A special service director who travels by military aircraft to meet in person the intelligence director of his main adversary, in my view, is rather there to deliver a direct message from professional to professional. Otherwise, you use a diplomat or a close advisor.
So I rather think this trip is explained by the USA coming to warn that such-and-such a thing is being plotted (by whom? Against whom? Where?) and that the USA have nothing to do with it.
I don't think it's a matter of protocole. I think that it's a f...g dangerous matter and so bothering that it must be let to the professionals.
I really think that something possibly terrible is possible and USA doesn't want to be involve if the shit touch the fan.
Perhaps, Radcliffe allow Russia to treat the problem and claimed it's not a US trap but a true danger and USA doesn't want this danger happen or if it's happen it doesn't want to be involved.
Currently, the official story is that the CIA chief was warning Russia not to attack NATO.
That's the official story, at least.
I don't doubt that the Russian state is shot through with CIA informers and agents. The real concern, of course, is that Russia would half-ass any attack.
The fact that the U.S. is delivering the message implies that any Russian response to a NATO provocation in, say, the Baltic area will trigger U.S. involvement if other parties invoke Article V.
I said a generic U.S. response but did not specify, given that, as you said, Article V does not prescribe a particular course of action other than a NATO response of some sort.
The nature of blowback being what it is, any direct retaliation by Russia to NATO's covert operations will be framed as an unprovoked attack. As usual.
Andrew, I have a question. Does Ukraine fly drones through the Baltic States' airspace to hit Russia? If so, was it a one time thing, or a regular thing? If so, then Russia should do the same and fly drones and missiles through the Baltic States' airspace too.
Hey Seldom! Yes, according to Russian sources but denied by the Baltic States and Ukraine, Ukraine has flown drones across their airspace (it's unclear whether they first crossed through Poland or Belarus) for attacking St. Petersburg on at least several occasions.
It´s evident that Putin is holding back. Why, we can´t know as he doesn´t keep us informed in spite of appearances to the contrary -spokespeople for this, spokespeople for that, his press conferences etc... The real problem is that his holding back is (probably) the reason why the conflict widens with every day/month/year that passes.
Hypothetically, if some non-NATO nuclear state bombed an object (a factory, for example) on the territory of a NATO state, what would other NATO states do? Militarily, I mean.
I recall reports from Western MSM since the SMO began claiming that NATO plans to either destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet at minimum or do that, destroy the Baltic one, and/or reciprocally strike Kaliningrad. Recent reports talk about a more full-blown response but likely only in response to a full-blown Russian cross-border military action.
As I remember, Western escalation path to the current "SMO" situation went from "non-lethal" supplies to "defensive" supplies to tanks to planes to missiles (or was it missiles then planes?) to "permission to target" internal RF territories. Did I miss anything?
That's step-by-step escalation to where we are now, where Western missiles hit targets well inside the RF territory. And that's official; BBC: "Scalp and Storm Shadow missiles have already been provided to Kyiv by both Britain and France. They've already been used to hit military targets inside Russia."
And no response from the RF so far. So, you expect that RF hitting any object on NATO territory is likely to produce further escalation, "more full-blown [Western] response", right?
Personally, I have no idea. But I do remember the 08-08-08 Georgia situation, where the RF acting decisively and strongly (Medvedev was president) produced clearly underwhelming Western response. I think it's possible, logical, that one side's failure to response to other side's escalation leads to the next escalation, and then the next, etc. While the first side's strong response would make the second side think "Oops! Shit, we went too far this time. Need to roll back and stop for now."
As far as I know most Western MSM suggest that a "Russian" cross-border raid (false flag?) will most likely be small-scale rather than a major attack, so NATO may not fully activate all the potentialities inherent in Article V when responding.
I'm fairly sure that if reports about the reason behind Ratcliffe's trip are accurate, then he conveyed that more than just a perfunctory response would follow even just a small-scale indisputable incursion. I don't believe he'd pay his first trip to Russia, and unannounced at that, just to tell his counterpart that the US will stand down.
Interestingly, Kremlin spokesman Peskov just dismissed Western reports that the Ratcliffe meeting concerned a potential NATO–Russia conflict over Baltic provocations, calling them unfounded "scare stories":
I don't think that's unexpected as it's par for the course for Russia to deny almost every Western media report.
We'll likely never know for certain what it was about, but my point is that if it was about hypothetical Russian military action against or in the Baltic States, then Ratcliffe would have reasonably gone on his first trip to Russia (and unannounced at that following several months of reports, cynically media conditioning, about this scenario) to inform Putin that the US' response to even small-scale deliberate cross-border action would be severe.
If that's what happened, then I don't doubt that the decision has already been made to react that way instead of such rhetoric just being a bluff.
We know in retrospect that his predecessor's visit in the months preceding the special operation (which is much more large-scale than I believe Russia would plan against the Baltic States -- I also don't believe that it's planning any unprovoked kinetic action anyhow) saw the US clearly describe how it would respond by backing Ukraine to the hilt as it's since gone on to do so precedent shows that the US doesn't bluff to Russia.
I agree. Still, the fact that Russia is denying the Ratcliffe reports suggests that it is reluctant to react to any NATO "kinetic" provocation in the Baltic States. Otherwise it would use Western MSM reports about Ratcliffe to inform and precondition the Russian public for a possible major NATO–Russia escalation.
If Ratcliffe did carry a warning and Peskov just dismissed officially the fact that such a warning was presented, we would see a high level "unofficial" confirmation of such a warning in MSM - say WaPo or NYT soon.
So a secondary reconfirmation by Western MSM would be a red flag. The interesting situation would be if Ratcliffe did not actually carry a warning, but MSM say that unmentioned sources high up have reconfirmed it. In such a case, Russia may consider that it doesn't matter what he actually said and that the reconfirmation by MSM is what counts. So would take it as aggressive US posture.
No, my feeling was that Ratcliffe was asking about the size of King's ransom (Ukraine and beyond) Russian Federation would ask for denuclearizing Iran.
I notice Andrew's responding to comments directly for this post, hopefully he'll consider my question. I know Putin is well-schooled on Russia's history and has a background that offers probably deep insight into European and world power dynamics. One thing I find for myself though is that even though I feel like I have a pretty solid grounding in history - my uncle had a doctorate in history from an ivy league school and it was emphasized in my family - I end up learning new things at least a few times a year that really changes my understanding of historical events. Often in important ways, like coming to understand the influence a faction or individual had on the course of WWII at a top level like industrial planning.
My question is, does Putin have deeply knowledgeable historians around him that point out historical parallels the President might not draw or be knowledgeable about?
I ask because navigating escalations with European powers seems like a topic drowned in historical precedent, from diplomatic protocol to likely outcomes etc.
I know it's popular to trash the U.S.'s leadership on this topic, but I also have never seen any indication that the Americans have any well worn practice of making sure leadership has a good understanding of the historical aspects of anything.
It’s a good question, I honestly don’t know. Putin is known to love history, but of course, no one can be an historical expert on every historical subject.
It should do it in air (i.e. Black Sea against any NATO assets flying by and spying, or against any NATO ship that tries to impound a ship with Russian carrying goods, regardless of the flag. And disrupting anything coming in Ukraine through Poland...
Some NATO general threatened Kaliningrad roughly a year ago. I always interpreted that as the threatened NATO response to any Russian escalation outside Ukraine.
What seems to have changed recently is the pace of progress on the ground and possible prep for a larger scale invasion. So, perhaps Ratcliffe was warning Russia not to cross the Dneiper.
Iran and Turkey would seem to also be in the mix of current circumstances, and could also have been discussed.
Really hard to believe, in spite of any reality to the NATO threat, that Wash DC thinks it can take on Iran, Russia and China simultaneously, depending upon its depleted mil-indust base -- unless that base is more potent than I imagine.
It seems both sides + Iran/China are jockeying to preserve their positions for whatever new order is shaking out at the high table. Hate to guess what happens if that negotiation fails.
Russia is currently unlikely to cross the Dnieper at this point. The problem would be that the bridges over Dnieper would be immediately under attack. This wasn't a problem 1943/1944 during the liberation of Ukraine by the Red Army, but it would be now, because of all the drones. If Russian Army wanted to go to the Western part of Novorossiya, it would probably need to start North-West of Kiev.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s, the US went through a "no nukes phase." One of the presenters at our university called nuclear weapons "the ultimate statement of political will. " Maybe the US/NATO/EU need to make the decision if Ukraine is the hill worth dying on. Nuclear artillery has a yield in the .1 kiloton range IIRC from www.FAS.org. The US and NATO can't respond at a low level like that. They will have to respond disproportionately. Russia then has the political upper hand and optics in its favor.
Now they are letting Ukraine bomb sensitive warehouses, oil refineries, and various companies that supply the military with important tools in the name of Ukraine.
In this way, they want to weaken Russia's western border.
When they have destroyed enough of the above positions in Russia, the EU will escalate AND make a joint attack on Russia, in which the US does not want to participate, or says that they do not want/will not participate.
In order to be able to successfully attack Iran with nuclear weapons, there must be a very, very surprising attack, before Iran's response through missiles destroys Israel from the map before Iran goes under.
I don't know if it is so smart of the US to go and discuss the destruction of Iran when it can leak to the Iranians.
Trump has been openly bragging about destroying multiple states (i.e., North Korea), not least Iran, since his first term, "leaking" his or Israel's intentions to the media. I do not know why he has done so, given that Iran was clearly alerted well prior to the Twelve-Day War last year and thus shipped out its sensitive materials, such as enriched uranium.
Iran has already prepared over the years for a nuclear strike, given that Zionists like Adelson—a well-connected man—have openly talked about it as well. The constant U.S.–Israel "doomsday" signaling has given it ample notice. The West apparently *wants* Iran to develop a nuclear ICBM that can hit D.C., given all the "heads up" it has given Tehran.
I do not care to speculate about the meeting too much, but, as noted, I wonder why the U.S. and Israel have hinted for years that they want to use nuclear weapons in Iran, thus giving Tehran enough warning to secretly build the very nuclear deterrent the West opposes.
The only explanation that makes sense is that the West actually hopes that Iran will take its threats seriously, build a nuclear-armed ICBM in response, and even stage a preemptive strike on U.S. or Israeli targets, giving the West an excuse to launch a preplanned nuclear volley at Tehran.
Or maybe a nuclear false flag will be executed by Western "deep-state" security agents and blamed on Iran—the new 9/11, if you will. Either way, the very public nuclear threats by the U.S. and Israel imply they *want* to invite or fake a preemptive Iranian nuclear attack, not stop it.
sorry for the late reply, feels like there is not enough time.
I believe very much in what you describe, the psychological war.
However, I do not believe that Russia is betraying Iran, as Iran armed Russia with Shahid drones and started the Ukraine war seriously.
I do not believe that they are betraying Iran even though Russia is allied with Israel because of Israelis in a leading position who have their roots in Russia.
It was the Israelis who armed Iran with uranium, I do not remember the name.
It may be that he armed Iranians with uranium so that Iran would manufacture a bomb and as you wrote, the West has a reason to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.
But I believe with all due respect that his trip to the RF was about the EU and NATO war, especially that in the event of escalation from the EU against Moscow, the USA will stand aside.
look at all the false flag and Zelenskiy's threats against Russia after the CIA trip.
1. It is abundantly obvious that NATO seeks to escalate, capitalizing on Russian dithering indecision and incompetence.
2. Why should NATO listen to any Russian warnings, after NATO has ignored red line after Russian red line with impunity?
That said, I suspect that the real purpose of such a trip was to put Russia on notice that the United States will use nuclear weapons against Iran.
A special service director who travels by military aircraft to meet in person the intelligence director of his main adversary, in my view, is rather there to deliver a direct message from professional to professional. Otherwise, you use a diplomat or a close advisor.
So I rather think this trip is explained by the USA coming to warn that such-and-such a thing is being plotted (by whom? Against whom? Where?) and that the USA have nothing to do with it.
A good point, but the Trump Administration has never been a stickler for protocol.
I don't think it's a matter of protocole. I think that it's a f...g dangerous matter and so bothering that it must be let to the professionals.
I really think that something possibly terrible is possible and USA doesn't want to be involve if the shit touch the fan.
Perhaps, Radcliffe allow Russia to treat the problem and claimed it's not a US trap but a true danger and USA doesn't want this danger happen or if it's happen it doesn't want to be involved.
Currently, the official story is that the CIA chief was warning Russia not to attack NATO.
That's the official story, at least.
I don't doubt that the Russian state is shot through with CIA informers and agents. The real concern, of course, is that Russia would half-ass any attack.
I'm too old to believe official versions in this kind of stuff.
I thought my skepticism was evident?
I still have the theory the trip was about Iran.
Very likely
Metoo
The fact that the U.S. is delivering the message implies that any Russian response to a NATO provocation in, say, the Baltic area will trigger U.S. involvement if other parties invoke Article V.
Article V is not so unequivocal. Read it carefully.
Article 5 applies, when, if and to the extent that the Americans say it does.
The text is irrelevant.
I said a generic U.S. response but did not specify, given that, as you said, Article V does not prescribe a particular course of action other than a NATO response of some sort.
The nature of blowback being what it is, any direct retaliation by Russia to NATO's covert operations will be framed as an unprovoked attack. As usual.
Andrew, I have a question. Does Ukraine fly drones through the Baltic States' airspace to hit Russia? If so, was it a one time thing, or a regular thing? If so, then Russia should do the same and fly drones and missiles through the Baltic States' airspace too.
Hey Seldom! Yes, according to Russian sources but denied by the Baltic States and Ukraine, Ukraine has flown drones across their airspace (it's unclear whether they first crossed through Poland or Belarus) for attacking St. Petersburg on at least several occasions.
So, as always, it's Russia that is holding back.
It´s evident that Putin is holding back. Why, we can´t know as he doesn´t keep us informed in spite of appearances to the contrary -spokespeople for this, spokespeople for that, his press conferences etc... The real problem is that his holding back is (probably) the reason why the conflict widens with every day/month/year that passes.
Hypothetically, if some non-NATO nuclear state bombed an object (a factory, for example) on the territory of a NATO state, what would other NATO states do? Militarily, I mean.
I recall reports from Western MSM since the SMO began claiming that NATO plans to either destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet at minimum or do that, destroy the Baltic one, and/or reciprocally strike Kaliningrad. Recent reports talk about a more full-blown response but likely only in response to a full-blown Russian cross-border military action.
As I remember, Western escalation path to the current "SMO" situation went from "non-lethal" supplies to "defensive" supplies to tanks to planes to missiles (or was it missiles then planes?) to "permission to target" internal RF territories. Did I miss anything?
That's step-by-step escalation to where we are now, where Western missiles hit targets well inside the RF territory. And that's official; BBC: "Scalp and Storm Shadow missiles have already been provided to Kyiv by both Britain and France. They've already been used to hit military targets inside Russia."
And no response from the RF so far. So, you expect that RF hitting any object on NATO territory is likely to produce further escalation, "more full-blown [Western] response", right?
Personally, I have no idea. But I do remember the 08-08-08 Georgia situation, where the RF acting decisively and strongly (Medvedev was president) produced clearly underwhelming Western response. I think it's possible, logical, that one side's failure to response to other side's escalation leads to the next escalation, and then the next, etc. While the first side's strong response would make the second side think "Oops! Shit, we went too far this time. Need to roll back and stop for now."
Sorry if my writing is muddled here.
"Fair" has nothing to do with it. Needless to say, the europeans are absolutely itching for a chance to run screaming to the Americans.
As far as I know most Western MSM suggest that a "Russian" cross-border raid (false flag?) will most likely be small-scale rather than a major attack, so NATO may not fully activate all the potentialities inherent in Article V when responding.
This is a recent report detailing how NATO would respond to a large-scale Russian attack:
https://archive.is/dqrKR
I'm fairly sure that if reports about the reason behind Ratcliffe's trip are accurate, then he conveyed that more than just a perfunctory response would follow even just a small-scale indisputable incursion. I don't believe he'd pay his first trip to Russia, and unannounced at that, just to tell his counterpart that the US will stand down.
Interestingly, Kremlin spokesman Peskov just dismissed Western reports that the Ratcliffe meeting concerned a potential NATO–Russia conflict over Baltic provocations, calling them unfounded "scare stories":
https://www.rferl.org/a/cia-chief-s-moscow-visit-to-warn-russia-against-attacking-baltic-states/33841067.html
I don't think that's unexpected as it's par for the course for Russia to deny almost every Western media report.
We'll likely never know for certain what it was about, but my point is that if it was about hypothetical Russian military action against or in the Baltic States, then Ratcliffe would have reasonably gone on his first trip to Russia (and unannounced at that following several months of reports, cynically media conditioning, about this scenario) to inform Putin that the US' response to even small-scale deliberate cross-border action would be severe.
If that's what happened, then I don't doubt that the decision has already been made to react that way instead of such rhetoric just being a bluff.
We know in retrospect that his predecessor's visit in the months preceding the special operation (which is much more large-scale than I believe Russia would plan against the Baltic States -- I also don't believe that it's planning any unprovoked kinetic action anyhow) saw the US clearly describe how it would respond by backing Ukraine to the hilt as it's since gone on to do so precedent shows that the US doesn't bluff to Russia.
I agree. Still, the fact that Russia is denying the Ratcliffe reports suggests that it is reluctant to react to any NATO "kinetic" provocation in the Baltic States. Otherwise it would use Western MSM reports about Ratcliffe to inform and precondition the Russian public for a possible major NATO–Russia escalation.
If Ratcliffe did carry a warning and Peskov just dismissed officially the fact that such a warning was presented, we would see a high level "unofficial" confirmation of such a warning in MSM - say WaPo or NYT soon.
So a secondary reconfirmation by Western MSM would be a red flag. The interesting situation would be if Ratcliffe did not actually carry a warning, but MSM say that unmentioned sources high up have reconfirmed it. In such a case, Russia may consider that it doesn't matter what he actually said and that the reconfirmation by MSM is what counts. So would take it as aggressive US posture.
No, my feeling was that Ratcliffe was asking about the size of King's ransom (Ukraine and beyond) Russian Federation would ask for denuclearizing Iran.
We have seen such confirmation.
Is the world going CRAZY ?? RUSSIA is the worlds SUPER POWER in terms of nuclear weapons.
Welcome to our world for the last 5 yrs.
I notice Andrew's responding to comments directly for this post, hopefully he'll consider my question. I know Putin is well-schooled on Russia's history and has a background that offers probably deep insight into European and world power dynamics. One thing I find for myself though is that even though I feel like I have a pretty solid grounding in history - my uncle had a doctorate in history from an ivy league school and it was emphasized in my family - I end up learning new things at least a few times a year that really changes my understanding of historical events. Often in important ways, like coming to understand the influence a faction or individual had on the course of WWII at a top level like industrial planning.
My question is, does Putin have deeply knowledgeable historians around him that point out historical parallels the President might not draw or be knowledgeable about?
I ask because navigating escalations with European powers seems like a topic drowned in historical precedent, from diplomatic protocol to likely outcomes etc.
I know it's popular to trash the U.S.'s leadership on this topic, but I also have never seen any indication that the Americans have any well worn practice of making sure leadership has a good understanding of the historical aspects of anything.
It’s a good question, I honestly don’t know. Putin is known to love history, but of course, no one can be an historical expert on every historical subject.
"... but he /Putin/ might not be so patient in the face of direct provocations from them /NATO/, so they should seriously reconsider."
Ukraine is DE FACTO a member of NATO and no amount of Kabuki or of keeping a stiff upper lip on Putin´s part can cover it up.
It should do it in air (i.e. Black Sea against any NATO assets flying by and spying, or against any NATO ship that tries to impound a ship with Russian carrying goods, regardless of the flag. And disrupting anything coming in Ukraine through Poland...
Some NATO general threatened Kaliningrad roughly a year ago. I always interpreted that as the threatened NATO response to any Russian escalation outside Ukraine.
What seems to have changed recently is the pace of progress on the ground and possible prep for a larger scale invasion. So, perhaps Ratcliffe was warning Russia not to cross the Dneiper.
Iran and Turkey would seem to also be in the mix of current circumstances, and could also have been discussed.
Really hard to believe, in spite of any reality to the NATO threat, that Wash DC thinks it can take on Iran, Russia and China simultaneously, depending upon its depleted mil-indust base -- unless that base is more potent than I imagine.
It seems both sides + Iran/China are jockeying to preserve their positions for whatever new order is shaking out at the high table. Hate to guess what happens if that negotiation fails.
Russia is currently unlikely to cross the Dnieper at this point. The problem would be that the bridges over Dnieper would be immediately under attack. This wasn't a problem 1943/1944 during the liberation of Ukraine by the Red Army, but it would be now, because of all the drones. If Russian Army wanted to go to the Western part of Novorossiya, it would probably need to start North-West of Kiev.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s, the US went through a "no nukes phase." One of the presenters at our university called nuclear weapons "the ultimate statement of political will. " Maybe the US/NATO/EU need to make the decision if Ukraine is the hill worth dying on. Nuclear artillery has a yield in the .1 kiloton range IIRC from www.FAS.org. The US and NATO can't respond at a low level like that. They will have to respond disproportionately. Russia then has the political upper hand and optics in its favor.
seeing the pace at which fellas are being reactivated, plus many high officials that were discreet until now, something very dirty is being prepared
The West has changed tactics.
They are learning from Iran.
Now they are letting Ukraine bomb sensitive warehouses, oil refineries, and various companies that supply the military with important tools in the name of Ukraine.
In this way, they want to weaken Russia's western border.
When they have destroyed enough of the above positions in Russia, the EU will escalate AND make a joint attack on Russia, in which the US does not want to participate, or says that they do not want/will not participate.
In order to be able to successfully attack Iran with nuclear weapons, there must be a very, very surprising attack, before Iran's response through missiles destroys Israel from the map before Iran goes under.
I don't know if it is so smart of the US to go and discuss the destruction of Iran when it can leak to the Iranians.
Trump has been openly bragging about destroying multiple states (i.e., North Korea), not least Iran, since his first term, "leaking" his or Israel's intentions to the media. I do not know why he has done so, given that Iran was clearly alerted well prior to the Twelve-Day War last year and thus shipped out its sensitive materials, such as enriched uranium.
Iran has already prepared over the years for a nuclear strike, given that Zionists like Adelson—a well-connected man—have openly talked about it as well. The constant U.S.–Israel "doomsday" signaling has given it ample notice. The West apparently *wants* Iran to develop a nuclear ICBM that can hit D.C., given all the "heads up" it has given Tehran.
Something really bad is/could happen to Mr. Daniel.
Could the meeting have just been about exchanging spies who were caught in their respective countries?
I do not care to speculate about the meeting too much, but, as noted, I wonder why the U.S. and Israel have hinted for years that they want to use nuclear weapons in Iran, thus giving Tehran enough warning to secretly build the very nuclear deterrent the West opposes.
The only explanation that makes sense is that the West actually hopes that Iran will take its threats seriously, build a nuclear-armed ICBM in response, and even stage a preemptive strike on U.S. or Israeli targets, giving the West an excuse to launch a preplanned nuclear volley at Tehran.
Or maybe a nuclear false flag will be executed by Western "deep-state" security agents and blamed on Iran—the new 9/11, if you will. Either way, the very public nuclear threats by the U.S. and Israel imply they *want* to invite or fake a preemptive Iranian nuclear attack, not stop it.
What do you think about my assessment?
sorry for the late reply, feels like there is not enough time.
I believe very much in what you describe, the psychological war.
However, I do not believe that Russia is betraying Iran, as Iran armed Russia with Shahid drones and started the Ukraine war seriously.
I do not believe that they are betraying Iran even though Russia is allied with Israel because of Israelis in a leading position who have their roots in Russia.
It was the Israelis who armed Iran with uranium, I do not remember the name.
It may be that he armed Iranians with uranium so that Iran would manufacture a bomb and as you wrote, the West has a reason to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.
But I believe with all due respect that his trip to the RF was about the EU and NATO war, especially that in the event of escalation from the EU against Moscow, the USA will stand aside.
look at all the false flag and Zelenskiy's threats against Russia after the CIA trip.