Rainer Rupp, interviewed by the presenter of Neutrality Studies Français, argued that NATO and Ukraine’s supporters are overestimating the ability of new digital systems, artificial intelligence and drones to change the course of the war. According to Rupp, modern software and data-driven tools may improve the performance of armed forces, but they do not fundamentally replace the material foundations of war: trained soldiers, heavy weapons, munitions, industrial capacity and logistics.

Na entrevista ao canal Neutrality Studies Français, conducted by the channel’s unnamed presenter, the interview focused on what Rupp described as a recurring Western fascination with a new “miracle weapon.” The discussion centered on systems such as AI-supported targeting, battlefield data networks and drone warfare. Rupp said these technologies can act as a “digital force multiplier” only when they are added to already existing military capacity. Without sufficient troops, artillery, air defense, electronic warfare and ammunition, he argued, their impact remains limited.

Rupp pointed to Russia’s reported use of drones, sensors and faster targeting cycles as an example of technology serving a broader military structure rather than replacing it. He said Russian forces had reduced the time between detecting a Ukrainian tank and destroying it, but presented this as part of a wider system that includes reconnaissance, firepower, logistics and electronic warfare. In his assessment, artificial intelligence can help collect and process information, especially against moving targets, but it cannot substitute for the entire chain of military operations.

The interviewed analyst also stressed that Ukraine’s problem is not simply technological. According to Rainer Rupp, the decisive factors remain troop strength, mobilization, ammunition production, air defense, artillery, logistics, electronic warfare and the ability to hold territory. He suggested that Western expectations for drone and AI systems in 2026 repeat earlier hopes that individual weapons packages could dramatically reverse battlefield dynamics. For Rupp, such expectations ignore the scale and attritional character of the conflict.

The conversation also moved beyond Ukraine to broader questions of military power, including the use of drones and surveillance systems in the Middle East and the Pacific. Rupp referred to Iranian capabilities and to the role of satellite networks, air defense, radar systems and electronic warfare, arguing that several states have learned to build layered military and surveillance systems. His point was that isolated weapons or platforms are less important than the integrated military architecture around them.

Rupp said the United States and its allies face growing limits in sustaining large-scale military commitments, particularly when conflicts require industrial output and political endurance rather than short campaigns. He argued that the “machine” of Western support is losing momentum and that the costs of maintaining military pressure are becoming harder to ignore. He also suggested that the political consequences are already visible in Europe, including Germany, where public support for continued escalation is weakening.

Throughout the interview, Rupp’s central claim was that technology cannot overcome shortages in the fundamentals of warfare. He did not deny the usefulness of drones, artificial intelligence or data systems; instead, he framed them as tools that amplify existing strength. In his view, the war in Ukraine demonstrates that modern conflict still depends on manpower, production capacity, logistics, air defense and the ability to absorb losses over time.