Nothing will make you safe from cheap attacks like IED's or Drones dropping explosives. The Q is: what will make it "safe enough to operate" under the threat. The IED threat made vehicles heavy and expensive, movement restricted.

The drone threat is similar but different. Protection of a single high value locatoin like a presidential speech (Maduro situation) is quite doable. Some combination of surveillance and kinetic and electronic countermeasures. It's not foolproof but it appears to work ok-ish (there are still high value targets speaking around the world and zero drone assasinations and now nonzero failed assasinations). The problem is that it's resource intensive and asymmetric as hell. And it's still just a question of time until the first successful attack.

A more interesting question is, what does a group of soldiers do to protect from a drone threat? They don't have a fixed location and huge resources, like a presidential speech. You can't fire a hugely expensive AA weapon at an off the shelf drone. It would seem you need some kind of weapon that is light, cheap, and reliably kills an off the shelf drone up to max altitude, and can be re-used or carried in large numbers by a single rifle squad.

It could be as simple as another drone? This is at least my guess. The most reliable and cheap thing to use to attack a drone is another drone. That would then be effectively the start of an arms race of drones. Higher, faster, better armed, better countermeasures. We'd see a replay of the evolution of fighter planes, but for plastic UAV's?