Image: watson/keystone/getty
analysis
The discussion about the Russian president’s murderous plans has reignited.
June 29, 2026, 8:07 p.mJune 29, 2026, 8:07 p.m
For the first time, Vladimir Putin has admitted that Ukrainian drone attacks on his country are having an effect. “These attacks on our infrastructure are causing us problems, that’s obvious,” said the Russian president in a TV interview on Sunday. Even the Kremlin’s sophisticated propaganda can no longer deny that oil refineries, weapons factories, bridges and military trucks are blown up every day.
The situation for the Russians has deteriorated dramatically, especially in Crimea. This is difficult to cope with militarily and psychologically. Militaryly, because the peninsula is, in a sense, a huge aircraft carrier from which the Russian invasion forces launch their attacks. Psychologically, because the occupation of Crimea, which violated international law, means a lot to the Russian soul.
Admits problems for the first time: Vladimir Putin.Image: keystone
Because Elon Musk cut off the Starlink connections for the Russian troops, the pendulum has been swinging in favor of Ukraine again for months. A change in mood is noticeable, all the way to Washington. President Trump’s love for Putin seems to be cooling, and the US Congress is once again talking about new aid money for Ukraine.
Martin Sandbu therefore writes in the “Financial Times”: “This change in mood has its counterpart on the battlefield, where things seem to be developing in Ukraine’s favor. For the friends of Kiev, this makes it possible to shift the balance even further – by providing even greater support to Ukraine and thus further limiting the Russians’ options for waging war.
It is precisely this scenario that is triggering almost hysterical reactions in the Putin camp. Roger Köppel, his chief propagandist in Zurich, has been out of control for days, even in his terms, and has been conjuring up the Third World War. Poor, misunderstood Putin, says Köppel, will soon have no choice but to attack the West head-on. “Enjoy the summer,” said Köppel, “it may be the last one in peace.”
Köppel’s warning is plagiarism. A certain Sönke Neitzel already pronounced it a year ago, but with the opposite sign. Unlike Köppel, Neitzel knows what he is talking about; he is Germany’s leading military historian. He also plays on the Ukraine team. His warning was intended to alarm the West and increase aid to Kiev.
Because this has now happened – after Viktor Orban was voted out, the EU was finally able to pass its 90 billion euro aid loan to Ukraine – the military historian’s tone has become more moderate. In a very insightful interview with “spiegel TV”, Neitzel now specifies that Putin does not want to overrun the West with tank divisions, but rather wants to test NATO’s loyalty to the alliance with targeted pinpricks, such as a limited attack on a Baltic state.
Whether Putin even has the option of attacking the West is controversial. The fact that the Russian army has not succeeded in conquering Ukraine in five years is cited by supposed experts as proof that Germany has absolutely nothing to fear and that the large amount of money that is now being spent on rearmament would be better invested in the welfare state and the ecological restructuring of society.
Richard Precht is a leading representative of this thesis. Neitzel counters that, as a philosopher, he has an opinion on everything, but has no idea about military matters, which is why he should keep his mouth shut and leave the field to the experts. One such expert is, for example, Michael Kofman, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In the magazine “Foreign Affairs” he comes to a similar assessment as Neitzel. Kofman writes:
“A conflict between NATO and Russia would undoubtedly play out differently than the war in Ukraine, but the Russians’ lousy performance and their obvious weaknesses should not be a reason for complacency among NATO countries. The ongoing threat from Moscow should therefore not be ignored by Washington and delegated to the Europeans. “The United States and its European allies therefore need a more grounded discussion about how to avert the future military threat from Russia.”
Like Neitzel, Kofman also warns against an undifferentiated invocation of a Third World War: “A limited Russian attack on a Baltic state must be dealt with completely differently than an invasion of Poland.”
Doesn’t want to know anything about rearmament: Richard David Precht.Image: IMAGO/Christoph Hardt/imago
The fact that an estimated 400,000 Russian soldiers were killed and around 800,000 wounded in Ukraine does not mean that Putin is running out of men. On the contrary, according to Kofman, the number of soldiers in the Russian army has increased from 850,000 to 1.3 million. The immense losses of military equipment also appear to have been compensated. “Today the Russian army probably has the same number, perhaps even more, armored vehicles, including tanks, than before the war,” said Kofman.
Drones have fundamentally changed war. Unlike NATO, the Russian army had to adapt to these changes. This could prove to be an advantage. “Despite the overall poor performance against the Ukrainian armed forces, the Russian army poses a different threat to NATO in 2026 than it did in 2022,” Kofman states.
Drones have changed war.Image: keystone
Even if a Third World War in the sense of a frontal attack on the West or even a nuclear war are unlikely, the Russian danger remains. This also applies if what we all want happens. “Even if Ukraine defeats Russia with Western help, Washington and its NATO allies should not underestimate the future military threat from Russia and neglect investments in rearmament,” warns Kofman.
German security expert Hendrik Remmel also agrees with this warning. In a recent interview with Watson, he explained: “The systemic conflict with the democratic West, to which the Russian Federation is almost entirely committed, will only end when there is a fundamental political and cultural change within the Russian Federation.”