Retklyff's Meeting in Moscow Is Bad for Us

I think Retcliffe had his own clear tasks and messages, and above all – a warning. Surely they talked about Europe: many Americans understand that all these Russian "feints" with drones that rise from the "gray" tankers, and threats to critical infrastructure – this is what affects the entire West. Although today’s American administration does not hold a particularly respectful view toward a significant part of Europe, it still remains a Western reality connected with the United States. Such visits do not come from nowhere: Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said they knew about the preparation of this visit and expect certain information after such meetings.

Many say that Putin could have been warned about possible provocations by Russia against NATO countries. This should be a topic, because many European countries are concerned – you even saw public assessments by the U.S. intelligence community that Russia may raise the stakes. In 2021, under a different administration, the Americans also came out with certain assessments and warnings.

Will Putin heed these warnings? I think partially. The very presence of Retcliffe – that is already raising the stakes by Americans: one thing when Vitekov and Kushner travel to the Kremlin, quite another when the CIA director visits. He has his own understanding of threats, a huge amount of information pours in to him, and from what my friends tell me, he is a very strong analyst – different in experience from Bill Burns, but no less capable. Trump, in some critical cases, listened very carefully to him and, as far as I know, acted on what he said. The question is – how attentive will Putin be?

I think in today’s situation, when his economy is sagging, he does not want or will not stop the fighting, because for him it’s a historical question, a matter of the security of his regime and of how Russia should look after the stakes have been raised. In other words, he sees the stakes as highest possible, but he will listen to Americans, because he understands perfectly: the only ones who can act decisively in this world are the Americans.

Would he want to strike a deal with the Americans through our head? I think not – there is no room for that right now. But he will listen, because as a KGB man he knows: intelligence services generally don’t joke.

What does this mean for Ukraine? I don’t think this meeting is bad for us – that’s my intuition. It’s unlikely the Americans will push some specific variant just for us, because they see the world differently: we matter to them not by themselves, but as an asset through which they can influence Russia, and thus indirectly China, through which they can influence Europe, spin the development of technologies, accumulate data for decision-making platforms based on artificial intelligence. It’s not very pleasant to be an asset, but better to be an asset than nothing. There will be no soft, comfortable reality for us. The most important thing for us is to become, in security terms, part of the West, and without Americans this won’t work.

And for the Americans we must represent added value – this sounds cynical, but that is why they will invest in us: not only with money, but with possible escalation, intelligence, facilitation, helping Europeans whom we critically depend on financially and will depend on for many years. People who work on strategy in the American administration always think in terms of influence, levers, strategy – and if they see us as an asset in their strategies, that’s already good.