Putin’s War on Watches

Putin's security service confiscating watches may tell us more about Kremlin dynamics than about watches themselves. 

Recent press reporting claims that visitors meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin are now required to surrender their watches. According to the report, the restrictions now extend to all watches, including smartwatches and traditional mechanical timepieces.

The story immediately generated sensational headlines. Some outlets speculated about a "James Bond-style" assassination plot involving an explosive device concealed inside a watch. Others pointed to counterintelligence concerns, arguing that modern watches have evolved from simple timekeeping instruments into sophisticated surveillance platforms capable of collecting and transmitting valuable information. 

The Kremlin has not confirmed the policy, and the reporting relies primarily on anonymous sources. As supporting evidence, Mozhem Obyasnit pointed to several Russian officials, including Tambov governor Yevgeny Pervyshov and Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, both of whom appeared without watches during recent meetings with Putin despite being regularly photographed wearing them elsewhere. 

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov meeting with Putin on 29 April 2026 

Still, intelligence professionals pay attention to indicators. Even when a report cannot be fully corroborated, it can offer insight into broader trends and reveal how security organizations think about risk. In this case, the story is compelling because it is entirely plausible.

The modern security environment has changed dramatically. Smartphones, smartwatches, wireless earbuds, and other connected devices have transformed everyday objects into potential surveillance platforms. Recent events, including Israel's supply-chain operation involving Hezbollah pagers, have only reinforced the reality that seemingly benign technology can become a vulnerability.

Which raises an interesting question: if the world's most protected leaders are increasingly wary of the devices people carry into a room, why stop at phones? 

In Spectre (2015), Bond’s Seamaster also serves as a small explosive device that gets him out of a perilous situation. (Photo Credit: Sony)

Exploding Watches: The James Bond Theory

Several news outlets have attributed the decision to fears of a "James Bond-style assassination attempt," a sensational reference likely intended to generate clicks. That said, the real threat to authoritarian leaders often comes from insiders. From the assassination of Julius Caesar by members of the Roman Senate to Egyptian President Anwar Sadat being killed by soldiers from his own military and Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s death at the hands of her own bodyguards, the greatest threats have often come from those with the closest access. As a result, security measures often reveal as much about trust within a regime as they do about external threats. 

Fragments of one of the exploding pagers that was weaponized in Lebanon by Israeli intelligence. 

Are Watches Viable Vessels for Explosives?

In theory, yes, a small shaped charge could be inserted in a watch and detonated remotely or by the wearer. The closest modern parallel would be Israel's operation against Hezbollah, in which pagers and other communications devices were reportedly packed with explosives before reaching end users, and definitely simultaneously on 17 and 18 September, 2024. The operation demonstrated the risks inherent in modern supply chains and shattered assumptions about the safety of seemingly benign personal electronics.

That said, a watch presents a different engineering challenge. Compared to a pager with a large battery and dead space, watches are small with little to no internal cavity. While advances in microelectronics and miniaturization make such scenarios more plausible than they were decades ago, this remains the least operationally likely explanation for the reported ban. That said, authoritarian leaders are known to fall into periods of paranoia, and it is not impossible that Putin or the protective service cited this potential as a reason for the ban, whether realistic or not.

In 2023, Russian Naval Commander Stanislav Rzhitsky was killed by Ukrainian intelligence, which tracked his location using publicly available fitness tracking data uploaded from Rzhitsky’s Garmin smartwatch.

Smartwatches, The Counterintelligence Risk

As we have discussed in length in past articles and videos (READ HERE), smartwatches are networked sensors that constantly collect data on a user's location, movement, surroundings, and physiological state. To provide this functionality, the device continuously communicates with other devices and networks, creating potential opportunities for collection and exploitation. Banning smartwatches is entirely reasonable and something that should be standard operating procedure at this point.  

In a very real and relevant example, Russian Naval Commander Stanislav Rzhitsky was assassinated by Ukrainian services during his morning jog in June 2023, using Strava data collected through his Garmin Fenix 6X smartwatch. 

Former Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev wears an Apple Watch that could serve as a serious counterintelligence vulnerability.

Despite the counterintelligence risks, senior Russian officials, including former Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, have been photographed wearing Apple Watches and other connected wearables over the years. From a Russian security perspective, an American-made Apple Watch connected to a vast commercial data ecosystem presents a potential counterintelligence risk, particularly for senior government officials with access to sensitive information or meeting with Putin.  

Limiting smartwatch proximity to world leaders is a sound security practice, whether in the Kremlin or the White House.

Intelligence Can Be Gleaned from Watches

Intelligence services and open-source analysts routinely examine photographs and video frame by frame, searching for small details that reveal information governments would prefer to keep hidden. A watch can reveal when a meeting occurred, how long it lasted, or whether an event presented as "live" was actually recorded earlier.

On 21 February 2022, Vladimir Putin and Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu participated in what was presented as a live National Security Council meeting. Observers quickly noted that both men's watches appeared to show midday, despite the meeting being broadcast that evening. Given that the meeting took place days before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it is reasonable to assess that the footage may have been prerecorded for security reasons or to carefully coordinate its release.

The time displayed on Putin’s watch once indicated a supposedly live broadcast was likely prerecorded.

For a government focused on controlling information, a visible watch is an unnecessary variable. Just as metadata is stripped from official photos and videos, watches can reveal timing information that undermines carefully managed narratives. If the reported ban is real, reducing surveillance risks may be only part of the story. Limiting what observers can learn from official imagery would be entirely consistent with the Kremlin's broader approach to information control.

Putin has been accused of using a body double after appearing to check the wrong wrist for his watch.

Is it Misinformation?

At initial glance, the reporting about the watch ban has some hallmarks of a disinformation campaign, potentially designed to make President Putin appear weak and/or paranoid. The report originated with Mozhem Obyasnit, an independent Russian outlet critical of the Kremlin that emerged from the remnants of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's opposition-linked Open Media project after Russian authorities shut it down in 2021. The story was then amplified by Ukrainian accounts, foreign media, and social media commentators. 

That does not make the reporting inaccurate, but it does provide context. Ukrainian officials and opposition media have an obvious interest in highlighting stories that portray Putin as isolated or increasingly concerned about threats to his personal safety. As we discussed in Watches of Disinformation (Read HERE), stories can quickly take on a life of their own, creating the appearance of confirmation when multiple outlets are ultimately citing the same original source. We are prepared to say this is definitely disinformation, but one should always be skeptical.

The Irony: Putin as a Watch Collector 

The irony is that President Putin is one of the world's most well-known watch collectors among world leaders. His collection, reportedly worth well over $1 million, includes an 18k yellow gold Patek Philippe Perpetual Calendar Moon Phase, a platinum A. Lange & Söhne, a Blancpain, and an IWC. Yet since the invasion of Ukraine, Putin has exclusively worn a more politically palatable Russian-made Raketa from the Imperial Peterhof Factory. The irony is difficult to miss: a man known for collecting luxury watches may now lead a system where visitors are reportedly required to surrender theirs at the door.

Final Thoughts

The first lesson is one of skepticism and media literacy. The reported watch ban has not been confirmed by the Kremlin, and many outlets reporting on the story ultimately trace back to the same source. In an era of social media and information warfare, it is important to distinguish between corroborated narratives and sensational reporting.

That said, intelligence professionals do not ignore plausible reporting simply because it cannot be fully verified. Even if the alleged ban is not real, the fact that it sounds credible is revealing. Smartwatches are legitimate counterintelligence concerns; watches can provide valuable clues through open-source analysis, and recent supply-chain operations have demonstrated that everyday objects can become security vulnerabilities with sometimes lethal effect.

Whether Putin's protective service is actually confiscating watches or not, the story highlights a broader reality: in the modern security environment, a watch is no longer just a watch.

This newsletter has been reviewed by the CIA’s Prepublication Classification Review Board to prevent the disclosure of classified information. All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the US Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying US Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider signing up for our weekly free newsletter for further updates HERE.