MI6 chief: Putin stringing us along on Ukraine peace talks, cites China’s role in prolonging war

Vladimir Putin is stringing the world along in Ukraine peace talks and has no genuine interest in ending the war, the head of Britain’s foreign intelligence service said in his final public address. Sir Richard Moore, who steps down next week after five years leading MI6, delivered a stark assessment that Moscow will not pursue a peace agreement unless Ukrainian capitulation is on the table, a position he described as unchanged and unsustainable for the long term.

“I have seen absolutely no evidence that President Putin has any interest in a negotiated peace short of Ukrainian capitulation. He is stringing us along,” Moore said during a speech in Istanbul. He argued that Putin seeks to impose his imperial will by any means at his disposal, adding that the Russian leader cannot ultimately succeed in that aim.

[]

Moore noted there is no evidence Putin has any real interest in peace with Ukraine, and he described the Russian president as deluded and self-obsessed, more concerned with legacy than with the millions of Russian casualties that have been “fed into the meat grinder.” He suggested that Putin believed he could secure a quick, decisive victory but that Kyiv’s resistance has upended those expectations. “Bluntly, Putin has bitten off more than he can chew. He thought he was going to win an easy victory. But he—and many others—underestimated the Ukrainians,” Moore said.

The spy chief warned that the war will continue to grind forward on the battlefield at a high cost, with Russia’s economy and its ability to project imperial power already in long-term decline. Yet he cautioned that the decisive factor in whether Moscow ultimately accepts peace will be external support, not battlefield dynamics alone. In his telling, Beijing’s ongoing diplomatic backing and the supply of dual-use goods—ranging from certain chemicals to electronic components used in weapons systems—have helped prevent Putin from reaching the conclusion that peace is his best option.

Moore placed particular emphasis on China’s dual role as a diplomatic ally and a supplier of material that sustains Russia’s weapons program. He argued that, as Russia’s stature wanes, China’s rise will shape the conflict’s trajectory unless Beijing adheres to internationally accepted rules of engagement and non-interference. While Britain seeks a constructive relationship with China, Moore warned Beijing not to overstep or interfere in Western affairs.

The former MI6 chief also expressed guarded optimism about potential diplomacy under other actors. He praised what he called President Donald Trump’s efforts to resolve the conflict, while warning against expectations that Putin is seriously pursuing a negotiated settlement. “Putin has sought to convince the world that Russian victory is inevitable. But he lies. He lies to the world. He lies to his own people. Perhaps he even lies to himself,” Moore said, using stark language to describe Moscow’s messaging.

Looking ahead, Moore suggested that any real test of Putin’s resolve would come from Moscow’s willingness to choose a path that stabilizes Russia’s economy and political system without further erosion of its standing on the world stage. “The ringing of an incoming phone call from the Russian President is the equivalent of Pavlov’s tinkling bell inside the Kremlin eliciting learned behavior to tell Putin whatever it is the system thinks he wants to hear,” he said, signaling the level of control he believes the Kremlin exerts over public messaging.

Beyond the immediate conflict, Moore argued the United Kingdom must remain Kyiv’s staunchest ally and advocate, emphasizing the importance of clear, consistent Western support for Ukraine as it navigates a protracted struggle. He framed his remarks as a candid assessment from a longtime intelligence professional about the strategic calculus that will determine whether peace is possible—and under what terms.

The speech capped Moore’s five-year tenure at MI6, during which he said the agency’s core mission has been to illuminate the truth while recognizing that adversaries often seek to deceive. He closed by paying tribute to staff and signaling a transition toward a new generation of leadership, but with a continuing commitment to defend Kyiv and uphold international norms in the face of what he described as Russia’s “measured, deliberate” effort to upend the postwar order.

In a broader sense, Moore’s remarks reflect a Western view that Moscow's persistence in conflict may be sustained by external support that keeps its military effort viable while eroding the conditions for a durable settlement. His warnings come as Western intelligence agencies continue to monitor Russian military movements, supply lines, and the political dynamics within Moscow that could influence future peace negotiations. The full implications of his assessment remain a focal point for policymakers as they weigh how to respond to a conflict that shows few signs of nearing a decisive conclusion.

As the international community absorbs his assessment, attention turns to whether any path to peace can emerge that does not leave Kyiv vulnerable to renewed pressure or coercive terms. Moore’s analysis suggests that, for now, the peace process remains fragile and heavily contingent on external factors—most notably the posture and actions of China and its allies—rather than on immediate shifts on the battlefield alone.