On Tuesday 25 August, John Ratcliffe the Director of the CIA flew to Moscow in a large C-17 Globemaster III  American military plane for an in-person meeting with his opposite numbers in the Russian FSB. He left the same day, apparently earlier than expected, without meeting the Russian leader Vladimir Putin. US and Russian government sources have both declined to comment on the reasons for this unscheduled visit, and were reluctant to confirm that it had even taken place

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/25/cia-director-john-ratcliffe-moscow-russia

A lightning personal visit of this type to Russia by a Director of the CIA is a very rare event. The last time it happened was in late November 2021 when CIA Director William Burns unexpectedly flew to Moscow in an attempt to discourage Putin from invading Ukraine. US intelligence analysts had detected unmistakeable signs that Russia was about to attack, and the CIA Director was sent to tell Putin that there would be serious consequences if he did so. Russa ignored the warning and invaded Ukraine anyway on 24 February 2022.

There is much speculation as to what was discussed at Tuesday’s meeting. Putin is said to have signed three new undisclosed decrees on Monday. One of them is believed to relate to a new large-scale mobilisation of Russian military forces. Another is thought to authorise the Russian government to seize control of key elements of their national infrastructure which are being degraded by Ukrainean drone and missile attacks. The final one is said to define new battlefield objectives for Russian military leaders within the coming year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnMxpQb5gbo

It is unclear whether the CIA Director was warning Russia not to ramp up their recent wave of hybrid  sabotage and cyber attacks against western European countries, or whether there are real fears that Russia might launch a conventional attack against Baltic state border countries who are NATO members - which would trigger an Article 5 response.

Other items on the agenda might have included American concerns over the growing involvement of North Korean forces in the Ukraine conflict, or their annoyance with Russia’s ongoing defiance of international  trade sanctions on Iran. One thing seems clear however. The Director of the CIA was probably sent to deliver an ultimatum or warning of some description, and was apparently given very short shrift.

Hopefully the purpose of the visit was to ask for asylum for D Trump and his Administration, once he is forced out of office by impeachment in November, and they are all looking at jail time for war crimes, extortion, treason, corruption and racketeering, insider trading, etc.
Oh, and lets not forget Trump and Lutnick's close association with J Epstein, the extent of which still hasn't come to light.
( I think I read that Trump is mentioned, only in the released Epstein files, 29000 times, while Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Bible only 1900 times.
That's a lot of smoke; has to be a fire somewhere.
( maybe he'll distract us by renaming Lake Ontario to Lake America )

As Doug Ford, Ontario Premier, said "Donald Trump can kiss my ass".

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Hopefully the purpose of the visit was to ask for asylum for D Trump and his Administration, once he is forced out of office by impeachment in November, and they are all looking at jail time for war crimes, extortion, treason, corruption and racketeering, insider trading, etc.

Actually that is a moot point. SCOTUS basically made the presidency unassailable for presidential actions. So much that associated actions cannot even be investigated. There is no reason for him to seek asylum as the corruption is entirely legal. Also, as you know, if there is smoke, the only thing that happens are more tariffs, for some reason.

According to reports Ratcliffe might have delivered warning to Moscow not to attack NATO members, it seems.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/26/cia-russia-nato-moscow-ratcliffe-01051848

CIA Director John Ratcliffe warned Russian officials in Moscow this week not to escalate conflict with America’s NATO allies, in particular Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, in response to Moscow’s stalemated invasion of Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The U.S. spy chief also used the rare, unannounced trip to the Russian capital on Tuesday to press Russia to reduce military and economic support for Iran, according to one of those two people and a U.K. official with knowledge of the trip.

On 8/26/2026 at 4:51 PM, CharonY said:

There is no reason for him to seek asylum as the corruption is entirely legal.

But there are impeachable offences while in office.
And plenty of crap he's done while not in office, some of which he escaped prosecution because he became President Elect, which I'm sure will come back with a vengeance.
Along with the full release of the Epstein Files.
( unless the next President is also in them )

19 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Ratcliffe might have delivered warning to Moscow not to attack NATO members

That seems to be the official reason given.
However, why use a military C-17 ?

The only reason I can think of is that the C-17 can be outfitted with the Roll-on Conference Capsule ( ROCC ) which the C-40B ( modified B737 for military/government officials ) cannot.
The ROCC is a working conference container with secure communications/SCIF accreditation for discussion/communication of classified information/intelligence. I doubt 'warnings' need to be delivered securely.

But at least those two morons, S Witkoff and J Kushner, weren't there ...

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

But there are impeachable offences while in office.
And plenty of crap he's done while not in office, some of which he escaped prosecution because he became President Elect, which I'm sure will come back with a vengeance.
Along with the full release of the Epstein Files.
( unless the next President is also in them )

So impeachment is unlikely going to happen, but even so, asylum would be unnecessary, as he would just be removed from office. The easiest case for prosecution are acts while not in office, but I am not sure whether there is material for criminal prosecution. I think the most critical cases he faced before he got re-elected where conducted during his first presidency and for that it seems he is pretty much well-protected. There is a part in the SCOTUS decision that roughly states that official acts cannot be used as evidence for unofficial/private conduct.

The way I understand it, if in a private fundraiser he asks for money in exchange for, say scrapping EPA regulations, the act of scrapping thus regulations cannot be used as evidence for a quid-pro-quo. Sottomayor gave another grave example, if he decided to have someone assassinated, he could officially use US military in his official capacity and be immune. IOW, only when he does something in private and not connect it in any form or shape with his official position can he be prosecuted. But since all his grifts are based on his presidency, I am not sure what would realistically a criminal case that could be prosecuted.

There may be civil liabilities that could come back once he leaves office, but given the wealth he accumulated while in office, he may not even notice that. I do think that Epstein is not going to harm him, either, given the lack of criminal prosecution on that end.

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

The ROCC is a working conference container with secure communications/SCIF accreditation for discussion/communication of classified information/intelligence. I doubt 'warnings' need to be delivered securely.

Maybe some sort of exchange/discussion was planned? Maybe Witkoff and Kushner didn't want to interrupt golfing for that....
More serious question, does the C-17have more defensive capabilities than other jets which could be used for this type of travel?