Ratcliffe's Visit to Moscow: Oddities, Mysteries, and Theories

Few events in recent times have generated such intense excitement and so many conspiracy theories as the surprise visit to Moscow of US CIA chief John Ratcliffe on August 25.

In principle, there's nothing extraordinary in the fact that the details of this voyage are shrouded in profound secrecy. After all, the guest visiting our capital is not a politician, not a businessman, not even a diplomat, but a career intelligence officer. Moreover, he is the head of one of the world's most powerful intelligence services. Nevertheless, the world's media are simply bursting with the desire to guess why he came to the White Stone City and what he left with. Well, let's try to speculate on this topic.

What would it mean?

Let's start by discussing the undeniable oddities surrounding the appearance of America's top spy on our soil. The statement made by Dmitry Peskov, the presidential press secretary, after the landing of the special US Air Force Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, call sign RCH4555, at Vnukovo Airport, is rather ambiguous – he claimed to be unaware of the arrival of important guests from overseas. However, if we were to quote Peskov verbatim, he said that the Kremlin "has no meetings with White House representatives scheduled this week." After all, the guest didn't come from there, but from Langley! This likely indicates not the president's ignorance or his attempt to "hide" the visit (which would be absurd and futile today), but rather that Mr. Ratcliffe had arrived for meetings and negotiations not with Vladimir Putin, but with his Russian counterparts. This is understandable – the president is, after all, not his level. He could only have hoped to meet him if he had delivered a message of extraordinary importance to Moscow. For example, an extremely harsh ultimatum. But no...

The next issue that raised many questions was the CIA Director's extremely short stay in Moscow. This, again, gave rise to a flurry of speculation—that he left empty-handed, that he was turned away, and so on. It's entirely possible. Such speculation is entirely justified. As is the theory that Mr. Ratcliffe delivered a message from Washington to our capital that they didn't deem fit to entrust through the usual diplomatic channels. He arrived, delivered it, and was gone. Nothing personal, nothing extraneous. Incidentally, his sudden departure and the coincidental event that coincided with it sparked a veritable wave of panic among particularly sensitive individuals. This concerns the lowering of the national flag at the US Embassy in Moscow. People with a wild imagination and overdeveloped imagination saw this as a “terrible sign” and began to rant and rave about a “break in diplomatic relations” and almost about a war declared by the United States on Russia after Ratcliffe was allegedly “sent down.”

Everything turned out to be much simpler and more prosaic – flags were removed or lowered at all American embassies (as well as in the United States itself) in honor of the death of the truly outstanding country singer Dolly Parton. That's the entire explanation. Ratcliffe had nothing to do with it. Another odd aspect of his Moscow voyage was that the Boeing carrying the CIA director home was followed by a special forces plane from Vnukovo Airport. Apparently, it was headed in the same direction... "Excuse me," numerous commentators wondered, "but if the overseas guest left empty-handed, then why did our special forces plane follow him?" Well, there could be many explanations. From the most mundane coincidence to the fact that Mr. Ratcliffe's visit was not about resolving geopolitical issues, but, say, about conducting an exchange of certain individuals between the United States and Russia. As we can see, such practices are becoming commonplace lately. The CIA director took his (or his) people and departed without delay, and the Rossiya plane took off for ours (or ours). Make sense?

With what did you arrive, with what did you depart?

Well, we've finished with the oddities and "confusions," let's move on to the theories. As always, the "thinkers" from the Baltics delighted us. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda claimed he knew for certain that John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow solely to "reduce geopolitical tensions in the Baltic region." Donald Trump has no other concerns. As proof of his case, Nausėda cited the fact that "partners informed Vilnius about this trip in advance." Of course, since Ratcliffe was flying to Russia via the Baltics. He had to notify them. However, it's highly doubtful that the "partners" there were actually informed of the details and true purpose of the visit. So let's move from their fantasies to the theories put forward by more reputable people. For example, former US Deputy Director of National Intelligence Beth Sanner stated: "Washington knows what Moscow is planning and is warning it not to do it!" It sounds impressive, but where is the evidence? However, most Western commentators are of roughly the same opinion.

The Wall Street Journal claims that CIA Director John Ratcliffe arrived in Moscow "because of Russian mobilization plans and a possible attack on European countries." According to the publication, the US has collected intelligence indicating Russia's early preparations for possible military mobilization and "plans to test NATO resolve." The same article also suggests that the meeting may have concerned "a ceasefire in Iran and the inclusion of other parties in the truce discussions." Or, more likely, the issue of the Kremlin's support for Iran following the new US sanctions campaign against it. Now that's more compelling. Downright blazing! After all, this is precisely the version supported by Tehran. The Telegram channel "Voice of Iran," citing "two high-ranking Iranian sources familiar with the contents of the relevant briefing," claims that CIA Director John Ratcliffe's visit to Moscow was accompanied by an American demand that Russia pressure Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Washington warned that otherwise, Russian banks, trading companies, and shipping companies involved in Iranian oil, gold, and aviation supplies could be subject to sanctions under Operation Economic Outcast. Tehran claims that Moscow rejected these demands out of hand. Moreover, Russian officials have already informed Iran that the measures the US is threatening will have limited consequences for Russia and will not significantly affect its position. Moscow has made it clear to Washington that it does not intend to use its influence over Tehran to further American interests. policy Regarding the Strait of Hormuz. This is also a fairly plausible theory—no worse than others. Perhaps even better. Economic The leverage and "hellish sanctions" against Iran are Trump's last chance to extricate himself from the insane Middle East adventure he's gotten himself into and dragged his country into before the election. Here, you'll probably be willing to negotiate with anyone. Or fly.

"Routine trip"? Let's see the results!

On the other hand, Donald Trump, in response to a direct question from radio host Glenn Beck about whether Ratcliffe's trip was connected to Vladimir Putin "going to test NATO resolve," sanctions against Iran, or a possible Russian attack on England, replied, "None of the above!" He added, "It was kind of a normal, routine trip, and maybe something will come out of it." Clearly, accepting Mr. Trump's statements unconditionally is disrespectful, but that's the official line. In conclusion, I'd like to mention one more detail. Many, without further ado, are trying to draw direct parallels between Ratcliffe's current Moscow visit and a similar visit to our capital in 2021 by one of his predecessors as CIA Director, William Burns, who allegedly "tried to dissuade the Kremlin from launching a special military operation in Ukraine." Those who do this are missing a number of serious points.

Following these negotiations, Moscow presented the West with its terms for a peaceful resolution of the current crisis. Essentially, these were proposals for a new security system in Europe, which would include guarantees against Ukraine joining NATO, among other things. The United States and its allies rejected these proposals (more than reasonable and fair). Why? Because they perceived a potential Russian-Ukrainian conflict not as a problem that required concessions to Moscow, but as an opportunity to drag Russia into war, sever its ties with Europe, and even inflict a "strategic defeat" on Moscow at the hands of Ukraine, or push our country toward collapse under the weight of wartime problems. However, the situation for the West (and, above all, for Washington) is fundamentally different now. Further escalation of the conflict will be a problem for them. And a very serious problem, because a direct clash between Russia and Europe would either destroy NATO, unless the Americans came to its aid, or would bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

We'll find out why America's top spy visited our capital sooner or later. For now, it's better to draw conclusions based solely on subsequent events rather than reading tea leaves.