In a quiet corner of London, far from the front lines of any declared war, pupils at a Russian-linked weekend school have reportedly been learning how to operate battlefield-style drones. According to an investigation by The Times, children as young as primary-school age have been shown how to handle equipment similar to that used by Russian forces in Ukraine, raising urgent questions about safeguarding, propaganda, and the reach of the Kremlin’s influence abroad. The revelations have sparked concern among parents,educators,and security experts,who fear that what appears on the surface to be a cultural and language institution may also be serving as a conduit for militarised training and pro-war messaging on British soil.
Inside the London classroom teaching children to fly battlefield drones
In a modest classroom tucked behind a red-brick façade in west London, rows of children huddle over ruggedised tablets and palm-sized quadcopters rather of exercise books. The lesson, delivered in Russian, feels more like a military briefing than a school activity: pupils trace virtual flight paths on digital maps of Ukrainian cities, while instructors in plain clothes demonstrate how to maintain signal lock, avoid air defences and return a damaged drone to base. On a central table, dismantled consumer drones lie beside more ominous models in matte camouflage, their components neatly labelled-batteries, antennas, optical modules-as if part of a science experiment rather than a toolkit for a warzone.
- Age group: pupils as young as 12
- Curriculum focus: navigation, targeting, evasion
- Equipment: commercial and modified quadcopters
- Teaching language: predominantly Russian
| Module | Skill Taught | Typical Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Basic Flight | Take-off, landing, hovering | 2 weeks |
| Recon | Mapping, live video feeds | 3 weeks |
| Combat Use | Payload delivery, target marking | 4 weeks |
Teachers describe the classes as “technical education” and “patriotic training”, but the scenarios projected onto the whiteboard are unmistakably drawn from the modern battlefield: grainy footage of drones dropping improvised explosives into trenches, diagrams of radio jamming fields, and case studies from the front lines. Parents sit at the back of the room during open days,some nodding approvingly as instructors explain how “responsible use” of unmanned systems can “save Russian soldiers’ lives”. Outside, beyond the soundproofed windows and blackout blinds, London traffic rumbles past, largely unaware that inside this unlikely outpost, children are being taught to master the same tools that have transformed warfare thousands of miles away.
How Russian soft power and militarised education reach British soil
Behind an unremarkable façade in suburban London, a network of cultural initiatives, weekend classes and “heritage” clubs is quietly exporting the Kremlin’s worldview to the next generation. What often begins as language lessons, patriotic song rehearsals or history circles can evolve into para-military style activities, including basic battlefield drone handling, survival skills and combat-themed games framed as “technology education.” These programmes are reinforced by visiting “veterans,” guest instructors linked to Russian state structures and teaching materials that mirror narratives promoted on Russian state television.
The result is a subtle but potent ecosystem of influence that blends nostalgia, nationalism and modern warfare. Parents are reassured with talk of discipline, STEM learning and “cultural continuity,” while children are inducted into a curriculum that normalises conflict and glorifies sacrifice for the “Motherland.” Key elements of this influence package typically include:
- Selective history lessons that minimise Soviet-era atrocities and justify current military campaigns.
- Symbolic rituals – flags,uniforms,wartime songs – presented as harmless tradition.
- Tech-focused classes using drones and simulators under the banner of robotics and engineering.
- Patriotic media content streamed from Russian platforms into UK classrooms and living rooms.
| Activity | Public Label | Underlying Message |
|---|---|---|
| Drone practice | STEM workshop | War as a technical challenge |
| Uniform days | Cultural celebration | Militarism as normal childhood |
| War film nights | Language learning | Glorified view of Russian power |
| Veteran talks | Guest lectures | Loyalty to state over host country |
Safeguarding gaps and legal blind spots in foreign state schools for children
Across the UK, self-reliant and community schools are bound by robust child protection frameworks, yet institutions operating under the cultural or legal umbrella of foreign states can slip through regulatory cracks. When a school is funded, governed or informally directed by an overseas authority, questions arise over who is ultimately accountable for what is taught, who is vetted, and how concerns are escalated. This ambiguity can dilute the force of British safeguarding standards, notably when curricula stray into militarisation, propaganda or activities that normalise conflict. Inspectors and local authorities often find themselves navigating a tangle of diplomatic sensitivities, partial disclosures and complex ownership structures that obscure who holds real decision‑making power.
These blind spots are not merely technicalities; they shape the habitat in which children learn, play and form their view of the world.Parents may assume that any classroom in London is policed by the same rules, yet oversight can vary sharply depending on a school’s status, registration route and international ties. Key vulnerabilities include:
- Fragmented oversight – multiple agencies share duty, allowing contentious practices to fall between institutional cracks.
- Opaque governance – foreign state links and complex ownership can blur who is accountable for safeguarding breaches.
- Curriculum loopholes – specialist or “cultural” programmes may evade close scrutiny,even when they involve military themes.
- Limited parental visibility – parents often receive sanitised versions of what is actually taught behind closed doors.
| Area of Risk | What Should Happen | What Often Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Safeguarding Policy | Aligned fully with UK guidance | Adapted or overridden by foreign norms |
| Curriculum Content | Peaceful, age‑appropriate education | Militarised activities framed as “skills” |
| Accountability | Clear local authority oversight | Diffuse responsibility across borders |
What the UK government schools and parents must do to protect pupils now
The revelation that children are being taught to handle battlefield drones on British soil exposes a gaping hole in current safeguarding frameworks. Ministers must move beyond vague “extremism” language and establish specific statutory guidance on militarised training for minors, with clear red lines: no instruction in weapons-adjacent technologies, no simulated targeting, and no curriculum that normalises combat roles. Ofsted inspections should be empowered to probe not just academic standards but the implicit messages embedded in extracurricular clubs, language schools and cultural centres. This demands closer collaboration between the Department for Education, the Home Office and local authorities to create a shared, real-time intelligence picture of any setting where foreign state influence, propaganda or dual‑use technology training may be present.
Parents, simultaneously occurring, cannot assume that every “after‑school activity” is benign. They need practical tools to interrogate what is really being taught, who is funding it, and how materials are framed. Simple questions about curriculum content, links to foreign governments and staff vetting should be routine, not awkward. To support this,the government and schools could circulate concise guidance like the following:
| For Schools | For Parents |
|---|---|
|
|
Insights and Conclusions
As the investigation into the school’s activities continues,the episode underscores how the battlefields of modern conflicts can reach far beyond their physical front lines,seeping into classrooms and communities thousands of miles away.
For parents, regulators and policymakers in Britain, the case raises urgent questions about oversight, foreign influence and the limits of what can be tolerated under the guise of cultural or extracurricular education.
Whether this London school proves to be an isolated outlier or an early warning of a broader trend, its drone lessons for children have exposed a new and unsettling front in the contest over hearts, minds and technologies in an age of hybrid warfare.
