move in a powerful way as workers from various religious backgrounds come together on this project? Will you pray particularly that working on this site will breed questions and considerations that lead many to Christ? And will you pray that the Holy Spirit will equip those Christians who are participating as well with the gifts, resources, and courage that they need to be bold in their conversations with the lost around them? 

OSV News has more on the story