Published on: 2025-09-29

Intelligence Report: Without support from his enablers President Putin would realise peace is his best option in Ukraine UK statement to the OSCE – Globalsecurity.org

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The most supported hypothesis is that external support from countries like China, Iran, and DPRK is crucial for President Putin’s continued military engagement in Ukraine. This support emboldens Russia and delays peace efforts. Confidence level: Moderate. Recommended action: Increase diplomatic pressure on these enablers to isolate Russia further and expedite peace negotiations.

2. Competing Hypotheses

1. **Hypothesis A**: President Putin is primarily sustained in his military campaign by the external support from China, Iran, and DPRK, which provides military, economic, and diplomatic backing. Without this support, he would be more inclined to pursue peace.

2. **Hypothesis B**: President Putin’s decision to continue the conflict is driven by internal political dynamics and a refusal to acknowledge Ukraine’s sovereignty, regardless of external support. The external assistance merely prolongs an inevitable decision to seek peace.

Using ACH 2.0, Hypothesis A is better supported due to the documented military and economic aid from these countries, which significantly impacts Russia’s operational capabilities.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

– **Assumptions**: Hypothesis A assumes that the cessation of support from China, Iran, and DPRK would lead to a strategic shift by Russia. Hypothesis B assumes internal political motivations are the primary drivers of the conflict.
– **Red Flags**: The reliability of intelligence regarding the scale of support from China and the potential underestimation of Russia’s internal resources.
– **Blind Spots**: Lack of detailed insight into the internal decision-making processes within the Kremlin.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

– **Economic Risks**: Continued conflict could further destabilize global markets, especially energy and commodities.
– **Geopolitical Risks**: Prolonged war may lead to increased regional instability, affecting European security and potentially drawing in NATO.
– **Cyber Risks**: Escalation could lead to increased cyber attacks on critical infrastructure in supporting nations.
– **Psychological Risks**: Prolonged conflict may lead to war fatigue among the Russian populace, potentially destabilizing Putin’s regime.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• **Mitigation**: Strengthen international coalitions to apply economic and diplomatic pressure on Russia’s enablers.
• **Exploitation**: Leverage any diplomatic openings with China to reduce its support for Russia.
• **Scenario Projections**:
  – **Best Case**: Enablers withdraw support, leading to peace negotiations.
  – **Worst Case**: Increased support from enablers, escalating the conflict.
  – **Most Likely**: Continued support with incremental diplomatic pressure leading to a protracted conflict.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

– Neil Holland
– President Putin
– Key enablers: China, Iran, DPRK

7. Thematic Tags

national security threats, geopolitical strategy, international diplomacy, conflict resolution