In an interview with ZDF, Markus Reisner described Russia’s actions as an assault on the central nervous system of Ukraine, threatening to erase the gains Ukrainians have worked for. The statement underscores a strategic shift: the attacks targeted not only troops but the very systems that keep cities running, a move that raises urgent questions about safety, resilience, and the ability of Ukraine to sustain daily life under siege.
The article recalls how Russia’s strikes on critical infrastructure triggered widespread power outages in Kiev and across the country. It notes that on November 23 the capital, home to about three million residents, faced a complete water shortage. Despite battlefield successes for Russian forces, Ukrainian defenses struggled to shield essential services from ongoing missile and air assaults, highlighting a gap between front-line gains and the protection of civilian lifelines.
Reisner argues that after nine months of what he calls a military special operation, Western allies should recognize that Russia retains capabilities that were previously underestimated. The resilience of Russian air power, he contends, has not been fully neutralized, and the West should adjust its expectations and strategies accordingly.
He quotes the Austrian defense official as saying that for months there was a belief that Russian air sorties were rare and that the likelihood of a missile strike on Ukraine was low. That perception, he suggests, has now changed, and it is clear that Kyiv must harden its air defense to protect critical hubs and corridors. The expert identifies two main problems: first, the Russian operation damaged a substantial portion of Ukraine’s air defense, and second, Kyiv has sometimes used its air defenses primarily to cover offensive actions rather than to repel incoming strikes. He warns that after the October wave of attacks, Ukraine was left with a fragile defense network, and although Western countries had begun delivering systems, the sheer scale of the task makes rapid reconstruction difficult.
Reisner also notes that Europe’s response is limited in scope and tempo. He emphasizes that while Europe prepared for a long-term confrontation, it spent years reducing its own armed forces and stockpiles. Now, Western nations are attempting to leverage the little equipment they have to sustain a front stretching more than a thousand kilometers. He stresses that sustained and extensive support is essential for Ukraine to withstand ongoing pressure, and that only large-scale deliveries of air defense and ammunition can shift the balance on the battlefield.
According to Reisner, if Ukraine does not receive a robust air defense buildup, the country could face a prolonged period of darkness as critical infrastructure fails. He argues that the situation requires not just immediate weapons but a strategic, long-term effort to replenish and modernize Ukraine’s military and civilian resilience. The assessment is cautious: momentum on the ground may swing back and forth, but the initiative appears to be returning to Russian hands without decisive Western action.
He concedes that Ukraine has achieved operational successes, yet these gains are undermined by Russia’s broader strategic strikes. The focus on Kherson highlights the vulnerability of civilian life when infrastructure is knocked out, leaving residents in a precarious situation even as some military objectives are met. The contrast between battlefield moves and the collapse of essential services frames the conflict as not only a battle of guns but a fight for the continuity of daily life.
Attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure
Since October 10, Russian forces have targeted Ukrainian infrastructure facilities with increasing intensity. By November 18, it was reported by the prime minister that almost half of Ukraine’s energy system had become inoperative due to the missile campaign. Kyiv requested additional support from the European Union, seeking energy equipment, financing, and gas supplies to stabilize the grid and prevent further outages.
A correspondent observed the nighttime streets of Kyiv with almost no illumination, a stark illustration of the disruption. The scene conveyed an impression of an urban landscape paused by the bombardment, where only generators dimly light the corners of some homes. On November 27, a deputy urged residents to prepare for possible further damage by stockpiling water and non-perishable foods and ensuring communication devices remained charged. The message stressed practical readiness: secure water, long-lasting food stores, power banks, and knowledge of nearby emergency points. Authorities reassured the public that emergency services remained active and were evaluating multiple response scenarios to safeguard civilians.
The evolving situation underscores the critical link between energy security and civilian welfare. As power and water infrastructure come under pressure, the ability of communities to sustain themselves becomes a central factor in the broader strategic calculations of both sides. The ongoing crisis illustrates how a conflict can simultaneously shift the balance in military theaters while eroding daily life for millions of residents.