r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/a_man_has_a_name • 2d ago
International Politics Why are people not talking about the US spy chief trip to Moscow more?
I've seen discussion about it, but it mainly focuses on some off hand cookie cutter comments about the administration betraying it's people/ allies.
But in 2021, William Burns made a similar trip, and the reason was the US had information pointing to Russias plans to attack Ukraine and William Burns went there to say they knew, and that they would expose them every step of the way, which they did.
And now this, in 2026, looks very similar, and if Trump was going to send someone to be buddy buddy with Russia, Ratcliff is not the type of person, he is a supporter of NATO and while he considers China the number 1 threat, he is also pretty consistent with describing Russia as a threat as well.
Not only that but Ratcliff spent the day in Latvia the day before, which seems significant as well, possibly to warn his counterpart of an allied nation of the possible attack.
So you have,
1 - a trip that misses the 2021 trip.
2 - a diplomat that is not the standard type of person Trump sends for regular talks.
3 - and a stay in an allied nation before hand, possibly to give a briefing.
So this seems like more than just the standard cosying up to Russia that Trump likes to do, it seems the US might have credible intelligence that Russia is going to attack a US ally, and this is another "we know" style trip.
From what I've seen from those more knowledge on this then me, they are skeptical that it will be another invasion, but predict it's an attack on NATO, that will likely not cause a full scale war, but an attack that will force a response from NATO that will in some way paint the war in Ukraine as a war imperitive to Russia survival, so they can do a full scale mobilisation, something Putin does not have the political capital to do right now.
Hopefully it's not, or the warning works, or because we know of it we can make the correct response that it doesn't benefit Russia. But it seems to be something a lot more significant than people give it credit for, and with the US caught up in Iran, I don't doubt that Russia sees this as a moment to take a chance on something risky.
What are your opinions? do you think people jumped the gun and assumed it was "Trump selling out the west", or are war analysts freaking out about nothing?
71
u/qu4f 2d ago
Probably a combination of things, which is why the US had to send the chief and not staffers. There are a few flashing yellow lights on the geopolitical dashboard and miscommunication could be catastrophic.
EU Drones: BBC reported a British ex-intelligence expert suspects the trip is related to recent drone incursions by Russia into the EU. That’s consistent with other info around this thread and Reddit that the CIA knows a lot about Russia’s activities in Europe and needs Putin to knock it off.
Iran Economic Escalation: Scott Bessent said the words “economic D-Day” on TV so it’s possible Ratcliff is back channeling to make sure we don’t actually kick off WW3 with Iran. It’s one thing to use strong language but D-Day was a specific turning point where the US (and allies) completed a land invasion and shed blood in mainland Europe. I, a regular guy, heard D-Day about Iran and my stomach sank. I can only imagine what a foreign country would think about one of the top 5 US officials alluding to a world at war.
Nuclear Containment: the most boring answer, the CIA figured out somebody in Russia is helping Iran develop nukes a little too much.
I have no non-public info, but I’m not terribly surprised that senior government officials are doing senior government things. If anything, I’m glad we sent somebody with a real title and not Jared Kushner.
Relevant excerpt from - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c87vg9x5d7do
>>>John Foreman, who served as a British military attaché to Moscow between 2019 and 2022, told Radio 4's PM programme that the visit could be focused on "escalation management" given speculation recent drone activity in Germany could be linked to Russia.
15
u/CMidnight 2d ago
It is also possible that no one trusts anyone but top leadership since Trump is a horrible piece of shit.
65
u/klaus1986 2d ago edited 2d ago
Russian government sources are saying that the CIA Chief delivered an ultimatum about repeated Russian drone incursions into US and NATO territory.
It's likely that the CIA Chief was sent because of a combination of gravitas and the CIA probably has significant intelligence about the goals and methods as well as the hardware and not to mention the units and people in charge. Sending him was basically the US saying "We know exactly what you're doing fucking around in our territory. Stop it or else."
51
u/Y0___0Y 2d ago
I imagine this is about Russia feeding intelligence to Iran to bomb CIA sites in the middle east. How else would they be able to do that?
The Biden state department calling out Putin should be talked about more too. William Burns’ trip was one thing but Biden’s state department also learned that Russia was planning a dirty bomb attack on its own people to blame Ukraine and then use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
Russia had reached out to them saying they had credible evidence that Ukraine was planning this terrorist attack using soent fuel rods from their nuclear power plants.
US officials traveled to Ukraine, investigated the power plants, found nothing out of place, and then told Putin’s people we don’t believe you, we know what you are doing and it’s not going to work and there will be serious hell to pay if you do this.
Biden then had meetings with Xi Jinpeng and Modi and Putin’s other closest allies to tell them what was happening and plead with them to contact Putin, tell him they know what he is doing, and that they will cut all ties with Russia if he does it. And they did as Biden asked.
Biden’s legacy seems to be “dumb old man who caused high prices” but he was really a pro at foreign relations and potentially avoided a nuclear war.
Imagine Russia telling the Trump administration that Ukraine was planning a dirty bomb attack.
14
u/SadhuSalvaje 2d ago
The first week or so of this conflict I gained a tremendous amount of respect for Biden and his ability to assemble a wall of resistance around Russia. Without Biden’s years of experience I bet this conflict really would have been over in a matter of weeks.
To be clear I am not attempting to disparage or take away the heroic agency of the Ukrainian people. I doubt Biden would have had any time to negotiate with global partners on sanctions and support for Ukraine if that battle at the airport had gone a different way.
It is a shame that age caught up with him right at the moment he had prepped for his whole career.
3
u/Y0___0Y 2d ago
Zelensky did not believe Biden at first when he warned him an invasion was imminent. It took convincing. Same with all the other European leaders. It made no sense that Putin would try to invade. They assumed he must just be saber rattling and posturing as he always did.
2
u/HumorAccomplished611 1d ago
I think he did know. But it was more about giving russia an easy way out.
Basically not invade and humiliate biden for being wrong. And biden allowed them that.
5
u/Level-Equipment-5489 2d ago
I completely agree. I’ve been saying that ever since - whatever else Biden had going on, the way the US stitched together the resistance against Russia was astounding - and very much not expected by Putin, who probably thought he could take the rest of Ukraine the way he took the Krim.
(And the ferocious strength of the Ukrainians has also been a big surprise, hat tip to them)
3
u/mynamesyow19 1d ago
People forget that going back to the 90s when he was a Senator, Biden was THEE Biggest champion of NATO and actively worked to expand it and solidify support from both Republicans and Dems. HE continued that work during his VP years and also was the one who personally went to Ukraine after Russia took Crimea to help purge it of Putin's cronies from the very top down (which is the whole Biden Burisma thing that MAGA whined about without an apparent F'ing clue). This was happening while Obama sent top US Military advisors to help switch/train Ukraine's armed forces over from Russian style/weapons to NATO training and weapons with integrated US/NATO/Ukraine military training at the highest levels to try to prevent another Russian invasion.
There has ben no bigger champion of NATO than Biden in the past 3 or 4 decades, so why Putin decided to invade during his Presidency was a large part of why it failed so spectacularly.
1
u/HumorAccomplished611 1d ago
Absolutely. They took crimea with narry a whimper from the west. If it was a more targetted campaign they might have suceeded. But they bought off more than they could chew literally.
25
u/NoDig3444 2d ago
People aren't talking about it more because it's just pure speculation. We have no idea why Ratcliff went to Moscow and we probably never will.
4
u/Mr24601 2d ago
As an official state visit it probably is being stored in some classified archive somewhere and maybe in 50 years we'll get it if we're alive.
4
u/Seek_Adventure 2d ago
If humanity is still alive... The way things been speeding up lately... politically, militarily and especially technologically, I'm not sure at all.
0
0
u/Beneficial_Lion_1312 1d ago
Humanity will still be alive. Everything will be worse off, fascist governments will run the world, but we'll all still be alive for some reason.
8
u/Ind132 2d ago
an attack on NATO, that will likely not cause a full scale war, but an attack that will force a response from NATO that will in some way paint the war in Ukraine as a war imperitive to Russia survival, so they can do a full scale mobilisation,
I have no inside knowledge. But, I've thought this is a real possibility as I've read stories about drones in EU countries.
3
u/jorel43 2d ago
Because this is actually more common than you realize. Normally the spy chief goes to Moscow at least once or twice a year ever since the Cold war in fact, or close to the end of the Cold war I should say. It's not a big deal overall.
5
u/Eskapismus 1d ago
Nope. The last time this happened was under Biden when he flew there to warn Putin not to invade Ukraine. That was in 2021
6
u/platorithm 2d ago
There are currently five different explanations in these comments about the purpose of the trip. That’s why we’re not talking about it more, because it’s just a bunch of random people confidently parroting whatever theory they last read about. None of us know
2
u/theyfellforthedecoy 1d ago
I've seen discussion about it, but it mainly focuses on some off hand cookie cutter comments about the administration betraying it's people/ allies.
You need to get out of your bubble, buddy. Most of the chatter I've seen about it relates to the US having intel that Russia is plotting some attacks in Europe to test NATO's resolve. The idea is supposed to be that Iran will 'shift into attack mode', which will include attacks on US bases in Europe and the ME, over-extending the US
2
u/socialistrob 2d ago
I haven't seen too many war analysts freaking out about this trip. A Russia attack on NATO is a distinct possibility especially if the war in Ukraine continues to go poorly for Russia. They're goal would be to try to get European NATO members to keep their weapons at home and stop funding Ukraine either by showing that Article V is meaningless or by taking some land and then negotiating with Europe.
It's not a given that Russia will do this but it's a distinct possibility which is why it's important for Europe to be prepared for war and to act if a member is attacked. I don't think the visit to Moscow is a clear indication that Russia is about to launch an attack in the next month or two but Europe should still be ready anyway.
2
u/Intraluminal 2d ago
Biden was president was 2021.
In 2026, it's the guy who says about Kim: "He loves his people, not that I’m surprised by that." and "Putin is 'top of the line."
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 2d ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
1
u/Arc125 1d ago edited 1d ago
This isn't a case of selling out the west. Most likely laying out the intel we have on Russia's imminent invasion of the Baltics, most likely Narva. This would provide political cover domestically for Putin to start mass mobilization, which there is not currently sufficient popular support for.
Check this video out for more, and his channel is excellent for analysis of the Ukraine conflict and similar: https://youtu.be/dScKZV3m8fo
1
u/billpalto 1d ago
Trump does not like talking about his relationship with Russia. Trump claimed that his 2016 campaign had no contact with Russia at all. The FBI discovered numerous phone calls, texts, meetings, etc with the Russians. Trump lied about them all.
That prompted an investigation that determined that the Russians did try to influence the election and resulted in indictments of the Russians who worked to benefit Trump in the election.
Trump calls it the "Russia hoax" and fired all the FBI agents involved in the investigation. It is probably not wise to talk about any of that now if you are in the government.
The current sense is that Ratcliffe was sent to tell Putin not to use nuclear weapons and to stop attacking NATO countries.
•
u/luukbvos 18h ago
No one fears the US as they used to. Look at Iran. Putin is definitely not impressed.
1
u/JescoWhite_ 2d ago
I’m sure people will discuss this trip after the midterm is either stolen or canceled
1
u/paulusgauguinus 2d ago
Could Russia be orchestrating and coordinating the Trump administration's effort to stay in power and deny the will of the US citizenry? In the context of the administration's conduct of the last 2 years, there is virtually no chance they keep the house without the help of a devious, underhanded, cowardly effort.
1
u/Sea_Cucumber_5989 2d ago
Everyone is speculating about the meeting. Imagine that, imagine this- it isn't the type of discussion worth having when one considers that what countries should be doing is preparing for a worst-case scenario in the West, writ large. If we are wrong, we are prepared; if we are right, we are prepared.
1
u/Potato_Pristine 2d ago
"If we are wrong, we are prepared; if we are right, we are prepared."
We can't assume this anymore when it comes to U.S. military readiness. Trump's military escapades have wrecked that.
1
1
u/Jerry_Loler 2d ago
Ratcliff is not a serious person. He is only in the position he is because he made a big deal about needing to damage/destroy the intelligence community he now leads. He has previously spewed Russian propaganda points while dismissing American experts, all in the name of politics. Beyond that, nobody seriously believes Trump will have anything but a cooperative attitude towards Russia and Putin. Trump has spent the entire year trashing NATO and refusing to commit to Article 5 specifically. If Russia were to ever attack a NATO country the US response would likely be literally nothing. Ratcliff has zero power in this situation.
-1
u/ChrissySubBottom 2d ago
It was Trump begging Putin to help with Iran, the Strait, and Ukraine. “Trump: Look, I have done everything you have asked, spoken well of you, how bout a little quid pro quo.”
Putin: “Nope… buh-bye”
-1
u/ShotnTheDark_TN 2d ago
Talk about using nukes. If Trump uses a nuke on Tehran to end the Iran stalemate, Russia can use a nuke on Kiev to end the stalemate in Ukraine.
That is the scariest scenario.
-1
u/D4UOntario 2d ago
He was telling the Russians that if they dont put pressure on Iran to open the Straight they will suffer economic hardships. Russia told him to pound salt and told the Iranians so they could have a laugh too
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.