"The U.S. Issued A Stern Warning To Putin"

• 26.08.2026, 13:58

An SBU general revealed the purpose of the CIA director's visit to Moscow.

The CIA director arrived in Moscow on an unexpected and unannounced visit CIA Director John Ratcliffe arrived in Moscow. According to media reports, one of the possible purposes of the trip could have been to issue a warning to the Kremlin amid intelligence reports of preparations for a new mobilization in Russia and possible provocations against NATO countries.

What could this visit have meant, and what message did Washington want to convey to the Kremlin? The website Charter97.org discussed this with Major General (ret.) of the SBU Viktor Yagun.

— First of all, I would distinguish between what we know for certain and what remains mere speculation. Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow did indeed take place on August 25. The Kremlin confirmed that the discussions concerned “contacts between intelligence agencies,” but denies that Ratcliffe had a personal meeting with Putin. Therefore, there is not yet sufficient evidence to assert that such a meeting actually took place.

But the very nature of the visit is very telling. The CIA director does not fly to Moscow for just a few hours for routine technical consultations. Such contacts are necessary when a very serious message needs to be conveyed directly, bypassing standard diplomatic channels.

In my view, the most likely purpose of the visit was to issue a strategic warning to the Kremlin. According to Western media reports, U.S. intelligence has detected signs that Russia is preparing for a possible new phase of mobilization. Among other things, there have been reports of mobilization drills in the Kaliningrad region and other areas.

At the same time, there are concerns that Moscow may attempt to test NATO’s resolve through some kind of limited military or hybrid provocation.

If that was indeed the main theme, the message could have been very simple: “We know what you’re preparing. We see your movements and plans. Don’t try to test NATO’s resolve, because the consequences will be very different from those in Ukraine.” The Wall Street Journal also describes a similar logic behind Ratcliffe’s possible mission.

Here, one might recall November 2021. The then-CIA director William Burns also traveled to Moscow to warn the Russian leadership: The U.S. sees preparations for a major war against Ukraine and understands what is happening.

Therefore, the very fact that the CIA director, of all people, has now been sent to Moscow may indicate a similar situation. Most likely, this is not about some “big deal,” but rather a demonstration to the Kremlin that its plans are known.

Of course, other topics could have been discussed: Iran, prisoner exchanges, contacts between intelligence agencies, and possible further negotiations regarding the war against Ukraine. But I would consider those secondary. The main purpose of such a visit is to establish a direct channel for issuing a serious warning and to attempt to prevent an uncontrolled escalation.

It is also telling that, according to media reports, during the visit, Washington asked Ukraine to refrain from strikes on Moscow and certain other Russian regions. This in itself says nothing about the content of the talks, but it shows how seriously the American side took the security of this mission.

— On the day of Ratcliffe’s visit, Putin signed three secret decrees, the contents of which have not been disclosed. Could this be related to the CIA director’s visit, and what might such secrecy indicate?

— I would be very cautious about suggesting a direct link between these events. We do see an interesting coincidence. Putin’s last decree published on August 24 was Decree No. 604, and on August 25, Decrees Nos. 608, 609, and 610 appeared. In other words, Decrees Nos. 605, 606, and 607 are missing from the public database. Their contents are unknown.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean that these three classified decrees were issued specifically as a result of the CIA director’s visit. Secret decrees have existed in the Russian system before. They may concern intelligence agencies, military matters, personnel decisions, state secrets, and other classified topics.

Nevertheless, the timing is noteworthy. Especially against the backdrop of reports about possible preparations for new mobilization measures and the growing risk of escalation in relations with NATO.

If these decrees are indeed related to the military-political situation, there could be several possibilities. These could include mobilization decisions, additional internal security measures, intelligence operations, the protection of critical infrastructure, or some classified personnel and military decisions. But for now, these are just theories. We do not know the contents of the documents.

I would draw attention to something else. If Washington has indeed received intelligence about Russia’s preparations for a new phase of the war or a possible provocation against NATO countries, then what matters most right now is not what is written in these three decrees.

We need to see whether real signs of preparations emerge: the movement of reserves, changes in the army’s recruitment system, the deployment of new units, the redeployment of forces to the Kaliningrad region and toward NATO’s borders, and increased activity by the GRU and FSB in Europe.

That is what will be the true indicator of the Kremlin’s intentions.

Therefore, I would summarize the main outcome of Ratcliffe’s visit as follows: The United States may have come to Moscow not to offer Putin anything, but to make it clear to him: “We see what you’re doing. We know what you’re planning. And we advise you not to cross the next red line.”