Ukraine’s militarised drone-infantry integration exposes global arms race: systemic risks of tech-driven warfare and corporate-military entanglement

Indigenous epistemologies view warfare as a breakdown of relational harmony, not a problem to be solved with technology. The drone-infantry system reflects a Western extractive mindset that treats land, bodies, and conflict as resources to be dominated, ignoring Indigenous land stewardship and conflict resolution practices like the Māori 'manaakitanga' (reciprocal care) or the Ubuntu philosophy of 'I am because we are.' The militarisation of drones also disrupts sacred sites and traditional knowledge systems, as seen in the contamination of Indigenous lands by military waste in occupied territories.

Historically, arms races have been driven by corporate-military complexes (e.g., Krupp in WWI, Lockheed in Vietnam) and state propaganda, with drones being the latest iteration of this pattern. The 19th-century 'scramble for Africa' and Cold War proxy wars demonstrate how technological superiority is used to justify domination, often leading to prolonged conflict and humanitarian crises. The current drone warfare in Ukraine mirrors the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, where both sides escalated drone use, normalising perpetual violence and diverting resources from civilian needs.

Cross-culturally, the drone-infantry system is a symptom of a global security paradigm that prioritises control over cooperation. In Japan, post-WWII pacifism rejects offensive military technology, while in India, Gandhian nonviolence principles critique drone warfare as inherently violent. African peacebuilding traditions (e.g., Ghana’s 'Palaver' dialogues) offer alternatives to tech-driven conflict resolution, emphasising community-led mediation over militarised solutions. The reliance on drones also reflects a Western-centric view of 'progress' that ignores non-Western security frameworks rooted in collective well-being.

Scientifically, the drone-infantry integration is a high-risk strategy with documented failures in precision, accountability, and ethical use. Studies show drones increase civilian casualties due to 'signature strikes' (targeting behaviour patterns) and algorithmic bias in targeting software. The system’s reliance on AI for 'real-time' decision-making lacks transparency, raising concerns about accountability in the fog of war. Moreover, the environmental impact of drone warfare—from fuel consumption to e-waste—is rarely assessed, despite its long-term ecological costs.

Artistically, drone warfare is critiqued as a dehumanising spectacle, reducing conflict to a video game (e.g., 'Call of Duty' aesthetics in military PR). Indigenous artists like the Māori collective 'Te Rarawa' have used performance art to expose the spiritual violence of drones, framing them as 'spirits of destruction' disrupting ancestral connections to land. Spiritual traditions across cultures (e.g., Buddhist 'ahimsa,' Christian pacifism) reject the premise of 'just war,' seeing drone strikes as karmic or sinful acts that perpetuate suffering. The militarisation of drones also co-opts artistic narratives, turning resistance into 'content' for Western consumption.

Future modelling suggests that unchecked drone-infantry integration will lead to autonomous drone swarms, further eroding human oversight and increasing the risk of accidental escalation. Scenario planning by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) warns of a 'drone arms race' where non-state actors (e.g., cartels, militias) acquire drone technology, destabilising global security. The system’s reliance on rare earth minerals (e.g., cobalt, lithium) for drones ties it to extractive industries, creating a feedback loop of environmental degradation and conflict. Long-term, this could normalise 'perpetual war' as a permanent state of global affairs.

Marginalised voices include Ukrainian pacifists like the 'Mothers of Soldiers' movement, who oppose militarisation and demand demobilisation, as well as Russian anti-war activists facing imprisonment for opposing drone strikes. In occupied territories, civilians—especially women and children—are disproportionately affected by drone surveillance and strikes, yet their experiences are rarely centred in Western media. Global South nations, such as South Africa and Brazil, have condemned drone warfare as neo-colonial, citing how Western arms exports fuel conflicts in Africa and Latin America. Indigenous communities in conflict zones (e.g., Kurdish regions, Palestine) have long resisted drone surveillance, framing it as a continuation of colonial occupation.