Michael McFaul

Scott Ritter: The CIA never comes to Russia in peace

Posted by

0

From RT
September 1, 2026

Ratcliffe’s Moscow visit may be framed as routine, but it came from an agency still deeply involved in killing Russians and guiding Ukraine

CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Moscow last week.

What we know: Ratcliffe met with Sergey Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. This has been confirmed by Naryshkin himself, who described the meeting as “routine.” We also know that the US spy chief did not meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The meeting took place, there is nothing unusual in this,” Naryshkin stated afterwards. “In the practice of special services, meetings of managers, personal meetings or online are part of our work. So, the meeting with John Ratcliffe is a working format.”

Naryshkin refused to state what issues were discussed, explaining that they were within the competence of the intelligence services. “And the competence of the intelligence services is such a rather delicate and special thing,” the Russian spy chief said.

What we don’t know: literally anything else.

Rumors abound about additional attendees, as well as the agenda – or lack thereof – that was pursued by Ratcliffe during a meeting which appeared to be anything but routine. But the fact is, any meeting between Ratcliffe and Naryshkin, given the nature of the times we live in, could never be described as “routine.”

A quick reminder: John Ratcliffe’s CIA is currently at war with Russia. Literally.

Ratcliffe assumed his current position on January 23, 2025. Prior to this, he did a short stint as national intelligence director during the last year of Trump’s first term in office. He was a Texas congressman for a few years, as well as a small-town mayor and acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Texas.

He is a politician, not a spy.

But he is fully cognizant of the CIA’s secret war against Russia, having been fully briefed while serving as DNI. As a member of Congress, Ratcliffe was a leading policy maker on national security issues serving as a member of the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees.

Any effort to portray him as some sort of “innocent abroad” fails on the face of the facts.

The CIA has always been at war with Russia. During the Cold War, Moscow Station (the name of the CIA’s operation center based out of the US Embassy) was literally the front line of the spy-versus-spy antics taking place between the US and the Soviet Union.

The CIA headed up Operation Cyclone, a massive paramilitary-driven effort to create a Vietnam-like quagmire for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The goal of Operation Cyclone was to kill Russians.

I worked with people who were directly or indirectly affiliated with Operation Cyclone. ‘Kill more Russians’ was literally their mantra.

There was a time when the CIA hired genuine Russia-area experts. The analysts who populated the Office of Soviet Analysis (SOVA) in the Directorate of Intelligence at the height of the Cold War were some of the best experts on the Soviet Union imaginable.

I know because I worked with them. From 1988-1990, I received two classified commendations from the director of the CIA for my analytical work involving the Soviet Union. I was considered by the CIA leadership to be a top-notch Soviet analyst.

In 1992 the CIA actively recruited me for an analytical position within the predecessor to SOVA, the Slavic and Eurasian Office. I was brought in for a high-level interview, after which I was informed that the CIA would be passing on my application. When I asked why, I was told that I was too married to old school thinking about Russia – in short, I was a ‘Sovietologist’.

The CIA was looking for people who could imagine Russia ‘differently’. What this meant was divorcing oneself from the mindset that Russia (i.e., the Soviet Union) was a peer-level opponent worthy of respect (my view), and instead adopting a stance that Russia was a defeated foe that needed to be kept down by any means necessary.

In the 1990s, the CIA’s task was to use Boris Yeltsin as an agent of influence to weaken Russia and facilitate foreign control over its resources. The CIA actively infiltrated every aspect of the Russian economy and used ‘soft power’ resources funded by the likes of the National Endowment for Democracy and overseen by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to hijack Russian democratic institutions and Russian social life, especially through media-related activities.

The CIA also was very active in working to break Russia up into more manageable fiefdoms, each ruled over by a CIA-controlled lackey. The Russian-Chechen conflict was a primary example of this activity.

When Boris Yeltsin stepped aside in favor of Vladimir Putin as Russia’s president on New Year’s Eve 1999, the CIA immediately made it its task to undermine Putin and replace him with someone from the Yeltsin camp willing and able to do the CIA’s bidding.

Putin’s resistance and resilience as a Russian leader operating independent of CIA control helped shape a new generation of Russophobes in the United States. The first generation were the ‘new Russian’ thinkers that replaced the old school ‘Sovietologists’ at the end of the Cold War. To them, Russia was a playground for which to launch experiments on economic and political domination with absolutely zero regard to the price being paid by the people of Russia.

This generation of Russophobes simply detested Russia and the Russian people, failing to attribute any normative human value to their lives. Millions of Russians lost their lives as a result, and tens of millions of others suffered greatly.

Michael McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia, falls into this category. So, too, does Fiona Hill. And Beth Sanner. People whose educational background and Russian experience pre-dates Putin, people who know the truth about Russia but opted instead to embrace the hegemonic policies of superpower singularity and work to weaken and destroy Russia.

But Putin’s stubborn hold on power, despite concerted efforts by the CIA to oust him (think Navalny), led to the birth of a new generation of Russophobes, so-called ‘experts’ whose only claim to relevance is their undying hatred of Putin and everything Russian.

It is this generation that has gravitated to the upper levels of the CIA’s analytical community, and who openly hate all things Russia. People like Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Julia Gurganus.

It is this openly Russophobic CIA that John Ratcliffe oversees.

His relationship with Julia Gurganus is both instructive and illustrative of the sickness that pervades the CIA when it comes to Russia. Gurganus was the National Intelligence Officer for Russia back in 2016-17, at the height of the Obama-era Russiagate scandal that tried to make the case of collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton.

Gurganus helped manufacture the intelligence that underpinned this false allegation. She was a vociferous critic of Trump, so much so that the CIA quietly exiled her to a think tank position during Trump’s first term in office.

When Trump was reelected, Ratcliffe oversaw the whitewashing of Gurganus’ role in falsely accusing Trump of collusion, leading to the elevation of Gurganus as the senior CIA briefer onboard Air Force One as Trump flew to Alaska to meet with Putin in August 2025. That’s right – Ratcliffe purposefully cleansed Gurganus of her anti-Trump credentials so she could personally brief the president before his meeting with Putin.

Tulsi Gabbard, in her role as DNI, exposed Gurganus as an anti-Trump operative and had her security clearances revoked, but not before the damage was done.

There was a time when the CIA’s Directorate of Operations Russia House was home to living legends. People like Milton Beardon, who helped run Operation Cyclone and was chief of the Soviet/East European Division at the time the Soviet Union fell. Gardner Hathaway and Berton Gerber, who ran some of the most successful CIA spying operations from Moscow Station in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

And Murat Natirboff, another legendary Russian hand who led the Moscow Station during the Nicholas Daniloff affairs in the 1980s. Natirboff is instructional in this regard. His father was an officer in the Russian White Army which fought the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War. Natirboff hated the communists. But he loved Russia. He was held in very high regard by the Soviet officers of the KGB which faced off against him during his tour in Moscow.

I can personally attest to Murat’s feelings toward Russia – I met him after he left Moscow in 1988, where we spoke about my experiences in Votkinsk as an INF Treaty weapons inspector.

The CIA no longer employs people of this caliber in its operational work regarding Russia. Gone are the days of the Russian romantics – people who took the time to learn about their enemies to bring to life Sun Tzu’s classic observation: “If you know your enemy as yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.”

The present-day Directorate of Operations is overrun with paramilitary operatives, men (and women) who cut their teeth during the heyday of the post-9/11 ‘Global War on Terror’, where they oversaw secret wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran.

They take their cue from veterans like Tom Sylvester, a former Navy SEAL who worked in the CIA’s Special Activities Branch as a Ground Branch operative. Tom headed the CIA’s efforts in Ukraine post-2022, when the Special Military Operation began. His job was literally to kill Russians.

People like ‘Santa Claus’, the nickname of the CIA’s Kiev Station Chief who sent Ground Branch to Ukraine post-2014 to train the Ukrainian intelligence special operations forces on how best to kill Russians.

Veterans of the CIA’s drone assassination programs now advise the Ukrainian drone operators on how to kill Russians and destroy Russian infrastructure.

In December 2025, the CIA helped direct Ukrainian drones toward a residence in Valdai where Putin was staying.

Yes – John Ratcliffe’s CIA tried to kill the Russian president. The CIA denies Putin was the target, but the data from the guidance chips extracted from Ukrainian drone debris appears to suggest otherwise.

Today, the CIA is knee-deep in the business of killing Russians. They continue to guide Ukraine’s expanded drone warfare campaign targeting Russia. And Russians.

This is John Ratcliffe. This is the organization he leads. So, when people reflect on the recent visit by Ratcliffe to Russia, never lose sight of his primary mission.

—

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, served in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991 to 1998 served as a chief weapons inspector with the UN in Iraq. Mr Ritter currently writes on issues pertaining to international security, military affairs, Russia, and the Middle East, as well as arms control and nonproliferation. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter and on Telegram @ScottRitter

https://www.rt.com/news/644973-cia-never-comes-in-peace/

Wikileaks: Nemtsov advises American Embassy, Russia needs a crisis to topple Putin

Posted by

0

Posted on Fort Russ

<iframe width=”459″ height=”344″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_5g1RrDJI0&#8243; frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

March 4, 2015
Alexey Pushkov

Translated by Kristina Rus
Originally recorded in 2010-2011
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” has published Wikileaks cables regarding the meetings of Russian human rights defenders and representatives of the right opposition with the representatives of the American administration.
These meetings took place at the American Embassy in Moscow.
The cables give a lot of food for thought, and we would like to share some of it with you.
One of the cables talks about a meeting which took place on January 14, 2010 at the American Embassy in Moscow between Obama’s representative in Russia Michael McFaul and Russian human rights defenders.
This was not the first such meeting with the leadership of American administration.
Such meetings occurred earlier, for example, with Hillary Clinton where the human rights defenders expectedly complained about human rights abuses and characteristically insisted on the hardening of American policy towards Russian leadership.
In another cable as of January 19, 2010, under the code name “Moscow 000305”, the American ambassador, John Byerle [2008-2012],  informs the State Department about a meeting of the same McFaul with the leaders of the right opposition: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Milov, Vladimir Ryzhkov and also a representative of the party “The Right Deed” Georgy Goft.
What was the topic of this discussion?
They discussed conditions which would ensure the departure of Vladimir Putin. 
The American ambassador wrote about the position of the Russian right:
“The Russian right opposition agreed that the goal of the opposition during the next two years, should be the work to prevent the return of Vladimir Putin to the post of the president. But according to their opinion only an emergency situation would bring about his demise.”
According to McFaul, there is no other way, because most of the civil society in Russia “is still asleep”, and most of citizens of the country are content with current situation.
Let’s make some conclusions.
The conclusion number one: the leaders of the radical right opposition  are discussing a change of Russian government with American representatives, which is scandalous in itself and causes a lot of questions. We could have guessed about it, but now it received a documentary evidence.
Conclusion number two: in order to achieve their goals, the radical right opposition needs an emergency situation in the country.
So while our country and our people have not yet recovered from a constant “emergency situation in 1990’s”, when the right and Boris Yeltsin were in power, as the opposition wants to plunge the country into another emergency situation.
At his time, Boris Nemtsov putting dressed in an orange tie supported Yushenko and Timoshenko in Kiev, and declared that he was envious of the Ukrainian people: “Thanks to the Orange Maidan they will have democracy and happiness all around. Only if we could have the same!” – dreamed Nemtsov, holding his breath.
The results of the Orange democracy are well known – almost five years of emergency situation in Ukraine, economic collapse, a sudden drop of standard of living.
Now Nemtsov wants the same for Russia in order to return to power.
In the face of McFaul, the Russian Right found a faithful listener.
“Deputinization must come from Russia itself” – told them Michael McFaul. [so now we know the purpose of his appointment for ambassador to Russia in 2012 – KR]
Although the American president does not openly support the civil society in Russia [he did support it, but not OPENLY], as the members of opposition would like to, he completely supports democratic reforms.
This looks like a direct coordination of the line of our opposition and American administration.
The representative of US president practically tells the right: you start first, and we will support you.
What can you say, this is the style of our right – to appeal to the US with the hope that the almighty America will either help them keep the power or bring them to power.
Lets remember who was the main outside support of the government of Boris Yeltsin and his “reformers” – of course, America. The same goes for other opposition members, such as Casparov and Kasyanov, who keep on shouting to the United States “Help, help!”
And of course the fact of such meetings and discussions at the American Embassy in Moscow speaks for itself.
“Komsomolskaya Pravda” rightfully notes:
“It is hard to imagine that the representatives of Democrats or Republicans would run to the Russian Embassy in Washington DC and tearfully beg; “Please be harder on our government” and without blinking formulate the task: “In order to come to power we need a collapse!”
American politicians don’t do that as they consider themselves first of all a part of their country. But our right as evident during the Yeltsyn times, when they were in power, constantly and enthusiastically relied on the outside forces in order to subject their country to foreign models and foreign interests.
The citizens of Russia have realized this quickly and refused to support them, because even without the Wikileaks they understand very well, that the radical right in Russia is not so much Russian as it is American.
And this speaks for itself.
Kristina Rus:
 
Although the Russian opposition has christened itself as “The Union of the Right Forces”, it is still commonly known as “the liberals” – this is characteristic of the Russian political spectrum.
 
It is easy to judge about a utility of any politician by the reaction to his death in the Western press and the State Department, from which it gets it’s daily instructions. 
 
If they declare him a great loss to his country, you can bet he is a great loss to the State Department. 
 
However, it is unclear if the State Department understood that Nemtsov was unelectable, as he had admitted in his wiretaps: “I am from the nineties – it’s like a sentence”, when Nemtsov was #3 in the Yelsyn governmnet as a Vice Prime Minister. It is quite possible that Nemtsov realized that he could make more money working for the US interests, then in Russian politics, and he has a 90 million ruble apartment near the Kremlin to show for it. 
 
Nemtsov’s unelectablility is another argument for the theory of a “sacrificial lamb”, as Nemtsov was the most likely figure for such sacrifice, as he had no chances to become a Russian president with his shady past from the nineties and a rating of 2-4%. 
 
Ironically he himself was the mastermind of the idea that “only an emergency situation” can shake up Russian politics, and his murder falls into that category. 
 
That he was active in the opposition for a decade without any political chances may also speak for the fact that it simply became a lucrative business. His friend Irina Khakamada, said that Nemtsov lived of the money of the sponsors, which was plentiful. He also admitted in his wiretaps, that money was not an issue. Offering to fly another activist for an urgent meeting in a helicopter was not unusual, as was his high roller lifestyle and patronage of elite escort services.
 
Nemtsov made an excellent agent of the State Departmet, as he was brilliant (becoming a governor of Nizhny Novgorod at 32 years old) and was not burdened with too many moral principles.
 
Nemtsov’s eloquence and charisma made it easy for him to persuade people, and only his actions (such as marching with  Ukrainian nationalists in Odessa after Odessa massacre and a complete disregard for the human rights of fellow Russians in Eastern Ukraine – he preferred to be obsessed about counting how many times Putin changed his watches) would revel his true intentions to the outside observer.