MOROCCO: Western Sahara Resolution Likely to Result in Reforms, Economic Growth
Summary: The United Nations (UN) Security Council recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara, opening the region to new trade, investment, and infrastructure development alongside Rabat’s $15 billion pledge for social infrastructure investments. Rabat will likely leverage the increase in revenue from the Western Sahara to address social reform demands, namely by investing in healthcare and education.
Development: On 31 October, the UN Security Council officially recognized Rabat’s claim and sovereignty over the Western Sahara, ending 50 years of military occupation and allowing Morocco legal access to investment and trade expansion in the region. In September, a youth-led movement in Morocco known as Gen-Z 212 organized a series of demonstrations calling for stronger social reforms, including improvements to public education and healthcare, following the deaths of eight pregnant women at a hospital in Agadir. As a result of the protests, Rabat pledged to spend $15 billion on health care and education in 2026, a 16% increase from the previous year. Morocco is constructing a port in Dakhla, in the southern portion of the Western Sahara. The Atlantic Port of Dakhla aims to handle 35 million tons of cargo each year and increase the region’s gross domestic product (GDP) from 1% to 6%. With the recognition of Western Sahara as sovereign Moroccan territory, its international status shifts from that of a region under military occupation to one of recognized sovereignty.
Analysis: The UN Security Council’s recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara likely positions Morocco to reinvest new revenues into critical social infrastructure investments, driving development and sustained domestic stability. The increase in Morocco’s economic capabilities resulting from its legal claim to Western Sahara will likely have a direct impact on social infrastructure. The new status of the Western Sahara will likely attract foreign investment and increased trade routes to the Atlantic Port of Dakhla. The increase in revenue from the Western Sahara will likely help facilitate and continue the momentum needed to invest in social infrastructure demanded by the Gen-Z 212 protests.
[Jacob Faciana]
UKRAINE: Russian Cyber Operations Likely to Sustain Pressure on Critical Networks
Summary: Russian cyber units will likely continue targeted intrusions against Ukrainian government and private networks. Recent activity emphasized stealth and intelligence collection instead of disruptive attacks.
Development: On 30 October, cybersecurity researchers identified new Russian linked intrusions targeting Ukrainian institutions. Analysts from Symantec and the Carbon Black Threat Hunter Team stated that one operation infiltrated a large Ukrainian business services company for several weeks, while another breached a local government entity for roughly one week. According to Industrial Cyber, operators used a custom web shell associated with the Russian Sandworm group and relied on legitimate administrative tools already present in victim systems to avoid detection. Investigators assessed that the intrusions focused on persistent access and data theft rather than system disruption. The activity reflects a broader trend throughout 2025 toward quiet penetration and intelligence collection, according to E Security Planet. Earlier in the year, Security Affairs noted that Ukrainian officials observed an increase in artificial intelligence enabled intrusion attempts, complicating defensive efforts.
Analysis: Russian cyber forces will likely maintain persistent campaigns to gather intelligence, support military planning, and undermine Ukrainian state capacity. Reliance on legitimate system tools indicate more sophisticated approach, likely aimed at remaining undetected while retaining long term access. Kyiv will likely face continued pressure due to resource constraints and competing wartime demands. Without expanded investment in monitoring and response, Ukrainian public and private organizations will likely continue experiencing compromises and loss of sensitive information.
[Garrett Williams]
RUSSIA: Escalating Economic Instability Likely Signals Imminent Economic Collapse
Summary: The Russian economy is under severe strain from prolonged geopolitical isolation, the financial burden of its war in Ukraine, and instability in its oil sector. The war effort has driven up military spending while economic growth has stagnated, with inflation and labor shortages weakening civilian industries. While short-term resilience persists, long-term prospects point toward stagnation, fragmentation, or even systemic collapse.
Background: Moscow’s financial landscape grows increasingly unstable as years of sanctions, war expenditures, and shifting global alliances erode its foundations. After Moscow invaded Ukraine in 2022, Western restrictions cut off key trade and financial channels and forced Moscow to depend on discounted energy exports to Asia. Military spending has surged, but civilian industries face inflation, labor shortages, and declining real incomes. Oil production is declining under export bans and infrastructure strain.
Political-Economic Standing: Moscow likely leverages its deepening ties with North Korea and China to counter Western isolation and sustain its war economy. On 27 October, President Vladimir Putin met North Korea’s Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui in Moscow, reaffirming a growing alliance rooted in shared opposition to U.S. influence and mutual military needs, according to Al Jazeera. This follows the June 2024 signing of a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty, which includes a mutual defense clause and has enabled North Korean artillery and manpower to aid support for Moscow’s war in Ukraine, according to Beyond the Horizon. China maintains a more calculated posture: while Beijing continues to provide economic lifelines and diplomatic cover, it avoids direct entanglement in Moscow’s military ventures, preferring deniable cooperation and strategic ambiguity, according to Beyond the Horizon. Moscow’s pivot toward these authoritarian partners reflects tactical necessity rather than ideological unity, exposing vulnerabilities in its long-term economic and geopolitical standing. If sustained, this trilateral alignment, as shown in the picture above from the China Victory Day Military Parade, will likely escalate into a hardened alliance that undermines Western sanctions and global security while creating a unification of regional military posturing across East Asia and Eastern Europe.
War Effort Economic Standing: Moscow’s war in Ukraine will likely continue to drain its economy, offering little strategic or financial return despite massive investment and military mobilization. On 20 October, Foreign Affairs reported that Moscow’s pivot to a war economy has failed to generate sustainable growth. While the military-industrial sector saw short-term gains, broader economic indicators point to stagnation and recession risks. Nearly one-third of Moscow’s federal budget depends on oil exports, yet sanctions and infrastructure damage have eroded this revenue stream, according to the Russian Center for Security and Geopolitical Studies (RCSGS). Moscow’s economic strategy is reactive and unsustainable, with war-related spending crowding out innovation, diversification, and strategic investment in high-tech sectors, according to Foreign Affairs. Defense allocations now dominate fiscal planning, leaving limited room for modernization of energy infrastructure or digital transformation. Moscow’s reliance on oil revenues remains vulnerable to global price shifts and enforcement of sanctions, while its pivot to Asian markets has not offset the loss of Western capital and technology. This war has enacted a cycle of resource depletion and geopolitical isolation, undermining long-term economic resilience.
Civilian and Industrial Economic Standing: Moscow’s civilian and industrial sectors face mounting pressure as falling oil revenues and rising domestic costs likely erode household stability and state capacity. On 14 October, the International Energy Agency reported that global oil demand remains subdued, with Moscow’s export prices averaging just $56 per barrel, down from $69.70 projected in late 2024. This decline has forced Moscow to revise its 2025 budget, cutting over $322 billion in oil and gas revenue and increasing the deficit to nearly $470 billion, according to the Centre for Eastern Studies. Industrial profits are plummeting, and government subsidies have failed to offset inflation, now above 7.5%, according to the Centre for Eastern Studies. Russian households face rising utility costs, stagnant wages, and shrinking purchasing power, while domestic manufacturers struggle with reduced demand and limited access to foreign components. The oil sector’s downturn extends across the economy, amplifying fiscal strain and undermining consumer confidence. On 28 October, the World Bank warned that Russia’s projected GDP growth of 1.0% in 2025 reflects deep structural weaknesses,including its overreliance on oil exports and war-driven fiscal strain.
Outlook and Implications: Moscow’s economic trajectory threatens to destabilize domestic institutions and strain regional alliances while disrupting global energy and security balances, likely driving regional fragmentation, global instability and institutional volatility domestically and abroad. Domestically, reduced oil revenues and inflationary pressures have forced budget cuts in healthcare, education, and infrastructure, likely weakening public trust and government effectiveness. Regionally, countries like Belarus, Armenia, and Kazakhstan, which are economically tethered to Moscow, face spillover effects, likely leading to currency volatility and reduced investment. Politically-aligned states such as Iran and North Korea will likely benefit from short-term arms and energy deals, but risk entanglement in Moscow’s declining economic leverage. Globally, Moscow’s constrained energy output and erratic trade behavior likely contribute to market uncertainty, while its pivot away from Western institutions undermines domestic and international coordination on sanctions, climate, and security.
[Sam Hurley]
RUSSIA: Economic Strains Unlikely to Alter War Plans, Incentivizing Different Strategies
Summary: Moscow’s war on Ukraine remains aggressive, even amidst rising sanctions placed on Moscow by Western nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin is making it clear that his original motives for Ukraine remain unaltered, and, due to economic strains, he will likely continue to pursue strengthening his relations with foreign adversaries. However, Moscow’s gross domestic product (GDP) is increasing due to the amount of war spending, revealing that the increased sanctions will likely not bring an end to the war.
Background: Despite continuous diplomacy efforts from Western nations over the past 9 months to a year, Moscow continues to engage in its ground offensive against Ukraine, although its economy continues to decline and its military-industrial strength grows weaker. On 30 September, the Center for Strategic and International Studies commented that Moscow is still engaging in this war due to “a mix of technocratic management, flexible supply chains, low debt levels, support from China, Iran, and North Korea, and steady energy revenues.” On 22 October, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on Moscow’s two largest oil companies for the nation’s “serious lack of commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine,” according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The sanctions directly affect Moscow’s Open Joint Stock Company Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft) and its Public Joint-Stock Company Oil Company Lukoil (Lukoil).This harms Moscow’s energy sector and further reduces its resources and strength as a military power. As of right now, Moscow stands as the most sanctioned country in the world. Questions remain however, over the effectiveness of these sanctions as Russia seeks “alternative markets and establish[es] new trade routes and methods for circumvention,” according to House of Commons Library.
Sanctions and the Economic Effects: Moscow will likely maintain its war campaign in Ukraine, even amidst mounting sanctions from Western nations. Moreover,the increased sanctions, led by the G7 coalition (the U.S., UK, France, Japan, Italy, Germany and Canada) and followed by 30 or more countries in the EU (European Union) will likely continue yet lack the desired effect, namely, a Russian ceasefire. Putin’s desire to gain Ukrainian neutrality and regime change remains the same as when he invaded the country. Citing two senior US officials, NBC News reported on 28 October that “Putin is committed to securing more Ukrainian territory to justify the human and financial losses he has imposed on the Russian people,” according to The Institute for the Study of War. So, while Moscow’s resources continue to deplete, Putin seems relentless in his original motives for the war, namely, to gain territory from Ukraine and attain regime change in the country to align with Moscow. The increasing sanctions will likely continue and along with this, “The EU pledged in 2025 to fully end imports of Russian gas by the end of 2027,” according to The Council on Foreign Relations. Russian’s oil economy continues to decline due to a drastic decrease in oil and gas imports; however, Moscow’s war of attrition will likely continue regardless, for these specific economic strains do not directly affect his power. Interestingly, the “International Monetary Fund estimated that Russia’s GDP actually increased by 3.6 percent in 2024—a higher growth rate than the United States and many other Western economies—due to massive war spending,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations. So, Moscow’s GDP is increasing, despite other economic struggles, which most certainly allows Moscow to continue this war. Because of this, Moscow will most certainly maintain its aggressive offensive in Ukraine.
Relations with Pyongyang and Beijing: Moscow will likely continue to strengthen its relations with Pyongyang and Beijing as it continues its war on Ukraine, especially as Moscow becomes more reliant on Chinese energy and North Korean reinforcements, mainly weapons and raw materials. On 19 June 2024, a ratification of the Treaty of Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships with Russia occurred between Pyongyang and Moscow. South Korean intelligence previously confirmed that an estimated 10,000 North Korean troops assisted Moscow in the war against Ukraine, with an estimated 600 war victims. The relationship between the two countries continues to strengthen as the war goes on, eliciting concern from Western nations, according to Al Jazeera. With all the sanctions placed on Russia, Moscow claims that Chinese investment would replace where the West has withdrawn. In fact, Beijing’s trade with Moscow is increasing as the war continues and Beijing supplies most of Moscow’s energy, according to Medium. However, because of fear of U.S. secondary sanctions, “Chinese businesses are very careful about making investments” in Russia
Relations with Western Nations: One major concern of this surrounds the ever-growing possibility of a NATO-Russian war, which “Western intelligence services have been issuing warnings [of] since January 2024,” according to Al Jazeera. Moscow planners refer to this as the “period of emergency,” a phase that denotes a time of rising tensions occurring before an outbreak of war. This strategy seems ever more prevalent amidst Moscow’s recent airspace incursions in restricted European airspace, which were likely orchestrated to flaunt NATO’s borders. Europeans term this strategy “phase zero,” defined as “testing responses, gathering intel, and blurring civilian lines,” according to Al Jazeera. Anna Wieslander, the Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council, told Al Jazeera on 27 October that Moscow’s use of hybrid warfare is exhausting European countries towards acceptance of Moscow’s likely plans for Europe, namely division again into spheres of interest.
Outlook and Implications: The increased sanctions on Moscow by Western will likely not alter its war plans. Instead, the economic pressures will likely continue to fuel Moscow’s desire to strengthen relations with Pyongyang and Beijing as it becomes more reliant on the two countries. The Russian economy, as seen by the GDP growth is not displaying strong impacts yet, despite heavy sanctions. However, Moscow’s economy will likely exhibit more signs of downturn in the long-term, but altogether, sanctions will almost certainly not directly lead to the end of the war. Rather, they are incentivizing Moscow to seek alternative markets and trade routes that allow it to continue the war.
[Lauren Phillips]
