Deep State: Maximum Pressure on Russia as Ukraine Crumbles

Central Investigation Question

Why do the hosts read CIA Director Ratcliffe's Moscow trip as a desperate, failed bid to stop the Russians as Ukraine crumbles — and what do they expect to follow?

The Trip Nobody Believes Was Routine

CIA Director Ratcliffe's surprise flight to Moscow aboard a massive C-17 Globemaster from Latvia has produced a fog of confident accounts. Politico cites officials familiar with the situation, while the Wall Street Journal cites its own people familiar with the matter — who say otherwise. Trump's version, given in an interview with Glenn Beck: it was almost routine. Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris spend the episode cutting through the rumors, and their starting point is that almost nothing about this trip fits the word routine.

The official version, Mercouris notes, comes from both the American and the Russian government: a nothing-special meeting with Naryshkin and other heads of Russian special services, a "very useful" discussion of all sorts of issues, followed — obviously — by a briefing with Trump himself, H.R. McMaster and a whole bunch of other people. If you believe this official version, he says, then he has a bridge to sell you: this is not a routine visit. His counter-reading starts with who Ratcliffe is: one of the most powerful people in the Trump administration, a very tough figure whose authority has grown since he removed Tulsi Gabbard from the scene — and who, frankly, is running the war in Ukraine on behalf of the United States. And the war he is running is, on this account, largely the agency's own: they are the ones who provide intelligence to the Ukrainians, supply unmanned technologies to Ukraine, and direct drones at targets inside Russia.

Trump, after all, has used him for exactly this before: it was Ratcliffe who traveled to Cuba a few weeks ago, met its leadership, and tried to force the Cubans to surrender. And if the mission were merely intelligence-channel business, quieter venues existed — Dubai, Qatar, or Turkey, where William Burns met Naryshkin in the fall of 2022: again trying to force the Russians to surrender after Ukraine's offensive in the Kherson and Kharkiv regions. Going to Moscow, in the hosts' reading, meant going for the top: Ratcliffe wanted to meet with the top Russian government — definitely Lavrov, and definitely Putin.

The Collapsing Front That Sent Him

The first of the two reasons for the trip, in Mercouris's reconstruction, is that the war is going very badly for Ukraine. The Ukrainian army is being pushed back along the entire front line; the Russians are creating a very powerful bridgehead in northeastern Ukraine; Orekhov in Zaporizhzhia Oblast will soon fall, and Zaporizhzhia itself will be next. The fortress line the Ukrainians spent years building with American assistance is giving way: the belt of fortresses — the line of cities built for so long in Donbas with American assistance — is collapsing. Ukraine, on his reading, is destroying itself. The economic picture is its own collapse: the ports are destroyed, the Black Sea is blocked, the Russians are constantly striking at Kyiv — they did it again the night before this video was recorded — and there are not enough missiles for air defense. And the signature operation of the war's CIA chapter has failed: the drone offensive that the CIA, Zelensky, and Fedorov jointly prepared has largely failed — in his opinion, a complete failure, at huge cost.

Threats, Bribes and a Rejected Offer

So Ratcliffe went to Moscow to talk to Lavrov and Putin, to try to convince the Russians to stop — carrying, as Mercouris puts it, the usual mix that Americans bring to such matters: threats of escalation, certainly; proposals that may not concern Ukraine; offers of financial and economic benefits; easing of sanctions, that sort of thing. Plus the proposal on Ukraine itself from the previous episode: a buffer zone in Donbas with a free economic zone — reported just before the trip to be presented to the Russians on the very Tuesday Ratcliffe was in Moscow, delivered personally to Lavrov. The usual envoys had been left standing: Witkoff and Kushner were relegated to the background — the Russians don't want to see these people, and they are not taken seriously. And the visit ended with everything carried home: he left with all the threats, he left with all the bribes, and key figures in Moscow refused to meet with him.

The point of the whole campaign, Mercouris argues, is not to stop a Russian attack on Europe but to keep the Russians tied down: not to force the Russians to stop some aggressive attack on Europe — this is to force the Russians to stay in Ukraine. It is one coordinated operation — Keith Kellogg was also in Kyiv, part of the same orchestra, and Mike Pence and the rest are all there, all trying to keep Ukraine in the battle and force the Russians to stop — and it has already met its answer: the top Russians, Lavrov and Putin, refused to meet with Ratcliffe and did not accept his offer. The Russians know they are winning, and they are not going to stop.

The Warning Story Is the Threat

Around the trip, a wave of European warnings. Macron claims that Russia is going to take some step against Europe, against Great Britain. Politico, citing sources familiar with the situation, claims that Ratcliffe arrived to warn Putin not to take steps against the Baltic countries — the verified Politico report of August 26, 2026, headlined "CIA chief used Moscow visit to warn Russia against attacks," reports exactly that warning trip on the basis of officials familiar with the situation. Christoforou's fear is that the next step could be manufactured: more false-flag operations — provocations that can be directed against Europe to support the narrative about Russia — a Russia waging some kind of operation, attack, or "hybrid attack," whatever that means.

Mercouris's inversion is the sharpest move of the episode: the warning stories are themselves the threat. It's not the Russians who are going to march on Vilnius or Paris. It is the Americans who are now threatening the Russians. The message he reconstructs: if you don't stop, we'll find ways to get you into trouble in Europe — and we will spread even more stories about you allegedly threatening Europe, which will give us a reason to threaten you. The moment is dangerous precisely because Ukraine is losing quickly: a moment of great tension and great danger, in which the losers retreat, become desperate, and go to any lengths. Hence the barrage that accompanies the trip: someone from the Vatican sent to Moscow as well, since the Europeans can't go , the drone found at a German airport — and, even in the Italian media, the La Repubblica story: Macron and Meloni have allegedly agreed to send SAMP/T missile systems to Ukraine — a plan Mercouris has no doubt exists. The verified La Repubblica report of August 26, 2026, by Tommaso Ciriaco and Gianluca Di Feo, is headlined "Batterie contraeree e radar, così il governo in segreto manda armamenti a Kiev" — anti-aircraft batteries and radar, with which the government secretly sends armaments to Kyiv. His caveat lands on the timeline: most of these systems don't exist yet, so they won't be in Ukraine for years to come — exactly what La Repubblica doesn't actually say. The report's standfirst says Rome has announced only the generators, but is ready to send SAMP/T and Aster systems, and will use a decree to avoid splitting the governing majority.

The Most Dangerous Moment

Christoforou's frame: everyone was activated. The deep state activated everyone — Macron, Meloni, Kellogg, Pence, the Vatican. They go to extreme measures, he argues, because of who knows the situation best: the person who knows and understands best how bad Ukraine really is, is the one leading the war — the director of the CIA. That's why he went to Moscow. Not about Iran, Mercouris insists: the Americans have many ways to convey messages about Iran and are in constant dialogue with the Russians about it — this is about Ukraine and the crisis unfolding there. Though some of the offered sweets, he allows, may have been: he wouldn't be surprised if some of the "sweets" Ratcliffe offered were related to Iran — a grand deal mixing threats and bonuses, carrot-and-stick.

His overall judgment is stark: this is the most dangerous moment in the war — going all out now indicates the situation is becoming critical, they will do everything they can to force the Russians to stop, and the Russians show neither interest nor intention of stopping. The mechanics of the danger are psychological: desperate people are afraid, scared people are angry, and decisions made in anger — there will be many over the next few weeks — are extremely dangerous because nobody steps back and thinks things through. Ratcliffe himself is built for exactly this failure mode: a neoconservative to the core — and neoconservatives don't have reverse gear. And Trump is panicking too: he sees that he can lose two wars in one term — the Ukraine war now his responsibility, his "Ukraine project" failing, and Iran still very difficult. It is the position the program warned about in summer 2024, when it advised Trump to distance himself from the mess, and the people who pushed both wars are the same: the people who pushed Trump to attack Iran are the same people who pushed him to continue fighting the Russians in Ukraine — the same neoconservative cohort in Washington. When both end in disaster, the scapegoat is already chosen: it will be Donald Trump — exactly as the program predicted two years ago.

St. Petersburg, the Three-Part Answer, and the Walk-Away

Mid-episode, news breaks: a car carrying a Russian military official was blown up in St. Petersburg. Mercouris expects the tempo to rise from here: the secret war is going to gain momentum. Russia's reaction to the pressure and the killing, he predicts, will have three parts. First, the offensive continues regardless: whoever the murdered person was, they will not deviate from their path. Second, the nuclear reminders are already under way: major naval exercises in the Arctic and the White Sea — steps to remind the world of Russia's nuclear potential, to which this murder may even be related. The Poseidon nuclear torpedo is apparently being put into operation, and a new special class of submarine is being deployed — an extremely powerful weapon, and a reminder of Russia's deterrent potential. Third — sooner or later, a dirty war: the Russians will not just sit back and let their people be killed endlessly. Behind that prediction he places a tense Putin-military meeting: a few months ago, the military demanded more decisive action and criticized the FSB for not protecting the Russian military enough.

The exit, both hosts agree, remains available. Trump could just walk away from all this — tell Ratcliffe to forget about it. The public, Mercouris argues, would not punish him: Ukraine is an obsession of Europe's political class and Washington's neocons, but the vast majority of Americans don't care — they are a little more concerned about Iran and the Persian Gulf. He could leave Ukraine, and it would probably have no significant impact on his popularity at all. What stands in the way is Trump himself: a very insecure person, easily manipulated, who has made mistake after mistake regarding Ukraine and will continue to do so.

Everything in this episode is the hosts' attributed reading of unnamed and cited reporting. Whether the Russians keep saying no, whether the SAMP/T systems ever exist, and whether Trump takes the walk-away are questions the coming weeks will answer.

Interview Highlights5 exchanges

Direct dialogue & timestamps from the recording

QAlex Christoforou
00:05

Why was CIA Director Ratcliffe in Moscow, and what did his trip actually achieve?

AAlexander Mercouris

The official American and Russian version is that the meeting was nothing special: the CIA director took a huge plane to Moscow for a routine, “very useful” meeting with Naryshkin and other intelligence chiefs. If you believe that, says Mercouris, “I have to sell you a bridge.” Ratcliffe is one of the most powerful people in the administration — his authority has grown since Tulsi Gabbard's removal — and he is effectively running the Ukraine war, which is largely a CIA operation. Meetings with Naryshkin could have been arranged elsewhere — Dubai, Qatar, Turkey, as Burns did in 2022 — so Ratcliffe going to Moscow meant he wanted the top leadership: Lavrov and Putin. First, things are going very badly in Ukraine: the army is being pushed back along the entire front, Orekhov will soon fall and Zaporizhzhia is next, the fortress belt in Donbas is collapsing, the economy is in deep crisis, and the CIA–Zelensky–Fedorov drone offensive has failed at huge cost. He came with the usual mix — escalation threats, financial and economic benefits, sanctions relief — plus the buffer-zone proposal for Donbas, Witkoff and Kushner sidelined because the Russians do not take them seriously. The mission failed: he left with all the threats and all the bribes, and key figures in Moscow refused to meet him.

QAlex Christoforou
09:12

What does Mercouris make of the wave of European warnings and false-flag fears about Russia threatening Europe?

AAlexander Mercouris

The warnings are themselves the threat Ratcliffe delivered. The CIA is telling the Russians: continue destroying Ukraine the way you intend, and we will take massive countermeasures — spreading ever more stories about you threatening Europe, giving us a reason to threaten you. It is not the Russians who will march on Vilnius or Paris; it is the Americans threatening the Russians, and the “warning about an attack on Europe” reading is backwards. The moment is dangerous because Ukraine is losing fast and the losers are desperate: hence a Vatican envoy, the drone found at a German airport, and La Repubblica's report that Macron and Meloni have agreed to send SAMP/T systems — a plan he does not doubt, though most of them do not yet exist and would not reach Ukraine for years. The threats are meant not to stop a Russian attack on Europe but to keep the Russians in Ukraine; all of it — Kellogg's Kyiv visit included — is one large-scale, coordinated operation. The Russians answered no: Lavrov and Putin refused to meet Ratcliffe and rejected his offer, because they know they are winning. The trip was not about Iran, but some of the “sweets” may have been — agree on Ukraine, gain something on Iran: a grand deal of threats and bonuses, carrot and stick.

QAlex Christoforou
17:38

Why do the hosts call this the most dangerous moment of the war?

AAlexander Mercouris

Mercouris's reading: the fact that they are going all out now indicates the situation has become critical, and they will now do everything they can to force the Russians to stop — while the Russians show neither interest nor intention of stopping. People who are desperate are people who are afraid, and people who are scared are people who are angry; decisions made in anger — and there will be many over the next few weeks — are extremely dangerous, because nobody steps back and thinks things through. Ratcliffe is, bluntly, a neoconservative to the core, and neoconservatives have no reverse gear. Trump, too, is in a panic — he can lose two wars in a single term: the Ukraine war is now his responsibility, his “Ukraine project” is failing, and Iran remains very difficult. Had he listened to the program in the summer of 2024 — distanced himself, avoided the over-complicated negotiations, not appointed people like Kellogg and Ratcliffe, been realistic with himself and his constituents — he would not be in this position. The same neoconservative cohort in Washington pushed both wars; when both end in disaster, the scapegoat will be Donald Trump, exactly as the program predicted two years ago.