The CIA’s John Ratcliffe Goes to Moscow
| Aug 31, 2026
Last Monday the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director (DCI) John Ratcliffe and his retinue boarded a US Air Force C-17 Globemaster transport plane at Joint Base Andrews airfield in Maryland, stopped presumably to refuel at the Riga airport in NATO member Latvia, and then flew on to land at Vnukovo International Airport, one of the four airports that serve the Russian capitol Moscow. The plane touched down on Tuesday at 9 am local time. The trip had been unannounced and its purpose was somewhat of a mystery. Ratcliffe and company departed the airport security zone in a diplomatic motorcade of armored vehicles that either were being transported in the plane itself or drawn from the US Embassy and CIA Station’s own supply of administrative vehicles. One source speculates that the vehicles were being carried in the large transport aircraft because they were equipped with secure communications that would enable them to connect with Washington without the Russians having the ability to intercept what was being said.
It was Ratcliffe’s first visit to actually meet with the Russian leadership, most notably the FSB national security’s Aleksandr Bortnikov and Sergei Naryshkin, his foreign intelligence counterpart, with whom he had had some telephone discussions. There may have been some hope on the part of both Ratcliffe and President Donald J Trump that a meeting with President Vladimir Putin might be arranged, but that did not occur. Insofar as can be determined, the trip to Russia and the meeting took place due to insistence by Washington that there were several very important national security related issues involving both countries that needed to be discussed urgently during what the Russians afterwards described as “contacts between security services.”
It should be observed that Ratcliffe, a lawyer by training and a former mayor and congressman from Texas, has no prior experience in diplomacy or negotiations and only limited familiarity with intelligence operations as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) in 2020-1 before being appointed DCI by Trump last year. And one might also observe that negotiations between two sovereign nations are normally the responsibility of one’s Secretary of State or Foreign Minister usually also involving the respective embassies. Given that, Ratcliffe clearly had something very specific on his agenda and it likely had at least something to do with intelligence assessments that he was in theory responsible for, including the unlikely concerns that Russia might go nuclear if it were in danger of somehow losing the war against Ukraine currently being aided by the Europeans.
Ratcliffe spent the day in what one assumes were various meetings both with his counterpart and with other substantive experts before departing later in the day, arriving back in Washington on Wednesday where he briefed Trump on his journey. By one account, he only spent four hours in Russia. On the following day Trump denied the meeting was about either a possible Russian escalation threat or Iran, describing instead the trip and meetings as “semi-routine,” which clearly was not the case. Later in the week, he changed his tune somewhat saying “I don’t want to comment on that, but [the Russians are] not going to attack.”
What actually occurred in Moscow is still unclear but some of it has been pieced together from various sources that have either speculated over what took place or who had insider information relating to what was discussed and what was concluded. The fact is that until the White House reveals the purpose of the trip or, alternatively, someone privy to the actual details leaks the information, what took place is somewhat speculative. But there are a couple of issues that observers of foreign policy seem to agree were what drove the desire by Trump to press Putin for the meeting, though Trump characteristically has denied that either narrative is true. The issue of Russia-Ukraine and possible conflict with NATO, most particularly with the United Kingdom, is most concerning where Russia threatened to attack British factories after the UK gave Ukraine the blueprints and even provided technicians to help build Storm Shadow missiles that have given Ukraine the ability to construct and deploy weapons that can strike deep into Russia.
It is generally believed that Russia might use its clear superiority in drone and unconventional warfare to respond more generically to what it sees as threats. President Vladimir Putin has been under increased pressure from the Russian public to take action against the UK in particular, as noted above. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Tuesday that the UK and France were “playing with fire” by agreeing to allow Ukraine to build and use the long-range cruise missiles. Russia has in fact fairly openly threatened an armed response to the UK and has withdrawn its ambassador from London as the issue continues to fester.
While intelligence analysts believe that Putin does not want a direct military clash with NATO, he has become willing to conduct “hybrid operations” against the alliance. Covert attacks on several NATO member countries in Europe have included a warehouse in Britain, a weapons factory in Estonia and a railway in Poland. The Baltic republics are regarded as particularly vulnerable. The problem is that even if President Putin clearly wants to avoid a direct confrontation with NATO, there is the risk of miscalculation on his part that will lead to a multi-party escalation.
So, there is some consensus that Ratcliffe was in Moscow to prevent escalation of the Russia-Ukraine conflict to include NATO and, inevitably, the United States. Did he succeed? As neither Russia nor the US are yet opening up about their discussions we do not yet know but the normally reliable Politico reported on Wednesday that Ratcliffe went to Russia to discuss exactly the issues Trump said were not discussed. According to the report, which cites three anonymous sources, “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.” He also told the Russians to stop supporting Iran. “Ratcliffe conveyed a desire for Moscow to stop sharing weapons and defense technology with Iran and advised Moscow against ‘overreacting’ if it is affected by the sanctions.”
Even accepting that Ratcliffe was in fact in Moscow to oppose any expansion of the war between Russia and Ukraine while also urging the Kremlin to resist the urge to arm or even trade with Iran particularly as such actions might draw sanctions from Washington, the argument that Russia should act because it is somehow losing in Ukraine would be disputed by almost everyone who is seriously following the conflict. Nevertheless, that is likely the underlying message that Ratcliffe conveyed to the Russians he encountered, i.e. “You are losing!” That Russia is somehow facing defeat may be the consensus of the intelligence community in the US and of the White House, possibly for political reasons, but it is demonstrably untrue given the metrics of successes on the ground being demonstrated by Russia against Ukraine. Ironically, one of the comments made by Donald Trump after the Ratcliffe return was that what he really wants is to see the Russia-Ukraine war end. That just might be true given the political baggage that the wars in Europe and Asia carry with them with midterm elections looming in the US but it would behoove Trump to develop a vision beyond politics. Both wars are bad and the United States has had at times the leverage to help end them or, in the case of Iran, not to have listened to Israel in the first place to join in the attack. It is too late to wish that catastrophic developments would end just because it would be politically inconvenient if they continue.
Reprinted with permission from Unz Review.
