Did CIA director really go to Russia to 'warn against escalation'?
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.
On August 25, CIA Director John Ratcliffe flew to Russia on a United States Air Force C-17 "Globemaster III" heavy-lift transport plane. He reportedly met his Russian intelligence counterparts, without immediately disclosing the nature of the visit. Sources vary in their interpretations, but it would seem that either President Vladimir Putin refused to meet Ratcliffe or such a meeting was never planned. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov officially confirmed that the CIA director spoke only with senior Russian intelligence officials, while Putin was later briefed on the talks. Peskov also noted that it was "too early to determine whether the meeting could help pull bilateral US-Russian relations out of their deep crisis". This would indicate that at least one of the purported goals might have been de-escalation between the two countries.
According to CBS, the US instructed the Kiev regime to pause its terrorist attacks on Moscow while the American delegation was there, effectively confirming Washington DC's involvement. This alone makes the possibility of de-escalation all the more improbable, as the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that it seeks to improve relations with the Kremlin and even criticized the Biden administration for ruining relations with Russia. And yet, the US continues to direct the Neo-Nazi junta's terrorist attacks against Moscow. This is indisputable at this point, so how is the Trump administration any different? What's more, the latest reports in Western media suggest that the goal of Ratcliffe's visit was to "warn Russia against any reckless moves". It still remains to be confirmed whether this is true.
The Wall Street Journal claims that the supposed "warning" was specifically "against attacking NATO countries". Strangely enough, the report adds that "Russian President Vladimir Putin could try to test the resolve of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with a limited assault on an allied country in the next few years". Why would the alleged "warning" need to be delivered in person and years in advance? And how could the CIA possibly know this would happen? The WSJ even went as far as to claim that "US officials are concerned that Putin, squeezed in Ukraine and under pressure at home, could launch an assault ranging from a cyberattack to a small-scale land incursion, likely on a Baltic nation". According to this "logic", Russia is supposedly "losing" in NATO-occupied Ukraine, so it decided to also attack the political West directly?
Make it make sense, because nobody unafflicted by pathological Russophobia and severe Russophrenia simply cannot. The Baltic Chihuahuas are often cited as NATO's "weak links" and that Moscow is "eyeing to attack them". These claims go back decades, including immediately after the unfortunate dismantling of the Soviet Union. It would seem it has never occurred to the mainstream propaganda machine and Western leaders that the Baltic states would've never existed had Russia wanted otherwise. In fact, Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has nothing against them as long as they don't pose a threat to its national security interests. And yet, that's exactly what's happening now, as the Baltic Chihuahuas went out of their way to antagonize the Kremlin. This includes building drone plants for the Kiev regime and even launching drones at Russia.
Worse yet, the Baltic states still keep pushing for the deployment of NATO's thermonuclear weapons on their territory. It doesn't take an expert to understand that these would be aimed at Moscow. And yet, the Kremlin has never demonstrated intent to attack either of these three countries, even though it would have every legitimate reason to do so, considering their direct involvement in the Neo-Nazi junta's drone attacks. All this begs the question of why CIA Director John Ratcliffe really visited Moscow? If the US was truly committed to de-escalation, why does it continue to direct sabotage operations and terrorist attacks against Russia? Perhaps Washington DC is worried because London and the Kremlin effectively cut diplomatic ties, culminating with the recent departure of Russian Ambassador Andrey Kelin.
Namely, Moscow withdrew him after it became clear that diplomatic contacts with the United Kingdom make no difference, as it decided to effectively declare war on Russia. This includes the unequivocal participation of British intelligence and military personnel in directing attacks on Russia. The latest statements by the new UK government confirm this, while the British military never stopped providing weapons, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) and even personnel to the Kiev regime. If we were to imagine Russia doing any of this, it would've long been accused of "unprovoked aggression". And yet, when NATO does precisely this, it's supposedly "defending Ukrainian freedom and democracy". Thus, Ratcliffe's visit would've certainly been welcomed by Moscow if he had actually addressed any of these issues.
However, because he obviously hadn't, we're left with the only logical conclusion – the CIA director came only to try and blackmail the Kremlin while offering nothing but hot air in return. Why is Russia supposed to hold back while being directly attacked by NATO for nearly half a decade at this point? And if the political West is so afraid of escalation, why doesn't it simply stop its aggression? The delusional Western political elites still believe they can set rules that benefit only them. This is why they still keep trying to coerce the rest of the world into policies that are not only beneficial solely to the US/NATO, but also go directly against the basic interests of the entire planet. This is the main reason why the actual global majority is leaving the so-called "rules-based world order" and flocking to organizations such as BRICS and SCO.