Article
Europe Is Not Ready for Drone Warfare
Galați, Romania (EU and NATO territory), 29 May 2026. During the night a Russian drone struck a ten-storey block of flats. A fire broke out on the roof. A 53-year-old woman and a 14-year-old boy were taken to hospital. The drone had been heading for a Ukrainian port.
Romania's foreign minister confirmed the drone was Russian. Moscow denies responsibility and demands an examination. According to Romanian authorities, it was the twenty-eighth time a Russian drone had violated Romanian airspace since Russia began striking Ukrainian ports on the Danube.
The twenty-eighth.
The war has stopped happening 'somewhere over there'. Galați is in the European Union. It is in NATO.
On the night of 9 to 10 September 2025, around twenty Russian drones entered Polish airspace. Allied fighters, mostly Dutch F-35s, shot four of them down. It was the first time during this war that NATO destroyed a Russian asset over alliance territory. Nine days later, three Russian MiG-31s violated Estonian airspace for twelve minutes. Estonia invoked Article 4.
The war already reaches our own territory.
In 2025 Russia sent roughly 54,500 Shahed and Geran drones at Ukraine. By autumn 2025 it was sustaining an average of about 176 long-range drones a day. On the worst days it was far more: in May 2026 the record reached over 1,400 drones in 24 hours.
Those incidents and those numbers should be a warning to us.
We have to build capacity fast, fast enough to defend ourselves against this form of war.
And when you think about how to do it, you realise we are in a worse position than most Europeans admit.
We do not depend on others only to secure our defence today. We depend on others to build that defence in the first place.
Why Europe Cannot Defend Itself
Europe has a problem that money alone cannot solve. It rests on three dependencies, and each one weakens its ability to defend itself.
The first is China, the country that supplies the physical material for defence systems. The second is the United States, the country that supplies the capabilities Europe does not have. The third is ourselves, twenty-seven states that cannot agree how fast, or who pays.
Why Europe Depends on China for Its Defence
The European Union imports about 98 per cent of its rare-earth permanent magnets from China. All of its heavy rare earths. Most of its light ones. They are critical for high-performance drone motors and precision guidance. The Chinese company DJI also holds around 70 per cent of the world market for commercial drones.
And here is the uncomfortable part. The same Chinese components power Russian drones too. Ukrainian intelligence estimates that 60 to 65 per cent of the parts in Russian Gerans are of Chinese origin; for critical electronics the estimates climb above 80 per cent. The figures vary by source and should be treated as an intelligence assessment, not hard fact. But the direction is clear.
So China supplies both sides. The drones that fall on European homes, and the factories where Europe would like to build its defence against them.
And China has shown it will use this. In April 2025 it imposed export controls on rare earths. The second wave, from October 2025, it 'suspended', until 10 November 2026. That is not a concession. It holds only as long as it suits China.
One thing is clear: the European Union cannot afford serious friction with China. And China knows it well. It need do nothing. It is enough that it holds the option in its hand. Europe is arming itself to defend against Russia with the permission of a country it does not dare quarrel with.
Join the Library
Full access to my thoughts, personal stories, findings, and what I learn from the people I meet.
Join the Library · €29.99 per yearSummary
Common questions on this article's topic
What is EDDI, the European drone wall?
Why does Europe depend on China for defence?
If you have any thoughts, questions, or feedback, feel free to drop me a message at mail@richardgolian.com.
Related articles
It happens every day. It is happening right now.
Manipulation without the feeling of being manipulated is the most effective kind.
How can we expect to come to terms with history or learn from it if we do that?
More articles
Seventy per cent. That is where the first AI output begins, even when you give it the full company context and the best examples from the past. We are talking about the kind of output that cannot be defined programmatically. It is more complex. Often it is creative work. On one repeated type of output I reached eighty per cent within a week. Every further percentage point is harder than the one before.
For a long time we treated the internet as the main road. The place where work and relationships happen. Yet most of what we see on it today is, or soon will be, AI-generated: text, images, profiles and comments. The internet is turning into an online game full of bots, where you cannot be sure that a human is on the other side of anything. So I ask: was the online world the main road, or only a temporary detour that part of us will return from, back offline?
A few days ago I interviewed a senior marketer. An experienced man, years of practice. I asked him about AI. He said he barely uses it. He had one bad experience with the output and decided he was too senior for it to add value when it is not perfect. I know the other side too: professionals who automate everything that can be automated.
AI produces the graphic, the newsletter and the product page faster than a person. What is left for the one who used to do it is the judgement, knowing whether the output is good. But most people have worse judgement than AI. And whoever cannot judge quality cannot delegate either. How do you tell whether yours is the judgement a company relies on, or the kind it can replace?
In April, in the first part of this series, I wrote about an AI prediction system I had started building on my own machine. At the time the software was a few hours old and the prediction record was empty. The record since then has shown one thing: the system does not yet understand the market it is being asked to forecast. It can pull macro context, book value, earnings. But it cannot put those together into something that helps it understand the price.
Prague, 13 May 2026. On my way to work I started thinking about something that stayed with me for days. If most routine work on a computer disappears in the next ten years, and a large share of repetitive manual work disappears with it, what happens to the flow of money? Who pays whom for what? Which economic layers will exist, how large will they be, and what relationships will run between them? This is the six-layer map I sketched as an answer.
I am building an AI system to predict the S&P 500. It runs on my own machine, uses free public data (yfinance, FRED, the Shiller dataset), and grades every forecast against reality. This series documents the build itself: the decisions, the methodology, the mistakes. What I will eventually share from the running system is a separate question, and an honest one.
Yesterday I could not tear myself away from the computer. When I lifted my head, it was half past eight in the evening. I had been sitting alone upstairs for about three hours.
Will AI take my job? A certified Google trainer told me in June 2024 that my profession would cease to exist. Twenty-two months later, my job title has not changed, but ninety percent of what I do during the day is different. I have delegated more of my thinking to AI agents than I thought possible. I am not afraid. This is why, and what it means for anyone asking the same question.
One hour. Fifty-five minutes. That is how long it took to build what a Czech software firm had quoted at over €50,000. I built it with Claude Code. Not a prototype. Not a proof of concept. A working tool, the one the company actually needed. By the evening of the same day, it was running on staging. This is not about Claude Code. It is about what Claude Code exposes.
Four days in Catalonia. No computer, no AI, almost no social media. I bought this notebook so that I could write down what I would think about, and what I would come across and learn on the trip.