CIA Director’s Visit to Moscow: What Retcliffe Might Have Discussed with Putin
27 August 19:06
analysis
CIA Director John Ratcliffe arrived in Moscow on August 25 aboard a U.S. military transport aircraft, a Boeing C-17A Globemaster III. His visit marked one of the most unusual interactions between Washington and the Kremlin in recent times. The official agenda for the talks has not been disclosed, but Western media and experts have cited several possible topics.
"Komersant Ukrainian" has compiled all the key theories and hypotheses regarding the purpose of the U.S. foreign intelligence chief’s unexpected arrival in the Russian capital.
Retcliffe arrived in Moscow on a U.S. military aircraft
On August 25, a U.S. Boeing C-17A Globemaster III military transport aircraft landed at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport. Users of the Flightradar24 service tracked its route. The plane took off from Andrews Air Force Base in the U.S. on August 23, after which it made a stop in Riga. On the morning of August 25, the Boeing departed from the Latvian capital bound for Moscow. On board was John Ratcliffe, Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Visits by CIA directors to Russia are extremely rare. Over the past decade, U.S. intelligence chiefs have traveled to Russia only a few times, and such trips were usually related to high-level issues.
The last person to visit Moscow before Ratcliffe was William Burns in 2021. The then-CIA director attempted to convey to Vladimir Putin Washington’s position regarding a possible large-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to experts, the very format of the trip may indicate the particular sensitivity of the issues discussed. CIA veteran Norman Rule noted that U.S. intelligence chiefs very rarely visit Moscow. When such a visit does take place, it usually involves serious discussions.
In his assessment, Ratcliffe may have conveyed certain warnings to the Russian leadership regarding possible actions by the Kremlin that Washington views as a dangerous escalation. This refers, in particular, to a potential provocation or a limited attack against NATO countries. That is why, according to experts, the trip may not have been a diplomatic visit in the traditional sense, but rather a channel for conveying a confidential message to the Russian leadership.
The U.S. Asked Ukraine to Temporarily Refrain from Strikes Against Russia
Amid Retcliffe’s trip, reports emerged that Washington had asked Kyiv to temporarily refrain from striking Russian territory. Axios, citing a source familiar with the situation, reported that the U.S. had informed Ukraine in advance of the delegation’s arrival in Moscow and asked it to refrain from strikes during that period.
Financial Times correspondent Christopher Miller also reported that representatives of the Donald Trump administration asked Kyiv not to use long-range missiles and drones to attack Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the northern regions of Russia on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. According to Western media reports, Ukraine agreed to this request. This context may indicate that Washington sought to create the most controlled conditions possible for the American delegation’s contact with the Russian leadership.
The official content of Retcliffe’s talks in Moscow is unknown. As a result, all theories regarding their subject matter remain speculation. One possible topic could have been the war against Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported on U.S. intelligence information regarding Russia’s preparations for a potential new mobilization and possible testing of NATO’s readiness for further escalation. In that case, Retcliffe may have sent a signal to Moscow that the U.S. is aware of Russia’s plans and does not recommend carrying them out.
Stanislav Zhelikhovsky, a candidate of political sciences and an expert on international relations, commented in "Komersant Ukrainian" , he also did not rule out that the conversation could have concerned the future of the war and possible scenarios for its conclusion. According to him, Ukraine, together with the U.S. and European partners, has been working on a set of proposals to end hostilities. The expert cites the creation of a buffer zone as one of the possible elements of such agreements.
“Ukraine has strengthened its capabilities both on the battlefield and in terms of long-range strikes. Therefore, I do not rule out that Retcliffe might have been discussing preparations for operations that could block, for example, ports, or about how powerfully Ukraine, with the help of Western partners, could strike the Russian Federation and targets deep within its rear,” Zhelikhovsky noted.
Zhelikhovsky also suggests that the Russian leadership continues to count on a military solution to the Donbas issue. In his assessment, the Kremlin may be counting on the use of its own manpower—particularly through new mobilization measures—as well as on assistance from its allies, North Korea and Iran. He noted that Moscow may be counting on a gradual advance of Russian troops, massive missile and drone strikes against Ukraine, and further pressure on the Ukrainian leadership. At the same time, the expert emphasizes that this does not mean the Russian plan will necessarily be carried out.
Could Retcliffe Have Brought Putin Proposals for a Ceasefire?
Among the possible topics of the meeting are also mentioned agreements on a mutual cessation of strikes against energy and port infrastructure, as well as a cessation of hostilities in the Sumy and Kharkiv regions. However, political scientist and managing partner of the National Anti-Crisis Group, Taras Zagorodniy, is skeptical of this scenario. According to him, some of these proposals have already been put forward by Russia, and the main problem remains the Kremlin’s principled stance on territorial issues.
“A compromise on the Donbas? Perhaps there was some talk about it. But we’ve already heard these proposals from the Russians,” Zagorodniy said.
He believes that any ceasefire agreements will run up against the issue of the status of the occupied territories, particularly Crimea. According to the political analyst, Putin is currently not interested in ending hostilities on terms that do not meet Russian demands.
“Putin’s position has been and remains the same: for a ceasefire, Ukraine must withdraw from the four regions and renounce NATO,” Zagorodniy noted.
Another possible topic of the meeting could be the situation surrounding Iran, the expert said. Russia maintains close ties with Tehran, while Washington has recently been stepping up pressure on Iran. According to Zagorodniy, this very issue may have been central to Ratcliffe’s talks in Moscow.
“I think the main topic was not Ukraine, but Iran. The Americans simply warned Russia not to help Iran, because they are putting pressure on it,” the political scientist said.
According to him, trade with Russia via the Caspian Sea is of particular importance to Tehran. Zagorodniy speculates that Washington may have tried to persuade Moscow not to intensify its support for Iran, since U.S. sanctions against Tehran could simultaneously create additional problems for Russia as well.
Among other possibilities, Western media cited the issue of the release of U.S. citizens held in Russian prisons. In particular, Russian and Western sources linked the visit to the possible release of American Charles Zimmerman. However, there is currently no confirmation that this specific issue was part of Retcliffe’s negotiations.
What Does the Visit Mean for Ukraine
Experts agree on at least one thing: the very fact that the CIA director traveled to Moscow in person indicates the high level of sensitivity surrounding the talks. At the same time, it is too early to speak of any concrete agreements on ending the war. Zhelikhovsky notes that the negotiation process can only have a real chance of success once Russia shows a willingness to compromise on the territorial issue. According to him, as long as Moscow continues to insist on its own territorial and political demands, the prospects for a rapid cessation of hostilities remain limited.
The expert also suggests that for Donald Trump, demonstrating a diplomatic achievement is particularly important ahead of the U.S. midterm congressional elections.
“It is important for Trump right now to have some achievements before the midterm congressional elections so that he can say: ‘It was I who was able to stop this or that hostilities,’” Zhelikhovsky noted.
At the same time, he believes that the Trump administration’s previous policy toward Russia did not yield the expected results, as the Kremlin continued the war.
