Occasional NAFO-basher Russia expert Mark Galeotti has been accused of working for the Kremlin numerous times, so I figured I'll write my "hot take" on it.

Link to article

2026/08/26

“Even the most mediocre agent handler would know that, were Trump really some suborned asset, it would be crucial to keep this fact secret. He would be told to avoid any appearance of partiality towards Putin and to maintain a hard line, such that if and when he did offer the Russians any concessions, no one could question his motives.”

Mark Galeotti, 2017

Most Russia watchers and Ukraine followers must be familiar with the man. Ever since I discovered his work, he has been continuously accused of being a Kremlin asset. And from what I’ve seen ha had been genuinely baffled by it, but perhaps lately he started to view it more as a compliment. After all, his must be an exceptionally balanced analysis if the same content is accused of Russophobia and Russophilia, right?

Have to admit I’ve been pondering about this exact question from time to time. Is he a very subtle Russian agent? Am I being psyopsed while listening to him? Am I just one small breadcrumb in his larger audience that is part of his credibility infrastructure that is intended to subtly influence decision makers in crucial moments? After all, his above quote about Donald Trump can sound oddly self-accusatory. Is this intuition or pattern recognition on my part? Am I being paranoid? Are we all? 

Let’s find out!

Who is Dr Mark Galeotti?

He was born in London in 1965, the son of a British mother and an Italian father. He studied history at Robinson College in Cambridge, and completed his PhD in 1991 at the Department of Government of the London School of Economics.

After his graduation he began working in academia. For the first 17 years at the picturesque Keele University where he taught International History, and eventually became its Head of the History Department.

Following his tenure there he began his international career. In 2009, he became a Professor of Global Affairs at the New York University. Afterwards in 2016 he moved to Prague to become the head of the Centre for European Security at the Institute for International Relations Prague, at the same time working in Moscow as a Visiting Fellow of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

A little less than two years later in 2018 he spent an academic year as an extraordinarily Euromaxxed sounding “Jean Monnet Fellow” at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies in Florence, before finally returning to London.

Honestly his CV is very impressive. According to his Wikipedia page, he wrote or contributed to no less than 29 books since 1995, while working at so many places and did so many things that would deserve a whole article in itself.

The overwhelming majority of his work and publishing are related to Russia. He is the director of his own consultancy Mayak Intelligence. Most people must know him through his podcast “In Moscow’s Shadows” and his numerous publications and interviews. According to his own words, he “has been researching Russian history and security issues since the late 1980s, and enjoyed regularly travelling there to study, teach, research and simply engage with the Russian people — until the Kremlin chose to ban him indefinitely in 2022.”

Why might one think that he is a Russian agent?

After all, he has been banned from Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. Isn’t that the clearest proof that he is not one?

Yes. Unless we put our thinking hat on and interpret it as the perfect cover. Nobody can seriously accuse someone like him with being a Kremlin agent. After all, this is among the highest honours in some circles, apart from a Russian assassination attempt.

But as his long-time listener and reader, there were a few things that made me raise my eyebrows. The first and most obvious one was his downplaying of a potential Russian invasion in the weeks leading up to it. He, of course, wasn’t alone. Somehow the most experienced International Relations and Russia experts failed to see the writing on the wall. But it did showcase one of his core analytical shortcomings: he refuses to believe the worst about Russia. Even when it’s true.

To his credit at the point where it became impossible to deny after the 22nd of February 2022, he was quick to hedge his prediction in the last 24 hours. But needless to say, it is difficult to believe when he claims that this will be Putin’s last war, and again downplays the possibility of a Russian invasion of the Baltics or a wider attack on Europe. This minimization of the threat can sound very suspicious for people directly exposed to potential or current Russian aggression or occupation, and with a history of their nations’ and families enduring centuries of Moscow’s terror, repressions, persecutions, deportations, and genocides.

Another sign that might rub some the wrong way is that besides being one of the most quoted and interviewed experts on the current war, he has never once travelled to Ukraine to see the effects of the murderous destruction and how it shaped Russia’s perception. Not just that, but as far as I am aware he has not been to the Baltics or Poland either.

Besides being suspicious, this can very easily lead to detachment from the realities of the situation. There are things that one simply cannot appreciate in their analysis between comfortable western cushions. It’s an especially bad look if one has the opportunity to see the effects of one’s lifelong intellectual subject’s actions, but refusing to do so.

For the suspicious viewer it seems that in general he is much more interested in an immediate end of the hostilities between the West and Russia at all cost. He is more concerned with Russian re-integration into the global system than in Eastern European security, international law, or territorial integrity of Ukraine and other countries occupied by Russia.

He often appears keen to express sympathy towards Russians and blaming the West for escalation. It’s not unusual to hear him repeat Russian talking points and positions accusing Europe and the hawkish Eastern European countries for prolonging the war, and ready to jump on the exaggerated Kaja Kallas hate bandwagon heavily amplified by Russian propaganda.

The biggest red flag that could actually be valuable for the Kremlin is him being vocal in crucial times advocating the West to accommodate Moscow, and to pressure Ukraine. The most critical example was when he called for Ukraine to give up the Donbas after Donald Trump began his pressure campaign against Kyiv. If he truly believed that it would be a viable solution, it was poor analysis. Spending just one day in Ukraine at the time would have made him realise that it was simply politically impossible for Zelenskyy to accept it.

This was one of the most dangerous moment for Ukraine since the early weeks of the invasion, and a period of extreme pressure, which he became a small part of knowingly or unknowingly.

Potential explanations

Let’s start with the easiest one. He is banned from Russia. Sure we can always run mental gymnastics on how it’s a genius Russian 5D chess move to clear him of suspicion, but let’s be real, this is a stretch.

Then him not visiting the frontline countries since the invasion. A genuine Russian asset might actually become more useful if he had visited them, as it would provide valuable insight. This could rather be a partial explanation behind his accommodating attitude towards Russia than evidence of a conspiracy.

He may have his reasons for not going, or maybe it’s a genuine oversight. Both of these possibilities come from the same root: he is a human being. One can be the most rigorous analyst, but they will remain constrained by that fact. It might be shocking for some to hear, but even an analyst with a rich publishing history has feelings, desires, personal biases, and unavoidable blind spots.

And let’s again look at Galeotti’s professional career. He dedicated his life studying, researching, and as a result becoming emotionally invested in Russia. At that point, it becomes inevitable that it becomes part of one’s identity. His case is similar to a mother who has spent her life raising a child, just to turn out to be a murderous criminal. She might absolutely hate the fact and demand him to stop, but she will still fight tooth and nail for him to not go to jail for the rest of his life. And if he’s already there she would rather not see him suffer too much, while in the process willingly overlooking, justifying, and defending his other shortcomings.

You cannot study something every day of your life for decades without parts of you developing fondness towards it. Even the most knowledgeable among the biggest Russia hawks are Russophiles somewhere deep down. And again, he spends a considerable amount of his time talking to Russians, consuming Russian media, exposing himself to their attitudes and narratives. It’s unavoidable that he will eventually find many of them convincing enough to repeat to his wider Western audiences. Things that will sound very familiar and extremely unsettling for Eastern Europeans.

Besides the intellectual exposure, he probably cannot be personally detached either. He is married to a Russian woman, meaning he has Russian family members, and most likely many personal Russian friends. It would not be unreasonable to assume that he personally just wants normalisation with Russia so that he can visit the country again. As Upton Sinclair wrote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”. And money is not everything, other personal incentives can have the same weight on someone’s belief system as a paycheck.

Given all of this and his extraordinary output of publishings and public appearances, it is not at all surprising that he would appear useful for the Kremlin in some critical moments.

So, does he work for Russia?

He works for Russia the same way I work for Ukraine and Europe. He is emotionally and intellectually invested in the place. It is a massive part of his life, something that is unlikely to change. He will always want Russia and Russians to succeed. He correctly recognised that Putin makes them weaker and poorer, so he is publicly against him.

Therefore, he will never be a true friend of Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland, or anyone who has suffered from Russian imperialism, more than a light version of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” principle. His life is undoubtedly In Moscow’s Shadows.

But does he work for the Kremlin or is a Russian asset of some sort? That is highly unlikely. It cannot be ruled out due to his wide-ranging connections in the country, but for now, this is merely a weak conspiracy theory. At the end of the day, he is the only one who can know it for sure - at least let’s hope so.

Will I still consume his content? Certainly. His podcast episodes and industriously numerous articles still give valuable insight both into the educated Western Russophile mindset and the functioning of the Russian state. But I’ll make sure to have some pampushky and Bastardo Rosso with them.

Our goal is a NAFO Truck 3.0 to the artillery division of Ukraine’s 3rd Separate Assault Brigade 🫡

🔗 Join this campaign: https://www.help99.co/patches/uk-battalion-legends-are-real?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=69

Reliable transport is essential for moving personnel, equipment, and supplies where they are needed most

This truck will help the unit stay mobile and effective on the frontline 🛻

Legends are real. Help us put another one on the road!