The mysterious CIA trip to Moscow

This week a most curious story broke. Head of the Central Intelligence Agency John Ratcliffe appeared in Moscow on a military transport. Everything was very mysterious and unsettled. What was the American spy chief doing in the adversary's capital? Had he been sent on a mission by his capo di tutti capi to trade Ukraine for Iran? 

Well, the reporting which came out last night is even more unexpected. On an examination, I saw it reported only in The Times of London and the Wall Street Journal. From the Times:

The head of the CIA made a surprise visit to Moscow on Tuesday to warn the Kremlin against attacking Nato, according to a report.

John Ratcliffe’s in-person meeting with Russian officials followed US intelligence indicating that President Putin may try to test Nato with a small-scale incursion — outlined as a worst-case scenario in a recent assessment — the Wall Street Journal reported.

We all know that Donald Trump doesn't give two farthings about Europe or NATO. He hates Europeans the same way he hates most of the people he was foolishly elected to govern. So why this demarche to the Russians?

This is what Americans and Europeans fear was a possibility:

The possible scenarios laid out by the US intelligence assessment earlier this year were reported to range from a Russian cyberattack to an incursion, involving the deployment of unmarked armed groups to occupy territory on the alliance’s eastern flank.

Concerns about a possible escalation are believed to be compounded by the depletion of munitions held by alliance members, which will be critical in any future confrontation with Moscow. Stockpiles have been severely affected by the transfer of weapons to Ukraine and the conflict in Iran.

Of course, Trump, ever Vladimir Putin's gimp, had this to say:

Trump sought to downplay Ratcliffe’s visit on Wednesday, calling it “semi-routine”. Asked by the conservative radio host Glenn Beck if it was to do with a potential attack on Nato, or an attempt to ensure Moscow cooperates with the US over Iranian sanctions, the president said: “None of the above.”

Trump can downplay it all he wants. The fact is that a CIA head does not fly into hostile territory for a round of vodka and water. He was there to deliver a message. And from the sources, the message was to tell Putin to not think about testing NATO.

Now, this is the question: Was this Trump's message? It would beggar belief to think it was. As I said above, Trump would sit and fiddle while Europe burned. (And while American troops suffered the consequences of his antipathy.) Let's get this out of the way, shall we? Trump is a traitor, not only in the moral sense, but in the Constitutional sense. He is currently selling out all American interests in pursuit of being accepted by the world's dictators. If such a message of deterrence were delivered, I find it hard to believe it would come from him.

I'm old enough to remember "Kremlinology", when Western intelligence agencies and media outlets tried to pierce the opacity of Soviet politics. Now we have the same, but in reverse. Call it "Pennsylvaniology". The fact is that we don't know what is going on in the White House—or what's left of it, as Trump tries to rebuild it into a monument to his own hubris. What factions are fighting it out? Who speaks for the US government? Does anyone? 

As many of us say, it didn't have to be like this. But Kamala Harris was Black and a woman, and such a person could not be allowed to assume power. Instead, it was given, willingly, freely, to a supremely unfit white man. May we survive the gross mistake of our fellow so-called "citizens".

Postscript

Just before I hit "publish", I saw that other news agencies, like the Japan Times, are picking up the story. We are in for an interesting ride.