Could “Cyborg Pigeons” Soon Fall Under the Russian Sanctions Regime?

The technology: how a pigeon becomes controllable

According to publicly available reports, the Russian start-up ‘Neiry’ has developed a neurotechnological system that is surgically implanted into a pigeon’s brain. Through an external module, signals are transmitted to stimulate specific brain regions, thereby influencing the bird’s direction of flight.

Unlike traditional homing pigeons, which are trained to navigate between fixed locations, this technology enables direct external control. In effect, this creates a form of bio-drone.

Although the start-up emphasises that the technology is intended solely for civilian purposes — for example, by deploying pigeons in rescue operations — the dual-use nature is apparent. A bird can travel considerable distances without requiring intermediate energy supply and is visually less detectable than a conventional drone. These characteristics may render the pigeon potentially militarily relevant. While the pigeon is currently equipped only with a camera, it cannot be ruled out that other systems could in future be attached and used for military applications. This raises the question whether such cyborg pigeons should fall within the scope of sanctions law.

The sanctions framework in relation to Russia

Before addressing that question, it is necessary to briefly outline the broader sanctions framework concerning Russia.

Since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, the European Union has established an extensive sanctions regime against Russia. Nineteen sanctions packages have been adopted to date, and a twentieth package is currently under preparation. The regime consists of a body of regulations imposing financial, economic and trade restrictions. For the purposes of determining whether certain goods — or, in this case, animals — may be exported to or imported from Russia, Regulation (EU) 833/2014 and Regulation (EU) 2021/821 are particularly relevant.

Regulation (EU) 833/2014 contains economic sanctions, including export and import prohibitions on goods and technology that may contribute to Russia’s military or technological enhancement. The Regulation operates through annexes listing specific goods by reference to commodity codes, enabling an objective assessment of whether a product falls within a prohibition. If a product is listed, the prohibition applies in principle, unless a specific exception under the Regulation is available.

Regulation (EU) 2021/821 (the Dual-Use Regulation) governs the export of goods, software and technology to third countries that may have both civilian and military applications. As discussed in a previous blog, the decisive question is not whether a product qualifies as a weapon as such, but whether — in light of its technical characteristics and performance — it may be regarded as suitable for military use. Similar to Regulation (EU) 833/2014, this Regulation operates through annexes listing dual-use items. Unlike Regulation (EU) 833/2014, these annexes do not rely on commodity codes but on technical descriptions. Where a product falls within the scope of the Regulation, an export licence is in principle required for exports to third countries. For exports to Russia, however, additional restrictions apply under Regulation (EU) 833/2014, which generally result in a prohibition, subject to specific exceptions.

Will pigeons soon be added to the sanctions list?

The central question is therefore whether the export of (cyborg) pigeons to Russia could be prohibited in the future. A distinction must be drawn between the animal itself and the technology involved.

Although it would not be the first time that sanctions have applied to animals — since 2023, for example, an export ban on horses (classified as luxury goods) has applied to Russia — it appears unlikely that the export of pigeons will be prohibited in the short term. The possibility that a pigeon could qualify as “dual-use” and thereby fall within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2021/821 can effectively be ruled out. As discussed previously, the Dual-Use Regulation does not provide a legal basis for classifying living animals as dual-use items. Moreover, unlike a guard or attack dog, which could in theory be deployed independently as a military means, a pigeon as such lacks an inherent military functionality.

Against that background, it also appears unlikely that pigeons as such will be added to one of the annexes to Regulation (EU) 833/2014. The likelihood that a pigeon in itself would materially strengthen Russia’s military or technological capabilities seems limited.

More realistically, attention should focus on the technology that renders the pigeon controllable. The question then shifts to the export of the brain chip: could its export be prohibited in the future? It should be noted that the precise components and technologies incorporated in the chip are not publicly known. They may include neurostimulation or implant technology, certain sensors, and navigation or AI-driven control software.

It should be emphasised that brain chips as such are not currently explicitly listed in any annex to Regulation (EU) 833/2014 or Regulation (EU) 2021/821. Nor does it appear likely that such a category would be added as such. Sanctions regimes typically focus not on the end product, but on the underlying components, systems and technologies from which such products are constructed.

In that context, it is relevant that certain components used in brain chips, such as sensors, are already listed in the annexes to both Regulation (EU) 833/2014 and Regulation (EU) 2021/821. It is therefore conceivable that comparable components, systems or technologies used in the manufacture of such a chip may already fall within the scope of these Regulations. At the same time, in the absence of detailed technical specifications, it cannot be determined with certainty whether all relevant components are currently subject to restrictions. It is equally possible that certain systems or components presently outside the scope of the Regulations could, in light of new applications such as those described here, be added to the annexes in the future.

Depending on their technical specifications, the technologies underpinning the cyborg pigeon may already fall within the scope of the EU sanctions and export control regime or may in future become subject to additional restrictions. The pigeon as an animal, by contrast, does not fall within the current regulatory framework. The emergence of controllable bio-drones illustrates how rapidly innovative technologies can enter a sanctions and export control risk zone. Would you like to assess whether your goods, technology or services fall within the scope of sanctions and/or export control legislation? Or would you like further insight into the potential impact on your organisation? Please contact Jikke Biermasz (j.biermasz@ploum.nl) or Zoë Poortvliet (z.poortvliet@ploum.nl).