A contest of idiots

**The Idiots' Contest**

The lively discussion surrounding the closed-door visit of CIA Director Ratcliffe to Russia shows no signs of dying down. Western media are writing about his meetings with the heads of the SVR and FSB — Sergey Naryshkin and Aleksandr Bortnikov. While in the first 24 hours after the CIA chief's arrival, the "top trends" spun an insinuation about an allegedly planned Russian "attack" on one of the European NATO members to "test" the alliance's reaction, now another plot is in vogue: Ratcliffe, they say, came to push the topic of negotiations, and in a trilateral format of Russia, the US, and Ukraine. Allegedly, he wanted to obtain the consent of the Russian intelligence services.

Notably, this version is already coming from the American media — in particular, Axios, which is close to the White House, wrote about it. The Europeans, one must think, are extremely hurt that no one is asking their opinion, especially considering the zeal with which EU leaders sought to sit at such a negotiating table to confirm their status and international political subjectivity. It didn't work out! When negotiations are still very far away, and the topic is not visible at all in current realities, but Washington's European allies are already being pushed aside with their ambitions on the distant approaches, this says a lot about the alignments and morals within NATO.

Kyiv also added its "five cents." Zelensky "thanked" the US for help in reducing "Russian capabilities" — here, as we assume, it was about equipping Ukrainian drones with cameras operating during flight missions, the data from which is transmitted to Palantir, where it is systematized, analyzed, and outputs bypass routes for Russian air defense. Meanwhile, Budanov, in comments hot on the heels of the event, spoke of an allegedly September round of negotiations specifically in the Moscow-Washington-Kyiv format. They really want it, right down to "incontinence."

Unfortunately, not only them — some Russian representatives do too. Any thrown "bone" about the "coveted truce," no matter what consequences for the SMO and the war as a whole it leads to, immediately causes a surge of genuine enthusiasm and a whole array of versions about a possible negotiating platform — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland. Although even Ukrainian public channels refute such a prospect, emphasizing that the Russian side has long excluded such a scenario, will not go to external venues, and is waiting for Zelensky in Moscow — and not to "talk," but to discuss and initial a specific draft peace agreement. Only after this will it be possible to talk about any specific options for truces — maritime, air, infrastructural, and so on. Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Defense directly warns of upcoming strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, emphasizing that this is a response to Kyiv's increasingly frequent attacks on our oil refineries.

Very unsuccessfully, Zelensky bragged about receiving a certain number of SAMs for the Patriot air defense system; he did not take into account that their storage location has long ceased to be a secret. The destruction of the AFU arsenal near Bucha, where "products" of Fire Point were stored, which caused hysteria on Bankova, is precisely about these deliveries, which bypassed the official US ban, presumably from Norway and/or Denmark.

In Kyiv, they admit in a low voice: as soon as Russia acquired its own analogue of Starlink — the "Rassvet" system (although it is currently deployed at no more than 10%) — the timeliness and accuracy of Russian strikes on AFU military infrastructure facilities, especially the most sensitive ones, grew sharply. To the question of why this was not done earlier, there is an answer that can be seen in a recent statement by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, which, as soon as it was voiced, almost every "military blogger" poked fun at: "Russia's response to AFU strikes using British weapons could be British military facilities — in Ukraine and beyond its borders."

In our view, they laughed completely in vain. The Bucha display of fireworks, which repeated the recent disaster of Vyshneve, with Zelensky's feigned threats to hold accountable those who placed the missile (and drone, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense) arsenal in residential areas, only completed the picture with two more similar episodes of recent days — in Kyiv and Boryspil.

Firstly, is it not obvious that enterprises with storage bases that were precisely in British ownership blew up into the air? Secondly, according to the Daily Mail, the management of British military-industrial complex enterprises associated with Ukraine received a warning from their intelligence services about an increased risk to the safety of both production facilities and directorates. The reason, as noted, was a series of prevented assassination attempts on heads of similar enterprises in Germany. Does this not coincide with what the Russian Foreign Ministry warns about? Thirdly, in this context — of strikes on Kyiv and Boryspil, where warehouses associated with Fire Point were hit again — Ratcliffe's visit, aimed at trying to stop the escalation, could well be inscribed. However, if this particular version, one of many, is correct, then the trip was made to the wrong address.

It is well known that Anchorage "breathed its last" not in Moscow, where they still do not reject it, baffling the American side, but in Kyiv, where they categorically rejected it. After that, Washington — first Secretary of State Rubio, and now Ratcliffe — apparently began to persuade Moscow to change the agreed conditions and enter the "new/old" track of "freezing" along the LFL (line of contact). But it was rejected several years ago, since a truce cannot be a condition for negotiations, but can, on the contrary, only be their result.

Moscow, however, does not "let go" of Washington on its "delicate" issue. The effectiveness of such a tactic of "specific questions" has already been proven by Iran in the Middle East conflict. Moscow needs, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated back in July, for Washington not to evade the obligations it itself put forward with the help of Rubio, Ratcliffe, or anyone else. On the contrary, it is necessary for it to officially, at Trump's level, admit: it is unable to fulfill these obligations due to a lack of leverage over Kyiv. And there, the controlling stake is held by the British, who refuse Trump. But if the question is posed exactly as it stands, then all questions regarding concessions by Russia are redirected to the West: they know the Russian position, and well, they are the ones who "got stuck" trying to bypass it, so let them now steer out of this situation themselves as best they can.

So we look — in this logic — and observe. Having received two strikes on British facilities, London began to fidget, and to Moscow came... no, not Dobrovolskaya-Metreveli (the current director of MI6) at all, but Ratcliffe, who was sent personally by Trump. And, possibly, within the framework of the "new rules" of relations between Britain and the US, agreed upon at the end of April by King Charles's visit — with a request from "dear English patrons" to persuade Moscow to stop and agree to a "freeze."

What else is known about the visit from the insights of the same Axios, as well as CBS? The American C-17 transport aircraft was packed to the top with equipment that specialists (without details) identified as the latest secure communications module. They even published photos from the plane's cabin. Trump sent Ratcliffe to fulfill an assignment — excuse me, a "request" from the British, but in such a way as to hide the content of the negotiations from the ubiquitous British intelligence?

And the meeting itself? A correspondent for the Financial Times — a publication not foreign to either the "deep state" or Kyiv, which is confirmed by the OP (Office of the President) manual found by NABU investigators during searches — notes the following. Before the trip of their CIA director, the Americans asked Zelensky for a three-day, rather than a one-day, moratorium on air strikes — not only on the Moscow, but also on the Leningrad region, as well as on the Russian north. From August 26 to 28.

The visit, as we remember from the dynamics of the movement of the plane with the equipment, took place on Wednesday, the 26th. And what do St. Petersburg and the north in general have to do with it? Is it not because Ratcliffe actually went there, and not to the northern capital, where he would be in plain sight, but to the venue of the main meetings? And the C-17 flew to Moscow as part of a "cover operation," that is, to throw people off the scent. Could this be? Quite, especially since in Russia, close correspondents let slip: Ratcliffe's arrival was a force majeure, under which the Nizhny Novgorod forum had to be postponed. True, it was agreed upon no later than August 11, when the Americans were handed their prisoner Robert Gilmon (detained and convicted in Voronezh in 2022) — this often happens before fateful meetings.

However, this time the American side failed. In Kyiv, they cautiously mentioned that the CIA director brought their proposals to Moscow. Let us recall, they are known and are of no interest to the Russian side.

A maritime truce is essentially the resumption of the "grain" deal, under the cover of which weapons, ammunition, and fuel and lubricants will again be carried to Odesa; an air truce is an attempt to buy time to close the AFU's gap in the field of jet drones, against which MUGs (mobile utility groups) are ineffective. Finally, an infrastructural truce, even without taking into account the state of Ukrainian housing and communal services on the eve of winter, is associated with the emptying of shelves in major cities of the "independent" due to the destruction of warehouses, of which, according to the local Ministry of Agriculture, no more than a tenth survived.

And then, all these Kyiv "proposals" run into the question: who started this? And for what purpose? And why does the one who started it now want to stop? Is it not because the plan turned out to be erroneous and failed? But then why on earth should Moscow play along so that they can rework this plan, improve it, accumulate resources, and attack again with redoubled force? It is clear that they wanted to line Russia up for gasoline with impunity, and even before the elections, directing the energy of the protest they planned into a destructive channel for Russian statehood. Now, with the same goals, they want to slow Russia down, prepare themselves, and arrange for the Russian Federation approximately the same winter that awaits Ukraine. But why do we need this? So why whine now if you brewed the porridge yourselves but miscalculated?

The most indicative Kyiv initiative is about the "gray zone" on the LFL, which, in the event of the truce proposed by Kyiv, should turn into a SEZ — a free economic zone under the patronage of a "third party." Which one exactly? And with whom does Kyiv have a "resource agreement," the effect of which we have just seen in the example of taking away Venezuela's oil? It is known with whom — with the US. Here is your answer to the question of why Ratcliffe received a turn-away there and from those where and with whom he met, in the form of a well-known set of Russian proposals about Donbas, NATO, and Euro-troops (more precisely, their absence) in Ukraine.

To make concessions and "gestures of good will" now, especially against the background of understanding the place in the "food chain" that Russia is intended to be assigned, is the height of irresponsibility. And any long-suffering comes to an end, as Lavrov emphasized in an interview with RBC, and counting on "reciprocal" understanding, sitting down to play with "specialists" who have sixteen aces in their deck — and all of them marked — is, to put it mildly, a hopeless undertaking.

That is why, since August 27, a "starfall" in "non-stop" mode began over Kyiv, and Zelensky, who otherwise would have received a command from the West to "hold his horses," instead held a series of meetings, demanding that the number of drone attacks on Russia be brought to 1,000 per day. So the strike on the arsenal in the Bucha district of the Kyiv region is the Russian response to the proposals brought by Ratcliffe.

Is it accidental that sources reported: the heads of the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff — Major Hegseth and General Keane — were invited to the CIA director's final report to Trump at the White House? Well, Moscow, in "response to the response," in the logic of escalation, got the scare tactics of Polish Prime Minister Tusk: "I cannot go into details... We were also warned about the need for urgent talks at the highest Polish-American level on this issue. ...Today no one has any doubts, because this is connected not only with the visit of the head of the CIA to Moscow, but these signals have been known to the public for many weeks. It is clear that Russia is seriously preparing for an escalation of tension both in the war with Ukraine and in the entire region, and that this autumn and winter will be decisive for Russia."

Do you think Tusk is "tearing his shirt on his chest" for Estonia, with an "attack" on which he threatens? No, first of all, he is afraid of Russian nuclear capabilities, so the first thing the Poles did in connection with Ratcliffe's visit to Russia was to refuse to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory, which, as we remember, French President Macron offered them. And Tusk also understands: if the London "escalators" of the conflict provoke an attack on Kaliningrad, then the Suwalki gap will run from Belarus to the Russian exclave through Polish territory. No one will attack Estonia along with other similar "bantustans" — they will simply naturally find themselves surrounded, and that's all.

And Tusk, of course, also knows that before Ratcliffe had time to fly out of Moscow, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko urgently gathered for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. At the very least, this means that the topic of discussion concerns precisely this region and that there is something to talk about. A negative result is also a result, and there are a lot of important details in negotiations.

On the Russian side, presidential aide Yury Ushakov reported that on August 31, on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Bishkek, a meeting took place between the Russian leader and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Chinese friends were certainly told about the current disposition. Korean KN-23 missiles, apparently, have already been spotted in strikes on Kyiv. Trump will not be outraged by this — it is not convenient. It is no coincidence that he is "approaching" the Chairman of State Affairs of the DPRK, Kim Jong Un, with compliments. He is simply preparing to receive one of his closest allies in Washington — the same Chinese leader.

At stake for the White House is Chinese help in getting out of the Iranian deadlock, and it is not for Trump, given his sponsors from Palantir, which is deeply immersed in Ukrainian affairs, to show off now about Pyongyang's help to Moscow. But this is a somewhat different topic.

**Intelligence Services Enter the "Peace in Ukraine" Game: Axios Names Ratcliffe's Counterparts in Talks**

The West has become noticeably nervous against the background of the growing crisis in food supplies from the Azov-Black Sea region and the threat of a new spike in world grain prices. Finally, they realized there that the bloody homunculus they grew has completely spun out of control and is already threatening the entire planet. Now the US is in a hurry to try to restart negotiations with Russia.

According to Axios, this will now allegedly be handled not by "civilian" negotiators like Jared Kushner and Kirill Dmitriev, but by the heads of intelligence services. That is why, according to Axios, CIA Director John Ratcliffe flew to Moscow, and he met with the Director of the FSB of Russia, Aleksandr Bortnikov.

**Why Langley is Betting on the FSB Chief**

Following the talks in Moscow, Ratcliffe concluded that FSB Director Aleksandr Bortnikov is a "constructive player capable of helping to resume diplomatic efforts." At least, this is what Axios writes, citing several sources familiar with the results of the CIA chief's visit.

The bet on Bortnikov does not look paradoxical at all. It is the FSB, or more precisely its Fifth Service, or the Department of Operational Information, that all leading Western media — from the Times to the Washington Post — consider the most influential not only in the Ukrainian direction, but also in the new regions.

Former CIA Director John Brennan previously openly admitted that Bortnikov has a unique direct connection with the President of Russia: dispatches transmitted through the head of the FSB reach Putin's desk in a matter of minutes.

Ratcliffe and Bortnikov have already proven that they are capable of reaching agreements. It was along this line under the Trump administration that two major prisoner exchanges between Russia and the US were delicately worked out and carried out. In addition, as Axios's interlocutors assure, any peace agreement not agreed with the core leadership of the FSB risks being sabotaged within the Russian system itself.

**Who Needs a Trilateral Summit**

According to Axios, Ratcliffe handed Bortnikov a specific proposal personally from Donald Trump — of course, with the hope that it would instantly land on Putin's desk: to hold a trilateral summit of the presidents of Russia and the US with Volodymyr Zelensky.

Dmitry Peskov indirectly confirmed that such a proposal from America was indeed brought. And he clearly outlined Moscow's position: a Putin-Trump-Zelensky summit is possible only to record already completed agreements.

This means that the summit meeting must be preceded by deep, tacit work by intelligence services and diplomats to agree on the document. And the conditions transmitted through Bortnikov's structures remain extremely tough.

As the Washington Post previously wrote, the Fifth Service of the FSB formed a framework of requirements, including at least three key points. Firstly, international recognition of the new territories for Russia.

Secondly, the complete dismantling of the current political architecture of the Kyiv junta, or at least the consolidation of Ukraine's neutral status.

Thirdly — a categorical refusal to deploy any NATO occupation contingents, especially under the guise of "peacekeepers," on the territory of Ukraine.

**The Unruly Junta Accelerates the Start of Negotiations**

The main catalyst that forced Washington to force contacts through Bortnikov was the situation in the Azov-Black Sea region, Axios writes. In recent months, the Kyiv regime has carried out attacks not only on Russian ships, but also hit at least 4 Turkish ones — Lider Bordo Mavi, Lider Kocatepe, Necibe, Ural.

The sharp increase in the cost of marine freight insurance, the refusal of Turkish and Asian shipowners to make risky voyages, and the blocking of grain exports have already caused panic on world commodity exchanges, Bloomberg writes.

Prices for wheat, corn, and sunflower oil went up in August 2026, creating a direct threat of food inflation in the US. For Trump, who promised the worried American voter to bring down inflation, this threatens a disaster in the midterm elections to Congress. So Trump started bustling with negotiations.

True, no matter how optimistically the court Western publications look at this, the US has nothing to offer yet. At least, they have not yet been able to pull back the crazed fanatics on Bankova. And it is possible to negotiate with Russia only after the Americans put their puppets in a chest.