Tangled Battlefields: Addressing the Environmental Concerns of Fiber-Optic Drones in Ukraine

Background
Throughout human history conflict has always created mass destruction of the physical environment, leading to widespread pollution, scorched landscapes, and shattered infrastructure. This devastation often triggers decades of cleanup, health hazards, and ecological loss long after the fighting has stopped. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has already demonstrated a disregard for environmental factors, such as the deliberate destruction of dams, repeated shelling near nuclear facilities, the laying of millions of landmines across agricultural lands, and the dispersal of “forever chemicals” from burned munitions and discarded military waste. While all wars eventually end, the civilian populations in these regions will continue dealing with the physical and ecological consequences for generations.

An emerging technology in Ukraine is the widespread deployment of fiber-optic drones. These innovative UAVs are hardwired to their operators through kilometers of polymer fiber, enabling them to evade electronic warfare systems and retain unbroken connectivity even under heavy jamming conditions. The evolution of drones since the invasion is nothing short of astonishing: low-cost, highly accurate, unmanned platforms have reshaped the modern battlefield, allowing Ukraine to blunt Russian advances and conduct precision strikes at scale (Braszko, 2025).

This innovation, however, comes at an environmental risk. The fiber-optic cables are almost never retrieved and leave kilometers of spiderweb-like plastic across forests, farmlands, and residential zones. Once the mission ends or the cable snaps there is no retrieval mechanism. This waste joins the complicated problem of cleaning up destroyed tanks, unexploded ordnance, anti-vehicle mines, and heavy metals leached from burned-out machinery and munitions (Moreland, 2025).

Historically, cleanup efforts have relied on the affected country, with international organizations providing some support such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), UNEP, and specialized NGOs like the HALO Trust. However, with this emergent technology, there is little focus on how to safely clean up and properly dispose of fiber-optic cables in the environment. This absence creates a dangerous situation, while policymakers concentrate on rubble, metals, and hazardous chemicals, vast amounts of synthetic plastic are already accumulating, threatening ecosystems and complicating recovery. This policy brief expands on the use of fiber-optic drones, identifies gaps in current cleanup measures, and offers four policy solutions for postwar cleanup.

Fiber Optics
Fiber-optic drones are spool-fed drones that rely on five to twenty kilometers of polymer cable to remain connected to operators. Unlike traditional FPV drones which rely on radio frequencies, fiber-optic drones cannot be jammed and can remain connected in conditions where radio is not always guaranteed such as surgical strikes inside reinforced buildings, subterranean tunnels, or trench networks shielded from radio waves. These fiber-optic lines are often 2 mm thick and resemble fishing line, making them nearly invisible to the naked eye once dispersed across terrain (Braszko, 2025).

These drones are cheap to produce and offer many tactical advantages. Some of these advantages include high-speed, low-latency connections that allow operators to see real-time video feeds, resistance to counter-UAV measures like Russian EW systems, and the ability to penetrate underground or hard-to-reach areas where radio fails. Fiber-optic drones also eliminate the problem of radio frequency saturation on crowded battlefields, enabling dozens of drones to operate simultaneously without interference (Braszko, 2025).

Fiber-optic drones can be used for intelligence gathering, one-way kamikaze attacks, ambushes, resupply missions, and even as “motherships” deploying swarms of smaller FPVs (Braszko, 2025)). According to U.S. military analysis, fiber-optic drones’ Achilles heel has yet to be discovered, making them highly effective in both offensive and defensive operations. For Ukraine, they represent a vital adaptation to Russian jamming supremacy, but one whose environmental legacy may haunt the country for decades.

Cleanup Measures In Ukraine
With the adoption of fiber-optic drones, the question remains of how to clean up fields and environments now covered in spiderweb-like polymer material. Fiber-optic cables are comprised of durable plastics that can last hundreds of years without breaking down, releasing microplastics and potentially PFAS-related compounds into soil and waterways (Moreland, 2025). Over time, they will remain in the environment, causing unknown health effects to future generations. The mesh of cables also complicates demining procedures, as heavy machinery risks entanglement, while clearance crews must cut through layers of plastic before addressing landmines and unexploded ordnance. As history shows, the human cost of conflict continues in the civilian population long after the guns fall silent.

Currently, there is no formal framework for the cleanup of fiber-optic cables in Ukraine, an understandable gap, given how new the technology is and the existential priority of survival. However, the Ukrainian government has taken substantial steps to address general cleanup through the EcoZagroza portal, which tracks environmental conditions and documents potential cases of ecocide (EcoZagroza, 2025). With the prolonged war, clearing residential rubble, removing asbestos, managing hazardous industrial spills, and conducting demining take precedence as limited resources are stretched thin. These efforts are admirable and pave the way for future frameworks, but they leave fiber-optic cable debris largely unaddressed.

NGO involvement in cleanup of drone debris is also undocumented. Historically, NGOs and the UNDP have assisted in mine clearing and rubble recycling, but plastic war debris falls outside existing mandates. International frameworks prioritize rubble, metals, and hazardous chemicals, while the silent accumulation of plastic has gone unnoticed. Accountability gaps compound the issue: while Kuwait successfully held Iraq liable for environmental destruction through a UN compensation mandate after the Gulf War, many other regions such as Afghanistan and Iraq relied almost entirely on NGOs and local actors for debris management. Ukraine risks falling into this second category unless proactive measures are taken.

Policy Recommendations:
a) Expand Frameworks to Include Plastic War Debris

Future frameworks must explicitly recognize fiber-optic cables and other war-related plastics as hazardous environmental waste. The European Union should update its conflict-related environmental guidelines to classify such polymers as dangerous debris. This would create legal recognition, elevate the issue in donor discussions, and open pathways for NGO funding targeted at plastic cleanup.

b) Designate Fiber-Optic Cable Cleanup as a Funded Priority

Donor governments and international bodies like the UNDP and UNEP should establish specific funding lines for plastic cleanup in conflict zones. Building upon existing frameworks for rubble and metals, they can create protocols for cable retrieval, disposal, or recycling. This may involve adapting “ghost net” cleanup practices from the marine conservation field to terrestrial war zones (McCoy, 2024).

c) Advance Research on Environmental Impacts and Recycling Options
Little is known about the long-term environmental effects of fiber-optic drone waste. Donors should fund postwar environmental studies in Ukraine to assess impacts on soils, water systems, and biodiversity. At the same time, research into safe recycling or repurposing methods for example, incorporating shredded cables into composite building materials should be pursued to reduce landfill dependency.

d) Encourage Military Innovation Toward Recovery or Alternatives
As fiber-optic drones proliferate globally, militaries should prioritize technological adaptations that reduce environmental impact. This could include:

• Designing drones with retrievable spools or biodegradable fibers.

• Incentivizing research and development into alternative tethering methods with less plastic waste.

• Embedding environmental considerations into procurement decisions, ensuring future systems are not only tactically effective but also environmentally responsible.

Bibliography
Braszko, Alex . 2025. “Fiber Optic Drones: Posing a Significant C-UAS Challenge.” Www.army.mil. August 12, 2025. https://www.army.mil/article/287737/fiber_optic_drones_posing_a_significant_c_uas_challenge#:.

“ЕкоЗагроза.” 2025. ЕкоЗагроза. 2025. https://ecozagroza.gov.ua/en.

McCoy, Marry Kate . 2024. “Where ‘Ghost Gear’ Haunts the Seas, Divers Unite to Clean Up.” Conservation.org. June 20, 2024. https://www.conservation.org/blog/where-ghost-gear-haunts-seas-divers-unite-to-clean-up.

Moreland, Leon . 2025. “Plastic Pollution from Fibre Optic Drones May Threaten Wildlife for Years - CEOBS.” CEOBS. May 22, 2025. http://ceobs.org/plastic-pollution-from-fibre-optic-drones-may-threaten-wildlife-for-years/.

United Nations. 2025. “Ukraine: Post-War Reconstruction Set to Cost $524 Billion.” UN News. February 25, 2025. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/02/1160466.