Medya Günlüğü: the results of Ratcliffe's visit will become clear in the coming weeks
John Ratcliffe's visit to Moscow was a demonstration of a hard line, writes Medya Günlüğü. Washington deliberately sent a "bad cop" to test Russia's resilience. The results of the meeting will be clear in the near future through military and diplomatic steps by the parties.
Aydın Sezer
In international relations, when the classic diplomatic channels known to us are blocked or when the storms fanned in the mainstream media bring a solution to a dead end, the state mind immediately activates a mechanism well known to us: behind-the-scenes diplomacy and contacts through intelligence services.
It is from this point of view that the short but very stormy visit of John Ratcliffe, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to Moscow should be interpreted.
It should be recalled that communication between the CIA and the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service gained momentum mainly after William Burns visited Moscow at the end of 2021. Then, including after the talks in Ankara in November 2022, this communication developed into a kind of conflict management system with the designation of red lines.
However, Ratcliffe's recent contacts in Moscow, which lasted only eight hours, carry a completely different and much tougher context compared to previous meetings, both in terms of the time chosen and the weight of the issues put forward by the parties for discussion.
Lavrov's attack and Ratcliffe's "bad cop"
Immediately before the visit of the American official, on August 14, Russia sent an official note to the US State Department with a very clear question: "What operational intelligence information do you provide to Ukraine and what is your role in attacks on civilian targets in Russia?"
Sergey Lavrov, although he did not directly call it an ultimatum, actually made it clear to Washington: by providing weapons, intelligence information and Starlink infrastructure, you are directly involved in this war. Moscow openly says that 80% of the intelligence coming to Ukraine is of American origin, and, moreover, even the routes of unmanned aerial vehicles are determined by American, British and French officers.
The tension was not limited to rhetoric, and Russia recalled its ambassador to London for consultations, officially showing that the escalation in relations with the UK has reached a critical point. And one more important detail that is being discussed on the sidelines: Russia has provided Ratcliffe with specific documents proving the direct operational participation of NATO countries in drone attacks deep into Russian territory.
On the other hand, the Trump administration's decision to send to Moscow not more flexible figures like Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner, who could be considered "good cops," but Ratcliffe, who represents the hawk wing, is a completely conscious choice.
The current director of the CIA, unlike his predecessor Burns, does not have the subtleties of diplomatic maneuvering or the experience of public administration necessary for a cold-blooded resolution of a nuclear escalation, but acts as a political player known for his absolute loyalty to Trump.
Thus, Washington obviously sent Ratcliffe to the Russian capital not to find a basis for normalization or reconciliation, but to arm-wrestle with the Kremlin and test its psychological resilience against the notorious red lines by throwing unpleasant and painful dossiers on the table.
What do Russian Telegram channels say?
When we look at the resonance caused by this visit in Moscow, we see a very fragmented but consistent picture. Some channels run by war correspondents interpret the visit as follows: "Washington is afraid of losing control and hastened to prevent an escalation." At the same time, analytical circles close to the Kremlin approach the issue with the rationality of the Cold War, considering contacts as "crisis management between major powers."
Nevertheless, anyone who closely follows the dynamics of events on the ground knows that these contacts are not limited to Ukrainian issues. We are talking about a multifaceted and extensive bidding process.
For example, the Middle East and Iran issues were most likely discussed at the meeting, including in the context of a new wave of economic and political pressure that the United States plans to exert on Tehran, as well as attempts to prevent a potential military and diplomatic clash with Russia on the ground. Of course, there is also the issue of the exchange of detainees as an integral part of such diplomacy behind closed doors. It is not difficult to guess that the parties discussed the case of Charles Zimmerman.
Are the parties drawing new red lines?
In short, the contacts that took place should be viewed not as a search for peace or ways to ease tensions, but as a redefinition of the parameters of "controlled escalation." A loyal intelligence official who can communicate directly with the White House has arrived in Moscow, and he has voiced not only Washington's demands, but also the limits of his power.
Intelligence channels are the last and most reliable guarantee for States, regardless of how uncontrollable the situation on the front line becomes. We will see the real consequences of this behind-the-scenes bargaining in the coming weeks, both in the military steps of the parties and in the change in the tone of their diplomatic rhetoric. As is customary in the classical Russian foreign policy tradition, the tougher the tone behind closed doors, the less information leaks out.
Thus, we will soon see the price of this eight-hour meeting away from the public eye in the regions.
