|
Funny Media Speculations About CIA Ratcliffe’s Russia Visit
On Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe landed in Moscow for a few hours of talk with Russian security officials. The trip was no secret as the planes transporting Ratcliffe and his entourage were readily identified.
There was no official announcement from either side about the content of the talks. U.S. media though were splattered with ‘leaks’ of more or less laughable details.
Let’s start with the New York Times:
C.I.A. Chief Delivered Bleak Assessment of Russia’s War in Secretive Moscow Visit (archived) – NY Times, Aug 27 2026
John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, made a secretive visit to Moscow this week to privately share his bleak assessment of the state of the Russian war against Ukraine, and to urge the Russians to cut a deal before their military and economic situation gets worse, current and former officials said.
Mr. Ratcliffe delivered the message to Aleksanndr V. Bortikov, the head of Russia’s F.S.B. intelligence service, …
…
C.I.A. analysts have long questioned whether Mr. Putin’s advisers have given him honest assessments of the war’s trajectory and toll.
…
Some officials said they hoped that Mr. Putin, a former intelligence officer himself, would see a message from the C.I.A. director as more urgent and credible than communications through normal diplomatic channels.
…
It is not clear whether Mr. Ratcliffe’s message presages any change in U.S. policy toward Russia or Ukraine.
There are number of reasons why the claims in the above report are obviously fake.
– The Russian side of the war in Ukraine is the one that is winning. There is no real fear in Russia that its military or economic situation is getting worse.
– If Putin is, as alleged, not getting honest assessments from his people, why would anyone assume that whatever minion Ratcliffe talks to would turn around and tell Putin the ‘truth’. If Putin were indeed isolated by his people the only way to truly reach him would be to talk with him in person. Trump could simply phone him up it that were what is needed.
– Bortnikov is indeed head of Russia’s FSB intelligence service. But the FSB is tasked with internal security and counterespionage. It has little to do with the war in Ukraine. It is not the right partner for the CIA to talk to.
– Moreover it was Sergei Naryshkin, the head of the Russia’s foreign intelligence service SVR, who confirmed the meeting with Ratcliffe:
According to Naryshkin, such negotiations with the heads of the special services are part of the work and are held almost weekly.
“The meeting took place, there is nothing unusual in this,” Naryshkin assured. “In the practice of special services, meetings of managers, personal meetings or online are part of our work. So the meeting with John Ratcliffe is a working format.”
At the same time, Naryshkin refused to tell what issues were discussed, explaining that they were within the competence of the intelligence services.
The NY Times report is obviously bollocks, solely intended to sow doubt and confusion.
A Washington Post report about an alleged motive for the trip is likewise confused:
Putin sees U.S. as weakened by Iran war, intelligence reports say (archived) – Washington Post, Aug 27 2026
CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s mysterious trip to Moscow this week was preceded by fresh U.S. intelligence indicating that the Kremlin sees the United States as weakened by the Iran war, offering Russia an opportunity to escalate action against American interests and allies in Europe, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The details of Ratcliffe’s talks with his Russian counterpart remain secret, but one of the people told The Washington Post that the CIA chief warned Moscow against ramping up its war against Ukraine, arguing that such a move would backfire.
…
The classified intelligence suggesting that Putin sees the U.S. as weakened by the six-month-old war in Iran follows reports of diminished troop readiness and munitions shortfalls as a result of the extended campaign against Tehran.
I also have intelligence, it’s unclassified, that everyone in this world, accept a few White House officials and WaPo opinion writers, believe that the war on Iran has weakened the U.S. of A.
That fact though has little to no immediate consequence for the war in Ukraine.
Politico provides a mix for the trip’s reasons:
CIA chief used Moscow visit to warn Russia against attacks on NATO allies, helping Iran – Politico, Aug 26 2026
CIA Director John Ratcliffe warned Russian officials in Moscow this week not to escalate conflict with America’s NATO allies, in particular Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, in response to Moscow’s stalemated invasion of Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The U.S. spy chief also used the rare, unannounced trip to the Russian capital on Tuesday to press Russia to reduce military and economic support for Iran, according to one of those two people and a U.K. official with knowledge of the trip.
This report, like the above NY Times one, presumes that Russia is losing or is in a stalemate in Ukraine. That is, as news from Kiev provides, pure nonsense.
Moreover Russia has no interest at all to escalate conflicts with the Baltics or any other NATO country. Any objective view will show that it is the NATO side which does its best to escalate the situation.
As for Iran – Moscow does not want the U.S. to win that conflict. It is, like China, standing on the side on Iran. It may have some interest though in prolonging the conflict in the Gulf if only to keep the U.S. off its own back.
An interesting conspiracy theory about the Ratcliffe visit is provided by blog-entry at the Conservative Treehouse site:
The Other Half of the Story – CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s Visit to Moscow – Conseative Treehouse / Sundance, Aug 26 2026
Western media are reporting that CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow, Russia, to warn his Russian counterpart Sergey Naryshkin, head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), about striking back against Baltic states. However, that’s only half of the story.
Director Ratcliffe wasn’t simply telling Naryshkin not to hit back; he was telling Naryshkin that European NATO provocations against the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad (between Poland and Lithuania) were not ‘fully’ sanctioned by the United States.
…
Apparently, European NATO is increasingly trying to provoke expanded conflict with Russia, while President Trump and CIA Director John Ratcliffe attempt to tamp down the problems being created.
That is a wild theory, with no evidence, but it is at least interesting.
If true though it would mean that the U.S. would not mind for Russia to hammer the NATO Europeans without itself hitting back. I doubt that it would be a sustainable position.
My own speculation is that Ratcliffe’s trip was nearly solely about the Iran situation.
The U.S. has likely asked Russia to not support Iran, while -in return- offering some empty concessions on Ukraine. As the current U.S. administration has proven itself to be not-agreement-capable any such deal is likely to see a Russian rejection.
The bar now has a crap table where Barflies have gathered around to place their opinion bets and roll the dice. My Q: Is solving this mystery more important than reading Lavrov’s latest interview? IMO, Lavrov’s interview is far more important, and there’s no excuse to not read it since MFA has published an official English transcript of the event. For the video, you’ll need to go to the Russian page. IMO, there are several very important sections, some of which Lavrov’ has aired previously. Here’s the first:
Deception lies in the foundation of Western diplomacy. And it still does. We can recall 1999, when the OSCE summit in Istanbul stated that NATO would not expand. Its declaration said so, in different words: no one shall strengthen their security at the expense of others, and no country or organisation in the Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. The North Atlantic Alliance did exactly the opposite….
When we asked how this was possible if we had been promised and given a firm assurance, we were told: “But it was verbal.” Then, in Istanbul in 1999, it was formalised in writing. But the expansion continued. We asked again: “This time it wasn’t verbal, but written, at the highest level.” They answered us without batting an eyelid: “But that’s a political declaration; it’s not legally binding.” Our penultimate attempt was in 2008, when we said: “Okay, since you’re citing the declaration’s non-binding political nature, here’s a legally binding agreement that translates into legal language the same principles enshrined in the OSCE and signed by your leaders.” They “went under the rug,” not even discussing it. The same was true of our last effort to prevent the Ukrainian crisis. In December 2021, we proposed to NATO and the United States that we conclude treaties on European security in this part of our Eurasian continent. Sadly, such examples abound.
Barflies can examine Lavrov’s report on his chat with Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher. It continues the above litany of deceptions; and if you read it all carefully, you’ll see that the Vatican is no different from any other EU/NATO entity and has no interests in human rights, which are a major part of any settlement, just as they were in the 2022 draft treaty. I also suggest closely reading Lavrov’s review of Anchorage. The interlocutor is keen and asked this Q to which Lavrov tap-danced with his answer for which I provide IMO the key paragraph:
Question: But if Donald Trump was fully in favour of signing these agreements, and yet nothing came of it, the question arises: is Donald Trump really in charge, and is he as powerful as he wishes to appear?
Lavrov: I will not speculate on how well-coordinated relations within the Western camp are today, or whether they are structured in such a way that it is possible to understand who is doing what and who depends on whom. But the United States is clearly concerned that its once seemingly unlimited power is becoming a thing of the past. You can see this even from the statistics on its share of the global economy. They lead only in terms of military spending. Even there, however, they have now forced Europe to catch up, bringing its combined military spending to almost 1.5 trillion euros. That is the kind of military budget the United States would like to have for itself.
The topic then shifts to Britain where Lavrov clearly shows his disdain:
Question: It is good that you mentioned the British. My next question was about them.
In 2022, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson flew to Kiev, and the signing of the Istanbul agreements was derailed. This week, the new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, visited Ukraine – the British travel to Ukraine quite frequently. What is Britain’s role in this entire conflict? In your view, are the British currently managing to outmanoeuvre the Americans?
Sergey Lavrov: Britain’s role is highly negative, as it has been for centuries. As far as Russia is concerned, certainly. But the same applies to most others as well – I would not call them partners, but Britain’s “fellow travellers,” because Britain has never had permanent allies. The United States is no exception. They have always looked somewhat down their noses at those Anglo-Saxons who established their own state across the Atlantic.
Since the time of Ivan the Terrible – and there is ample contemporary evidence of this – the British have constantly sought to cause trouble for our country. One need only recall the Crimean War in the late 19th century. During the Revolution, British diplomats actively incited the State Duma and betrayed their own monarchs’ relatives, as Nicholas II and his family were. King George V refused to grant Nicholas II’s direct request for asylum. That was in the spring of 1917. We all know what happened next.
Yes, there was the period of the Second World War. Indeed, they were our allies – both the United States and Britain. Lend-Lease and the Arctic convoys were of great assistance. Many historians write that they played an almost decisive role in enabling us to hold out during the first year, up to the Battle of Moscow.
Then a kind of diplomatic manoeuvring began: the second front, and so on. It gave the impression that they were watching the situation at the front and waiting to see which way it would go. They were thinking about which side to choose.
Question: Then there was the Fulton speech by the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. That much is clear.
Sergey Lavrov: Before the Fulton speech, there was also something that our intelligence services did not disclose until recently, because they wanted, after all, to preserve the memory of our alliance. There was Operation Unthinkable, which the British began planning together with the Americans before the end of the Second World War. It envisaged a massive attack on the Soviet Union.
Even so, we do not forget the period of our alliance. But if this was a situational alliance on the part of our partners, our brothers-in-arms during the Second World War, it disappeared very quickly.
Question: I was asking about something else. Their attitude towards us is clear. Do you not think that the British are now outmanoeuvring the Americans on the Ukrainian front?
Lavrov: … Apart from all these objective facts, Vladimir Zelensky’s behaviour when he travels around the world is such that everyone is expected to listen to him and carry out his orders.
Question: But everyone does listen.
Sergey Lavrov: The irritation is building. But I would not rely on the idea that this irritation will keep growing and that, at some point, they will simply tell him, as it were, “Enough. Surrender.”
No, we must not give in to such sentiments and, of course, we must not give in to the attempts by Vladimir Zelensky, actively provoked with the support of the Europeans, to destabilise our society through terrorist attacks on oil refineries, online marketplaces and civilian infrastructure, designed to sow fear.
Schools, children’s centres, beaches, passenger buses – a huge number of targets that have nothing whatsoever to do with military potential. And the West shamefully remains silent. Sadly, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk are also shamefully silent. They have unequivocally and firmly taken the side of the Ukrainian regime.
Since we have touched upon these terrorist methods, which have been intensifying, and what they have started doing in the Black Sea, for which they have received a much stronger response from us: I know that there are people among us who say, “How could everything have been fine, and then suddenly this…” People comment on it in different ways. Few say that we started it. Almost everyone who grumbles about what is happening in everyday life understands that it was the West that started it. But they keep asking, increasingly often, when we are going to end this and why we cannot do it sooner. After all, they say, we are more powerful.
We have never experienced anything like this in our history. During the Second World War, we did have the United States and Britain on our side. Then, as we advanced victoriously, particularly across Europe, other countries joined our ranks – countries that were already pulling their troops out from under Hitler’s command and sending them over to our side.
This time, many people call it a world war. But the only people in the trenches alongside us were North Korean servicemen. Everyone else is on the other side. As US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said – perhaps it simply slipped out – the United States is not a mediator; it is on Ukraine’s side. That makes the collective West’s front against us a universal one. [My Emphasis]
The importance of what follows is only a little less. Lavrov for the first time speaks at length about the Tech War and AI use. The war on Iran gets mentioned and the Outlaws are denounced. The interview closes with Lavrov talking about Moldova and Armenia and the connection of their situation with Ukraine’s prior to the start of Maidan in 2013.
Russia is officially at war with NATO, and reality says that began with NATO’s inception in 1949. Many in the West try to justify NATO’s existence by saying is was needed to confront the Warsaw Pact, but that organization didn’t exist until 1955. NATO’s birth was directly tied to the Outlaw’s 1947 National Security Act and formation of the CIA along with the “soft war” being waged against European Socialists that began in 1943 in Italy that became the Anti-Communist Crusade in 1950 and the rehabilitation of fascists globally.
One wonders if Ratcliffe or any other American Outlaw is aware of that history and its facts. IMO, they are all Grifters and don’t give a damn.
Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 28 2026 22:28 utc | 138
|
