As I have said before, there are many different kinds of drones. Different sizes, different speeds, different altitudes and different methods of propulsion. Some even use helium balloons for lift and small electric rotors for thrust.
You can't just develop one system and expect it to take down all drones.
A predator drone has a cruise speed of 70 knots, a range of 1250 km and a service ceiling of 25 000 ft.
The Orbiter UAV (used by Azerbaijan) has a cruise speed of up to
70 knots, a range of up to
100 km and a service ceiling of 8 000 ft. All data from the manufacturer and thus subject to criticism.
Now compare those two systems. One is a huge ass plane with a wingspan of up to 17 meters high up in the sky at the same altitude as passenger planes. The other is a tiny drone with a wingspan of 3 meters that is going to have trouble with some of the higher mountains in the region.
One can fly from Moscow to Kaliningrad, the other can barely reach the pentagon from Bel Air. One can drop hellfire missiles on a bulding from cruising altitude before RTBing for more, the other has to suicide crash into you with a warhead smaller than most artillery rounds.
And because there are so many different types of drones there have to be so many different ways of killing them, which
a) costs a lot of money
b) takes a lot of time to develop
c) requires your units to carry ten different kits for twelve different drones, which each take up space and weight
d) requires your troops to be trained enough to know when to use what countermeasure against which target, which requires recognizing different drones
Some smart guy will come up with a way to effectively neutralize drones, while some other smart guy will figure out how to effectively circumvent those measures, and a lot of people are going to try to find ways to effectively employ drones in the mean time. The race has only just begun.