The head of Estonia’s foreign intelligence service warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin believes he can outmaneuver the United States in talks to end the nearly four‑year war in Ukraine, and that Moscow plans to bolster forces along NATO’s eastern flank depending on how negotiations unfold. Kaupo Rosin told journalists online that Russia is preparing to create new units and expand its prewar troop presence on the NATO border by two to three times, while keeping a substantial force inside occupied Ukrainian territory. Rosin said current Russian capabilities are insufficient for an attack on NATO this year or next, but Moscow is sensitive to European rearmament and may shift posture based on the course of talks involving Washington and Kyiv. The assessment, published ahead of Estonia’s annual security report, ties Moscow’s force posture directly to the trajectory of ceasefire discussions and political outcomes.
Key Takeaways
- Kaupo Rosin, head of Estonia’s foreign intelligence service, says Russia plans to multiply prewar forces along the NATO border by two to three times depending on war outcomes.
- Rosin assesses Russia cannot mount an attack on NATO in 2026–2027 (this year or next) because of limited resources, but will keep substantial forces in occupied Ukraine.
- Estonian intelligence reports are drawn from intercepted or internal Russian discussions, according to Rosin, who did not detail collection methods.
- Russian glide-bomb strikes killed an 11‑year‑old girl and her mother in Donetsk; seven others were injured, including a 7‑year‑old.
- U.S.-brokered diplomatic activity recently secured an Abu Dhabi agreement to free more than 300 prisoners, which U.S. officials cite as progress.
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says Washington set a June deadline for a settlement; the White House cites negotiators’ “tremendous progress.”
- Experts including Fiona Hill warn that both Putin and U.S. negotiators may be receiving filtered intelligence that reinforces leaders’ preferred narratives.
Background
The conflict began nearly four years ago when Russian forces invaded Ukraine. Since then, the frontlines and political dynamics have shifted repeatedly, drawing sustained Western support for Kyiv and heavy costs for Moscow’s economy and military. NATO members have incrementally strengthened defensive deployments on the alliance’s eastern flank in response to the invasion and to support deterrence of any wider aggression. Estonia, a NATO and EU member bordering Russia and with historical concerns about Moscow’s intentions, closely monitors Russian military and political signals.
Diplomatic efforts to negotiate a cessation of hostilities have intensified recently, with mediations involving the United States, Russia and Ukraine. U.S. envoys have engaged in shuttle diplomacy and facilitated prisoner exchanges, most notably an Abu Dhabi accord to release more than 300 detainees. Still, officials from all sides describe substantive gaps on core issues such as territorial control, security guarantees and withdrawal timetables, leaving the prospects for a comprehensive settlement uncertain.
Main Event
In an online briefing reported to journalists, Kaupo Rosin said Estonia’s intelligence indicates Moscow is preparing a contingent plan to expand forces near NATO’s eastern border by two to three times the prewar level. Rosin tied the scale of any buildup to outcomes from talks involving Moscow, Washington and Kyiv, saying that Russia would need to keep a “significant portion” of its military inside occupied Ukrainian territory to deter future Ukrainian operations.
Rosin stated that, despite Kremlin rhetoric about negotiating, there is little sign of willingness among Russian officials to compromise on core demands. He described Russian leaders as viewing Washington as their principal adversary and suggested Russian negotiators are buying time in diplomacy rather than making binding concessions. He declined to disclose collection methods but said the assessment is based on internal Russian discussions intercepted or reported to Estonia.
On the battlefield, the violence continued while talks proceeded. Regional officials reported that Russian glide bombs killed an 11‑year‑old girl and her mother in Donetsk, wounding seven others, including a 7‑year‑old. Overnight drone attacks in other parts of Ukraine wounded at least five people, among them a toddler and two additional children. These incidents underscore the persistent human cost even amid diplomatic exchanges.
A U.S. White House official, speaking on background, asserted that President Donald Trump’s negotiating team had achieved “tremendous progress” and cited the Abu Dhabi prisoner agreement as proof of forward momentum. At the same time, analysts note that prior high‑profile deadlines announced by Trump have elapsed without definitive settlements, and Kyiv and Moscow have previously missed timetables without formal consequences.
Analysis & Implications
Rosin’s assessment frames Russia’s military planning as contingent rather than wholly committed to immediate escalation against NATO. If Moscow lacks sufficient resources to attack NATO in the next two years, the short‑term risk of a broader war remains limited; however, a deliberate expansion of forces along the alliance’s eastern flank would raise long‑term tensions and require NATO to increase deterrence measures, with implications for European defense spending and force posture.
Keeping a large portion of Russia’s military inside occupied Ukraine achieves two strategic aims for Moscow: it preserves leverage over Ukrainian territory and reduces the pool of units available for offensive action elsewhere. That disposition complicates Kyiv’s options and increases the chance of protracted, attritional conflict—sustaining humanitarian harm and continued global economic impacts, especially in energy and grain markets.
Diplomatically, the possibility that Russian negotiators are “playing for time” suggests agreements reached without robust verification mechanisms could be unstable. If Moscow uses talks to regroup and reconstitute forces, any ceasefire could provide breathing room for rearmament. Conversely, a verifiable, enforceable settlement could allow for de‑escalation and phased withdrawals, but the political will for such verification remains in doubt given leaders’ competing narratives.
Information dynamics also matter: Rosin and other experts warn that optimistic reports reaching leaders can skew decision‑making. If senior officials receive rosier accounts than frontline realities warrant, strategic miscalculations can follow. The pattern Rosin describes—where lower‑level personnel see setbacks that higher echelons do not—creates internal informational imbalances that can prolong conflict or lead to ill‑timed operations.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Reported Figure/Status |
|---|---|
| Planned force expansion on NATO border | 2–3x prewar levels (per Estonian intelligence) |
| Prisoners to be released (Abu Dhabi deal) | More than 300 people |
| Recent civilian casualties (Donetsk glide bomb) | 2 killed (11‑year‑old girl and mother); 7 wounded |
| Time horizon for NATO attack feasibility | Not enough resources to attack NATO this year or next (Estonia assessment) |
The table summarizes figures highlighted by Estonia’s intelligence chief and reporting on recent battlefield incidents and diplomatic developments. These discrete metrics—force multipliers, prisoner counts and casualty tallies—help contextualize Rosin’s judgment that Moscow can reshape force posture but faces resource constraints that limit near‑term aggression against NATO. The prisoner release is a tangible diplomatic outcome; battlefield casualty figures illustrate the ongoing human cost even as talks advance.
Reactions & Quotes
Estonia published its annual security assessment following Rosin’s briefing. Officials from allied capitals reacted cautiously, acknowledging intelligence warnings while stressing support for continued diplomacy. Analysts stressed the need for verification measures if any ceasefire is negotiated.
“He still thinks he can actually militarily win (in Ukraine) at some point,”
Kaupo Rosin, Head of Estonia’s Foreign Intelligence Service
A White House official, speaking anonymously, highlighted recent steps in diplomacy and pointed to prisoner releases as evidence of progress. U.S. negotiators, including special envoy Steve Witkoff, are central to that effort, though some experts question whether envoys are receiving or conveying complete intelligence assessments.
“Tremendous progress”
Anonymous White House official
Fiona Hill, a Russia expert who advised the U.S. government in earlier administrations, cautioned that leaders on both sides may be told narratives that align with their political needs—one portraying Putin as a future victor, another portraying Trump as a dealmaker. That dynamic risks shaping policy choices more than raw intelligence.
“Both leaders need their version of events to play out,”
Fiona Hill, Russia expert (former U.S. official)
Unconfirmed
- Specific intelligence collection methods Estonia used to derive internal Russian discussions were not disclosed and remain unverified publicly.
- The exact timeline and structure of new Russian units that Rosin described (if implemented) have not been independently confirmed by other NATO intelligence agencies.
- Reports that U.S. envoys met with Putin without State Department translators have been reported in media but lack full public documentation and official confirmation.
Bottom Line
Estonia’s assessment frames the current moment as one of simultaneous diplomatic activity and military recalibration. Moscow appears to be keeping its strategic options open: preparing to enlarge the force presence along NATO’s eastern flank while preserving combat power inside occupied Ukraine. That dual approach could keep the conflict simmering even if formal negotiations produce interim agreements.
For NATO and Kyiv, the immediate priority is to reconcile diplomacy with credible deterrence and to insist on verification that prevents talks from serving as a pause for reconstitution. For international observers, the conflict’s trajectory will depend on battlefield dynamics, internal pressures within Russia, and whether negotiators can produce enforceable, monitorable steps toward de‑escalation. In the short term, civilian harm on the ground and political deadlines—such as the June timeline noted by Kyiv—will shape both public perception and policy choices.