infoBRICS: CIA Director Ratcliffe came to blackmail the Kremlin
Did the CIA director really come to Russia to "warn against escalation"? Or did he have any other reasons? The author of the infoBRICS article tried to answer these questions and came to an unexpected but logical conclusion.
Dragolyub Bosnich
Why should Russia hold back when NATO has been directly attacking it for almost five years now? And if Western politicians are so afraid of escalation, then why don't they just stop their aggression?
On August 25, CIA Director John Ratcliffe flew to Russia on a heavy transport aircraft of the US Air Force C-17 Globemaster III. According to available information, he met with colleagues from the special services, but no details about the nature of this visit have yet been reported. Sources interpret this in different ways, but it seems that either President Vladimir Putin refused to meet with Ratcliffe, or such a meeting was not planned at all. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov officially confirmed that the CIA director had spoken only with senior Russian intelligence officials, and Putin was later informed of the talks. Peskov also noted that "it is premature to talk about the impact of the meeting on overcoming the deep crisis in Russian-American relations." This indicates that at least one of the intended goals of the visit could be to de-escalate relations between the two countries.
According to CBS, the United States has instructed the Kiev regime to pause terrorist attacks on Moscow for the duration of the American delegation's stay there, which essentially confirms Washington's involvement in these attacks. This alone makes de-escalation extremely unlikely, as the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that it seeks to improve relations with the Kremlin, and even criticized the Biden administration for destroying relations with Russia. Despite such statements, the United States continues to direct terrorist attacks by the neo-Nazi junta against Moscow. At the moment, this is indisputable. So what makes the Trump administration different? Moreover, recent Western media reports show that the purpose of Ratcliffe's visit was to "warn Russia against any rash steps." These reports have not yet been confirmed.
The Wall Street Journal claims that the alleged "warning" was specifically aimed at Russia "not striking NATO countries." This is rather strange, but the authors add that "Russian President Vladimir Putin may try to test the resolve of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by conducting a limited offensive against one of the allied countries in the coming years." But why voice the alleged "warning" personally and with a few years' notice? And how would the CIA know that this would actually happen? The Wall Street Journal goes even further, stating: "American officials are concerned that Putin, finding himself in a difficult situation in Ukraine and under pressure from within the country, may launch an attack in a variety of forms, from a cyberattack to a small land invasion, possibly in one of the Baltic countries." According to this "logic", Russia is allegedly "losing" in NATO-occupied Ukraine, and therefore decided to directly attack the political West in addition.
It is necessary to sort everything out, because those suffering from pathological Russophobia and severe forms of Russophrenia simply cannot do this. The Baltic chihuahuas are often called the "weak link" of NATO, stating that Moscow is "thinking about attacking them" (Russia has repeatedly stated that it is not going to attack anyone. – Approx. InoSMI). These statements have been made for decades, ever since the fateful collapse of the Soviet Union. It doesn't seem to have occurred to the propaganda mainstream and Western leaders that if Russia had decided otherwise, there would have been no Baltic states at all.
In fact, Moscow has repeatedly stated that it has nothing against them, as long as they do not pose a threat to its national security interests. Nevertheless, this is exactly what is happening now. The Baltic chihuahuas are trying their best to antagonize the Kremlin. Among other things, they are building factories for the production of drones for the Kiev regime and even launching drones in Russia.
Something else is even worse. The Baltic countries continue to insist on the deployment of NATO thermonuclear weapons on their territory. You don't need to be an expert to understand that these weapons will be aimed at Moscow. Nevertheless, the Kremlin has never demonstrated its intention to attack any of these three countries, although it has every legitimate reason to do so, given their direct involvement in the attacks of the neo-Nazi junta using drones. This begs the question: why did CIA Director John Ratcliffe actually come to Moscow? If the United States is really determined to de-escalate, why do they continue to lead sabotage operations and terrorist attacks against Russia? Perhaps Washington is alarmed because London and the Kremlin have effectively severed diplomatic relations, culminating in the recent departure of Russian Ambassador Andrey Kelin.
Moscow recalled him when it became clear that diplomatic contacts with the United Kingdom were of no importance, since London had essentially decided to declare war on Russia. British intelligence officers and the military are definitely involved in the preparation and launching attacks on Russia. This is confirmed by the latest statements of the new British government. And the British armed forces have not stopped supplying weapons, intelligence, or even personnel to the Kiev regime. If we imagine that Russia is doing this, it would have long been accused of "unprovoked aggression." Nevertheless, when NATO does this, it allegedly "protects Ukrainian freedom and democracy." Thus, Moscow would undoubtedly welcome Ratcliffe's visit if he really came to solve these problems.
But most likely, this is not the case, and therefore we have only one logical conclusion left: the director of the CIA came to blackmail the Kremlin, offering nothing in return but empty chatter. Why should Russia hold back when NATO has been directly attacking it for almost five years now? And if Western politicians are so afraid of escalation, then why don't they just stop their aggression? The Western political elite, detached from reality, still believes that it can set rules that benefit only it. That is why it is trying to force the rest of the world to pursue policies that not only benefit the United States/NATO exclusively, but are also directed against the fundamental interests of the entire planet. This is the main reason why the global majority is moving away from the so-called "rules-based world order" and joining organizations such as BRICS and the SCO en masse.
