You say this even as new short range AA systems like the IM SHORAD hit the field? Why? It seems a little foolish to invest in counters if the drones pose so little threat.
You want SHORAD if you expect to be intermingled with the enemy or them to send stuff like cruise missiles or the like in your face. In the case of Turkey/Greece, most of the fight, if not all of it, would be air and sea in nature rather than from the ground, due to the logistic clusterfucks that would involve a land operation supported by both sides. So for the drones to reach a ground target, they'd need to cross a lot of empty areas that are covered by longer-range systems before SHORAD even come into mind. Hell, something like Pantsir S1 is definitely not designed to deal with "quadcopters" but rather to intercept cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs dropped by enemy planes. Drones are a secondary or tertiary target, if only because, well, they're a poor man's missile, with lower speed, range, survivability and payload than actual missiles.
To be fair, I probably should have been more clear about what type of drone I had in mind here, I'm thinking about stuff that is at the utmost the size of the TB-2. The things where you wouldn't send in a fighter not because they couldn't kill the drone but because it's doubtful it would be worth the cost of the missile. Turkey and Greece share a land border. Now I do not know what that terrain is like very well (a quick jaunt with google maps suggest rocky hills) but it seems to me Turkey could throw a drone in the air at say,
Esetçeto hit a position in
Feresand that just leaves me wondering what Greece has to counter such an attack.
Fuck the shit out of the place that sends the drones and bomb the vehicles that come there to launch them. That's the actual counter, because in the end, these are fancy short-range tactical missiles and not much more. The thing is that their performance makes them secondary assets compared to stuff like actual SAM batteries or warships, airbases, etc. Expect the focus to be on eliminating the SAM coverage of the opposing force via cruise missiles, air strikes and the like, then the opposition will have quite the trouble doing anything of note when you can and will drop very large "drones" of 500 kg with laser guidance up their ass.
The situation with Armenia and its unruly neighbour is that both of them are tinpot countries with no air force to talk about and little capability to do strategic strikes to decide the battle, so drones were used as a makeshift artillery/air strike capability but they do not change things. Drones of another kind have been used for quite some time, and they are the actual thing against which countries are getting equipment (I believe you will notice the difference in effectiveness and dangerousness of these drones compared to quadcopters):
For NATO, the doctrine regarding SHORAD is pretty much that the air force has to ensure nothing unfriendly starts flying near the ground pounders. Russia has a different doctrine, thus has autocannons and the like. And as for really cheap kamikaze flying drones fired by infantry against vehicles, infantry or buildings a few km away, we also have a name for them: Anti-Tank Guided Missiles:
Calling them "drones" do not change much to the nature of warfare. It's just that El Cheapo versions of these weapons have been made available to smaller militaries and paramilitaries.