Stopping drones is almost as easy as stopping mortar shells or rifle bullets. I think the evolution of drones will move to making battlefields far more deadly for soldiers. The drones are rapidly becoming less expensive while carrying increasing computing capacity and their lethal kill radius can be just a few feet and still be effective as they hunt down their targets.
Anti-drone systems currently depend on disrupting the communication link - with increased on-board computation, the need for that link and the ability to disrupt it will vanish. Kinetic defenses will have to face drones dropping munitions from outside their range; I expect the munitions will soon be getting terminal guidance computers as well. Identify an open hatch and let the munition steer down the center.
A tactic that will become more common is to park and wait - fly out to some location and move to cover while the opposition is advancing and then wake up and attack from the rear. They could listen with actual microphones to sound, detect vibration through the ground, or notice an increase in radio transmissions to trigger waking up the power intensive software that detects people or tank treads or open hatches and doors on vehicles. Perhaps even carry light-weight camouflage to better blend in and avoid detection.
If one is willing to spend enough money most anything can be countered, but that cost is also a liability. It'a money that can't be spent on offense, which is required to get an attacker to stop.
On the other side of this is drones could be used to deliver aid to the wounded when medevac isn't possible.Or deliver specialized munitions or other needed materials.
I still think Ukraine should be using drones to drop packages of fentanyl to Russian positions in Ukraine .The US intercepts enough from the drug traffickers that this would be an easy way to re-purpose it to something useful. Probably clear out 80% of the Russians in a matter of weeks. Does that count as chemical warfare?