(LONDON) – Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is increasingly isolated from reality and surrounded by officials who are afraid to deliver bad news, according to Christopher Steele, the former head of the United Kingdom’s MI6 Russia desk. Steele says Putin lives inside a self reinforcing bubble of disinformation that has distorted decision making at the highest level of the Kremlin, particularly during Russia’s full scale war against Ukraine.
Speaking in a detailed interview, Steele said there is a persistent distortion in the information reaching Putin. He described the Russian leader as intelligent but unwilling to hear negative assessments. Instead, Putin prefers advisers who confirm his assumptions and deliver positive narratives, even when these are disconnected from facts on the ground.
Steele said this pattern became clear early in the war, when Russian intelligence agencies, particularly the FSB, misjudged Ukraine’s resilience and the country’s response to invasion. When these assessments proved false, Putin reacted by dismissing and prosecuting certain generals and intelligence officers. According to Steele, this showed Putin understood he had been misled, yet the underlying culture of fear and distortion remained unchanged.
The result, Steele argued, is that Russia’s leadership structure actively filters reality before it reaches the top. Officials understand that delivering bad news can end careers or worse, creating strong incentives to manipulate reports. This has serious consequences not only for military operations but also for Russia’s political decisions, foreign policy and economic planning.
Steele noted that major military failures are sometimes impossible to hide, such as the retreat of Russian forces from areas around Kyiv earlier in the war. However, he said these moments do not fundamentally change the system. For most of the time, information passed up the chain is shaped to protect those delivering it rather than to inform accurate decisions.
As the war approaches its fourth anniversary, Steele said Putin is acutely aware of the uncomfortable historical comparisons being made inside Russia. The conflict is now longer than the period the Soviet Red Army took to defeat Nazi Germany in the Second World War, a deeply sensitive issue for the Kremlin. The so called Great Patriotic War remains a central myth underpinning modern Russian state identity, and the contrast with the slow and costly campaign in Ukraine is damaging.
Steele said fear around Putin is visible even in controlled public settings. He recalled accounts from journalists who described the tension among Russian officials present during interviews with the Kremlin leader. This atmosphere reinforces a system in which senior figures compete to reassure Putin rather than challenge his views.
On the battlefield, Steele described the situation as a stalemate at the tactical level, particularly in eastern Ukraine, where Russian forces have failed to achieve decisive breakthroughs. At the operational level, he said Ukraine has often dictated the pace of events, forcing Russia to react to strikes on energy infrastructure and shipping linked to the so called shadow fleet.
Strategically, Steele argued that Putin continues to believe he retains control, particularly through political leverage rather than military success. He pointed to repeated attempts by Moscow to push peace proposals that are unacceptable to Ukraine and its partners, yet gain temporary traction through political channels.
A central concern raised by Steele is Putin’s perceived influence over former United States president Donald Trump. Steele described Trump as a critical political lifeline for Putin, especially given Russia’s heavy losses and limited territorial gains. Russian forces have suffered casualties estimated in excess of one million, according to Western assessments, in exchange for relatively small advances.
Steele said these losses are extremely difficult for the Kremlin to justify domestically. He warned that a return of Trump to the White House would risk easing pressure on Moscow, allowing Putin to escape accountability for the war. In his view, recent patterns show Russian proposals being floated, adjusted under European pressure, then collapsing because Moscow cannot accept outcomes that fail to justify the costs already paid.
He questioned why Trump appears drawn to Putin, citing possibilities ranging from personal admiration of strongman politics to business interests and long standing alignments of worldview. Steele referred to findings from his earlier work during the 2016 US election, which suggested Russia did not need to coerce Trump but instead found a willing partner in someone who shared a belief in power based spheres of influence.
Steele also criticised Trump’s apparent economic logic. He contrasted Russia’s economy, estimated at about USD 2.3 trillion, with that of the European Union, which collectively is many times larger. He argued that prioritising business engagement with Russia over Europe makes little sense if the objective is economic gain based on stable, rules based contracts.
| Economy | Estimated Size |
|---|---|
| Russia | USD 2.3 trillion |
| European Union | Significantly larger, collectively tens of trillions USD (USD 20 Trillion) |
Steele said intelligence reporting suggests quiet contacts have continued between US and Russian energy interests, with particular focus on hydrocarbons and the Arctic. He said Moscow has attempted to entice Washington with the idea of distancing Russia from China, a notion he dismissed as unrealistic given Russia’s deep economic dependence on Beijing.
China, Steele said, is not Russia’s ally but a pragmatic actor pursuing its own interests. He highlighted Beijing’s long memory of Russian territorial expansion during China’s nineteenth century period of weakness and suggested that China has not forgotten those historical grievances. He warned that if Russia emerges weakened from the war, Beijing may seek greater influence over Russian resources, including minerals and even freshwater reserves such as Lake Baikal.
Looking ahead, Steele said some form of attempted peace initiative may emerge in 2026, but he does not believe it would be durable if imposed on Ukraine. He argued that Ukraine cannot surrender key fortified cities in the east without severe internal consequences, including potential military unrest. Such outcomes, he said, would also threaten European security by risking state collapse and large scale refugee flows.
Steele stressed that the most credible guarantee of European security is a strong and well supported Ukrainian armed forces backed by sustained Western military and financial assistance. He dismissed security assurances outside formal NATO structures as unreliable, citing the failure to enforce the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
He concluded that Ukraine has shown willingness to compromise within limits, while Russia has not. Any peace that ignores this reality, he said, would be unstable and ultimately invite further conflict.