• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

CIA Director Made Rare Unannounced Visit to Russia

Snowfall said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2092941534194807055
This makes me even more confused, if this was a nato issue why would they have not notified the EU.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised (with the current US admin.) by the contrary for 2 reasons.
1) EU is some NATO countries, not all, and until today has no military relevance as an entity
2) I still believe Ukraine was a side topic of the meeting, and Iran the core one.
 
Charmender said:
I would be surprised (with the current US admin.) by the contrary for 2 reasons.
1) EU is some NATO countries, not all, and until today has no military relevance as an entity
2) I still believe Ukraine was a side topic of the meeting, and Iran the core one.
Click to expand...
I believe Lithuania knows the reason, as does NATO in Europe; it's top secret! Yes, the European Union is an economic union, not a military one.
 
Charmender said:
I would be surprised (with the current US admin.) by the contrary for 2 reasons.
1) EU is some NATO countries, not all, and until today has no military relevance as an entity
2) I still believe Ukraine was a side topic of the meeting, and Iran the core one.
Click to expand...
I’m definitely with you on point two, it still doesn’t make sense that they wouldn’t brief the EU to me, but it doesn’t sound like they really even briefed NATO either so who knows.
 
Snowfall said:
Click to expand...
Welcome to why nobody trusts the media. The Wall Street journal now reports that Trump sent ratcliffe because he has had more luck in meeting with the Russians in the past, as a way to get the Russians to come back to negotiations.

“In sending the spy-agency chief, Trump relied on a different aide after previous rounds of negotiations using other trusted envoys failed to stop the fighting in Russia’s war with Ukraine.”

Some other context from the article:

“After being briefed, two European officials said the CIA director reinforced to his Russian intelligence counterparts that the U.S. remained committed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Article 5, which says that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all.”

“Some European leaders, including those along the alliance’s eastern edge, said Thursday they were less concerned about a possible Russian incursion into the Baltic states. “There is currently no reason for concern,” Latvia’s Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs said in a video posted on social media. “Latvia’s level of military threat hasn’t changed. The risk of direct military invasion threats to Latvia is currently low.””

“Many European officials are concerned that Russia could pose a more serious conventional threat by 2030, a point when Moscow’s military could have recovered from its Ukraine campaign and Europe would still be building up its forces.”

“Ratcliffe has had some success dealing with the Kremlin, such as in helping secure the release of American hostages in Russia, U.S. officials said. That know-how, the CIA’s longstanding channels to Russia’s intelligence services and Ratcliffe’s place in Trump’s inner circle make him a useful interlocutor with Moscow, the officials added.”

In conclusion, the stories that came out yesterday were WILDLY without context. The so called “warning” was Ratcliffe reminding the Russians of the U.S. commitment to article five, something that would’ve otherwise been a phone call if he hadn’t been there for other things. The media decided to run with it and make it the entire point of the meeting though.
 
I think what got everybody's panties in a bunch is that this trip appeared to have urgency to it. Unannounced on a military aircraft. Usually, high-level trips like that are planned months in advance and the head of the CIA is pretty high level.

Of course, it is also possible that the clandestine nature of it was simply a security measure. The US is in a hot war and taking down the head of the CIA right before the midterms would be a propaganda boon for adversaries of the US. Can't you just imagine the legacy medias headlines if that would have happened. IMO
 
C
william said:
I think what got everybody's panties in a bunch is that this trip appeared to have urgency to it. Unannounced on a military aircraft. Usually, high-level trips like that are planned months in advance and the head of the CIA is pretty high level.

Of course, it is also possible that the clandestine nature of it was simply a security measure. The US is in a hot war and taking down the head of the CIA right before the midterms would be a propaganda boon for adversaries of the US. Can't you just imagine the legacy medias headlines if that would have happened. IMO
Click to expand...
Clandestine 🤣😂🤣 they usually use private jets (small ones) . Prisoner swap in this case. Imo.
 
Snowfall said:
In conclusion, the stories that came out yesterday were WILDLY without context. The so called “warning” was Ratcliffe reminding the Russians of the U.S. commitment to article five, something that would’ve otherwise been a phone call if he hadn’t been there for other things. The media decided to run with it and make it the entire point of the meeting though.
Click to expand...
It could simply be the admin circulating more rumors to muddy the water and downplay it.
 
I’ve been thinking about the media’s reaction to Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow, and if it was anything like the media has been portraying it as (i.e delivering a warning, ultimatum, etc), would Trump, along with senior Russian officials still be as blasé as they are regarding it? Both sides seem to playing it off as a relatively regular occurrence. Comparing senior’s officials reaction to Bill Burns’ visit in 2021, the reactions to Ratcliffe’s visit seems much less tense.
 
Last edited:
DrMantisToboggan said:
I’ve been thinking about the media’s reaction to Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow, and if it was anything like the media has been portraying it as (i.e delivering a warning, ultimatum, etc), would Trump, along with senior Russian officials still be as blasé as they are regarding it? Both sides seem to playing it off as a relatively regular occurrence. Comparing senior’s officials reaction to Bill Burns’ visit in 2021, the reactions to Ratcliffe’s visit seems much less tense.
Click to expand...
This is a very true point as well. It also goes along with @NuclearID’s point from the other day that there is just no movement beyond this meeting.
 
Interestingly, Simon Whistler released a video that discusses this on his WarFronts channel, link below. He contends that "Russia is up to something" but we don't know what, and that this Radcliffe meeting may be connected. It could just be clickbait to drive viewers to his content, though WarFronts is generally a bit more academically honest than other Internet sources. Check the Link below and arrive at your own conclusions.

 
GBS61 said:
"The canary in the mine"
Click to expand...
While the Trump administration is trying to call this trip "semi-routine", for international security specialists, this CIA visit to Moscow is the canary in the coal mine: the harbinger that the level of geopolitical risk (war extended to NATO or generalized conflagration with Iran) has reached a critical threshold invisible to the general public.
 
GBS61 said:
"The canary in the mine"
Click to expand...
My hypothesis: the US certainly doesn't want an escalation of conflicts. Wars are very unpopular with the American people. Imagine if Putin were to attempt a major offensive (an attack on a NATO country). The US would be in deep trouble just before the midterm elections. They would be asking themselves: what do we do? Do we retaliate or let it happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom