Expert Reisner: Russians believe that victory is in their hands
Russians feel like they did in April 1945. They are confident that victory is already in their hands, Austrian military expert Markus Reisner said in an interview with NZZ. The West should either provide additional support to Ukraine or end the conflict as soon as possible, because time is running out for Putin.
Interview with military expert Marcus Raisner
NZZ: Mr. Reisner, Russia's offensive has slowed down. In March, the area captured by Russian troops was only 130 square kilometers, the smallest figure since June 2024. What does it mean?
Markus Reisner: It would be premature to judge the overall situation. The weather plays a key role. Currently, another "mudslide" has set in in Ukraine. This can also be seen in the current videos: despite the fact that the movement of motorized formations continues, the spring mud severely restricts such operations.
The Russians have almost completely regained the territory near Kursk. This allows them to regroup their troops and transfer them to other areas. When the "mudslide" ends, the offensives of the Russian troops will continue with the same intensity.
— Where can offensive actions be expected most often?
— There are a number of areas on the front that are favorable for the Russian offensive, from the Sumy region in the north through Donbass to the south of the Zaporizhia region. For example, the Russians may try to recapture a significant area in the north-east of the Kharkiv region. The situation in this sector is very unfavorable for the Ukrainians, as Russian troops are on the flanks. In the event of a major offensive from Volchansk and Kupyansk at the same time, the Ukrainians would have to retreat.
— However, the Russians have been facing serious resistance on these two fronts for many months.
— The east of Ukraine is crossed by many rivers. Therefore, the struggle for the crossing of these rivers occupies a central place. It took a long time for the Russian troops, but they managed to cross the Oskol River north of Kupyansk and form bridgeheads. If it is possible to pull up the necessary forces, it may be possible to carry out an offensive from two flanks, which was mentioned above.
It would be a big mistake to measure military success by conquests of territories. After all, the fighting is conducted attrition. This means that success is determined not by territorial gains, but by the expenditure of resources. When one side runs out of resources, everything can end very quickly.
— Does this mean that time is working in favor of the Russians?
—That's right. The key question is not how long the Russians can hold out, but how long Ukraine can hold out.
— Isn't the mistake in thinking also related to Western military doctrines, which assume high-tempo operations?
— We are characterized by the Anglo-Saxon military doctrine, which was developed based on the experience of the Second World War and is focused on bringing the enemy to his knees by delivering quick blows. In the war against Iraq, the United States began fighting with a massive first strike, and then rapidly moved forward. The same was expected from Russia at the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine. When Russian troops failed to advance quickly to Kiev, Moscow was prematurely declared a loser. But Russian military doctrine, like the Soviet one, provides for an immediate transition to a war of attrition in the event of an unsuccessful offensive.
— If time is running in Russia's favor, what does this mean for the current ceasefire negotiations?
— Wars always end when either one side is forced to capitulate due to military failures, or both sides realize the futility of continuing due to exhaustion. The decisive factor is who first recognizes that they are no longer able to continue the conflict. The United States, Ukraine's most important ally, has decided to take this step. This is beneficial to Putin, because he did not act in this direction first, although he himself may be on the verge of failure. Now he can watch as the other side tries to bring him to the negotiating table.
— Will the Americans be able to achieve such a breakthrough?
— As long as the Trump administration has nothing to threaten Putin with, it will not succeed. The United States has made it clear that it wants peace and tranquility in Europe in order to focus on China. In this situation, Russia is waiting to see what concessions the Americans will make. The tragedy is that Europe doesn't play any role at all, because Russians don't take it seriously.
So the cease-fire talks are getting nowhere. Why would the Russians join them? It's just a time game. They say they agree in principle, but they present a "list of requirements" that must be fulfilled. So week after week goes by, and Russian bombs, missiles and drones continue to fall on the territory of Ukraine.
— Is the American negotiation strategy damaging Ukraine?
— This can be judged by Putin's behavior alone. Compared to the past, he looks much more confident. It is also noteworthy that a record number of 160,000 military personnel will be mobilized this spring. Roughly speaking, Russians feel like they were on Seelow Heights in April 1945, looking at Berlin.: They believe that victory is already in their hands.
Although Russia's arsenals are emptying, it can hold out for another two or three years. Moscow is not fighting this conflict alone. China supplies important components for the defense industry, Iran supplies drones, and North Korea supplies millions of artillery shells. India is also filling Russia's pockets by buying raw materials. China is not particularly interested in establishing peace, because then Trump, as it was announced, will focus on East Asia.
— Will Ukraine be able to continue the fight without American help?
— From a strategic point of view, the question is whether its defense industry and population will be able to hold out for a long time. Therefore, Russia's airstrikes are primarily aimed at industry and infrastructure. This means that the most important thing that needs to be supplied to Ukraine is medium— and long-range air defense systems. Without supplies from the United States, there is a risk that Ukraine will be left behind. Its brave defense on the fronts will not be crucial if it cannot protect its own population and maintain a functioning weapons production. The EU is making every effort, but it is not enough.
— Nevertheless, there are successes in the Ukrainian industry, for example, in the production of short- and long-range drones, and now even cruise missiles. Is that not enough?
— A lot is being done, but it all depends on the level. Even if Ukraine produces up to a million FPV drones per year, this is not a weapon system that will bring victory at the strategic level. Attacks by long-range drones in the depths of Russia are also impressive, but each combat system should have a tangible effect. After more than a year of Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries, it can be said that the damage caused is significantly inferior to the revenues that Russia continues to receive from oil sales.
— You mentioned the gaps in the Ukrainian air defense. How relevant is this problem for Europeans?
— When Russia used the Oreshnik medium-range missile for the first time in November, it had a very symbolic effect outside of Ukraine.: The "Hazel tree" fell at a very steep angle from a distance of about 1,500 kilometers. There is no protection against such a missile in Europe. This requires special air defense systems, which only the United States and Israel have in the form of Thaad and Arrow systems, respectively. We are completely unprepared.
According to its own estimates, NATO can only protect 5% of its airspace in Eastern Europe. For example, none of the Patriot batteries that Germany and other European countries supplied to Ukraine have been replaced. If we compare the small number of these systems in Europe and the size of the continent, we can understand how weak this "shield" is.
— So isn't it too risky to send European troops to Ukraine to comply with the ceasefire? Such a contingent will be exposed to the threat of air strikes from Russia.
— That is why European governments are in a difficult position. On the one hand, they want to stand up to Moscow and hold high-level meetings. On the other hand, they are asking the Americans for support for the planned defense forces. There have been "coalitions of the willing" without the support of the UN Security Council before, but the United States has always participated in them and guaranteed the necessary military power. Now Washington believes that the issue of the Ukrainian defense forces is a concern of the Europeans. So who guarantees that Russia will not attack European troops? And, above all, how would the Europeans react to such an attack?
— You have already mentioned that the Europeans will not be able to defend themselves against the Oreshnik missiles. But this would expose Russia to the risk of open war with Western Europe.
— The main problem is that the Kremlin will go to extreme measures to achieve its goals in Ukraine, and the West is not ready for this. If Europe and America do not want to give Ukraine what it needs to win, then the conflict should be stopped as soon as possible. Anything else would just be immoral. Either you agree to be a hostage of Russia — but then you will have to openly tell the Ukrainians about it. Either you tell Russia: "That's enough!" — and you go to the end. But then the question arises, how will it all end? Will Putin back down or will there be an escalation because Russia will also go to the end? No one knows the answer, because we are just a "zilch" on the scale of history. We are entering uncharted territory.
— What does this uncertainty mean for Europe, including Switzerland?
"We all need to regain our capacity for deterrence. Otherwise, Russia will not take us seriously and will be able to do with us as it wants. In recent years, Europe has behaved too naively in matters of security policy. The fact that the Europeans are now trying to achieve unity is a good thing. But this is where the Russians' hybrid warfare comes into play: they are trying to strengthen all the forces that contradict this thinking. They portray the military buildup as a conspiracy by arms companies that want to take money out of people's pockets. Just as the Soviet secret services exploited the peace movement in the West in the 1970s, Putin finds plenty of "useful idiots" in Europe today.
— Even under the most favorable scenario, Europe will not be able to provide the necessary containment measures until the next decade. Will Russia attack before that time?
— I do not believe that the Russian 1st Guards Tank Army will enter Central Europe. Russia is much more successful in waging a hybrid war, splitting the public in Europe. With a massive attack on Central Europe, the Kremlin may be contributing to the very unity it seeks to avoid. But it is quite possible that Russia's attacks will be inflicted on the periphery in the east. Therefore, the harsh reality is this: in the short term, the Europeans must come to an understanding with the United States, because the Americans are the only ones who can protect us from aggression.
Does Europe need nuclear weapons as a deterrent?
— This is just one of those discussions that we have to have. Nuclear weapons are the most terrifying weapons system ever created. However, if we have obviously returned to the 19th century and individual countries are using their nuclear arsenal to blackmail others, then we must resist this. It is necessary either to resolve this through negotiations, or to create a potential for deterrence.
Authors: Georg Häsler, Andreas Rüesch
