https://no01.substack.com/p/from-moscow-with-love
Aug 28

Yesterday, I was cooking when she barged in. Who you ask? Well… Glad you asked… Sam… The Source Of Unrelenting Truth And Endless Content.

This time she read something about Putin wanting to nuke Ukraine. Guess a Hazelnut ain’t enough anymore and they want to test the good ol’ nuke-em?

So, how did it go down apparently (honest to God: from Sam’s mouth to your ears)?

“He went there to talk Putin down.” “Russia’s collapsing and he’s going to nuke Europe on the way out. That’s why the CIA guy flew there. And look — FIVE DOOMSDAY PLANES up at once.”

I saw the latter too, not the former until I went looking. After dinner. Not going to spoil perfectly good food for another wild goose chase!



Let’s first side-step with a little history and what I pieced together so far.

The last time a sitting CIA director flew to Moscow was November 2021. Three months before Russia invaded Ukraine. William Burns warned against exactly that. But as they say: the rest is history.

Which I tried to capture here (be sure to read the comments, they’re even more important than the text):
How the Ukraine conflict really started

How the Ukraine conflict really started
No1

·

November 30, 2025
Read full story

Apparently the US also asked Kiev to stop terrorizing Moscow for a bit so they could at least land a plane there.


source

And even then, John Ratcliffe had to fly to Riga, wait to be allowed to enter, and only then continued.

I don’t mean to say that Russia wants to invade somewhere else too. I’ve seen relatively little chatter surrounding that venue. Because no matter how you see Russia, you have to recognise that they warn in legal terms very far ahead of any action. It took them at least 10 years to go from warnings to invasion.

The only thing I want to say is that this particular channel is not used very often, and only when something structural is about to change. Something when this change is too large or cannot be conducted by diplomats as it would be too consequential. Realpolitik and all.

John didn’t see Mr Putin, but that’s probably for “plausible deniability”. Contrary to what Sam believes, Putin does NOT decide everything in Russia. Much like in any other country in the world, the crooks and the admin do.

How did she put it again? “Putin doesn’t know he’s losing so bad because his inner circle shield him from that”.

So the head of the CIA flies all the way to Moscow in what I feel is kind of rushed, all to NOT talk to Putin, but to talk to his “inner circle” to tell them to warn Putin not to do what the CIA thinks he wants to do?

I guess I’m living in another dimension because that simply don’t make no sense at all…

Either way, Burns delivered a stern warning in 2021. Remember that at the time everyone still thought the US (and NATO) were THE most powerful country/alliances on Earth.

Well, guess a lot changed in 5 years.

So what happened? Something about flies and walls, but my theory is one I didn’t see out there yet on the interwebs, but I’ll get to that.

So Ratcliffe went there for a short (8 hours) meeting. Seems there was another plane denied to proceed, so another senior official? And only John got through on merits?



Same day, and I’m sure this is just a coinkidink: an American offer was delivered to Tehran through Pakistani intermediaries. Take that with a huge truckload of salt as we’ve seen these a lot, mostly around very profitable placements in the oil markets.

Either way, that wasn’t a re-re-re-reviving of the thoroughly crushed MoU of a few months ago. No, it was an offer Iran can’t refuse (how did that go last time?): reopen the Strait and standing down your proxies, and the US will lift the blockade and the sanctions.

Again a little sidestep, and I’ve no idea how to format this thing because it’s a genuine web of intersecting threads that might or might not be true:

I’ve read somewhere that Israel is playing for time because they’re playing tunneler to reach Hezbollah’s positions. Kind of like they’re getting their asses whooped again by an inferior home-grown ragtag band of miscreants. And they need the time to be able to deliver “one final blow” and then they can go home and declare victory.

Wonder how that will turn out…

Iran mentioned something that sounded like: “don’t touch Lebanon or Yemen. or else”. Plus, they’re living already decades under sanctions, so what would they care about something that the US can reverse in a year or so?

This also segues into the -empty- threats of Bessent a week or so ago about “most crushing sanctions ever seen”. [Russia has like three times as much sanctions on it as the next 10 countries combined, but who’s counting? Who’s even ABLE to count in the admin these days?]

And yes, I digress again, but as I said: web & threads…

“Iran exported roughly 70-80 million barrels of oil during the ceasefire and is now selling oil at the same daily volume as before the blockade.”
— General Mohsen Rezaei

The Iranians have been pretty consistent with their demands to stop the war: money back, blockade lifted, US gone from the region, reparations, Iran keeps control of the Strait, no targeting their proxies.

Doesn’t sound like a wishlist, more like a todolist.

I keep comparing this to a parent and a kid. The kid keeps whining and changing its mind, the parent is steadfast and getting slightly annoyed. Although in this case the “kid” has nukes. So there’s that.



Anyway, where were we.

Ok, so let’s start with the nuclear doomsday planes first as that’s the easiest to debunk:

Image

source

E-6B Mercury aircraft. Navy. Not the E-4B Nightwatch that everyone means when they say “doomsday plane”. Easy to get wrong if you can’t count, but I digress again.

Different job altogether too (E6B = mainly communication hub, E4B = Air Force = command center). The Navy operates sixteen E-6Bs and runs them on continuous alert rotations plus training. Plus, to be seen on flight trackers, you need to have your transponders on. Not exactly “top secret” if you’re flying open. Still doesn’t say anything about what they did of course. But you cannot judge a change in nuclear alert posture by reading publicly available information from flight trackers.

My take? An interesting datapoint, but largely unrelated in my opinion.



Now over the years, Sam has been drinking way too much KoolAid and is strongly believing that Russia will be collapsing any day now. It’s running out of everything! Highest corruption! Gas lines as far as the eye could see! Mr Putin in shambles and hanging on by his teeth through - I don’t know what do dictators do when they’re on the ropes? - through mysteriously disappearing the ones he doesn’t like. Which by any account is anyone close to him I guess. Barring the fact I haven’t seen anyone being disappeared. At the start of the SMO a few strange resignations were there, but I start to digress again.

Either way, no missiles, no gas, no tanks, no food, no drones - reality be damned. Only propaganda to make Putin hang onto power!

Doesn’t matter that even Ukraine admits that they don’t have any AD missiles left (The US needed it to defend their homeland in the Middle East). Doesn’t matter that Kiev is getting pummeled nearly daily by drones and missiles. Doesn’t matter that even Ukraine’s top command tells the world that tank and APC numbers doubled, artillery tripled and that factories are running 24/7 churning out ordnance.

On the homefront, gas is sometimes an issue as Ukraine has been hitting refineries. So much so that “Putin” (there’s that guy again) ordered diesel exports to be stopped. I guess Sam has a point, does she?

But “collapse” might not be an accurate word for it.



So to recap: Putin is shielded from the Truth by his coterie about the collapsing army in Ukr. So he believes he’s winning. Winning so much that he wants to nuke Ukraine? Thus the head of the CIA went to talk to said clique to talk to Putin to stop him from winning so much in order not to nuke Ukraine?

I hope I did get that right?

I know there was one country that did something like that not too long ago. At the end of that war - when Japan nearly surrendered - they wanted to test what a nuke does and dropped two. Something about kicking someone when they’re down.

So in a sense it makes sense. I guess…

But dropping a nuke would unite every (neutral) country on Earth against him? In my opinion, you’re only using a nuclear weapon when you’re out of options. Or for funz apparently.

And even setting aside the strategy: they don’t need to. Oreshnik gives them the same spectacle, minus the fallout. Why would you take a radioactive version when the clean thing doesn’t destroy the moral background you’ve built the past 3-4 years?



All of which is a long winded way to get to this point: WHY did John Ratcliffe go then? WHAT was so urgent and so high level that only he could deliver it? That not even the real estators were deemed worthy to handle it?

That’s the question Sam didn’t ask. Which is a pity, but not entirely unsurprising.

So let me offer my hypothesis… Actually, let me offer you two of them.

Ratcliffe went to Moscow to propose a swap: Washington stops propping up Ukraine, and Moscow stops propping up Iran.

That’s it.

That’s my whole idea.

No source has reported this. I have no anonymous sources whatsoever. I am NOT a fly. I have no inside information.

All I do is read the tealeaves, use some common sense (which should be labeled UNcommon sense, but that’s a topic for another day) and put my ideas out there.

This is basically inference from flight data, timing, and who did what over the past decade.

The next few weeks will tell what really transpired.



Why now? Why this trade?

Consider what each side actually holds.

The US holds Ukraine’s targeting picture. This ain’t speculation either. It’s a well known secret that NATO is strongly involved in the war. Contrasted with that Russia gives Iran access to their satellites. Or it’s China that does. Or both. Both proxy wars, both adversaries have extensive intelligence and satellite image sharing with the proxies.

That’s one reason why Iran is whooping the US’s ass in the Gulf. And that’s similarly the reason why Ukraine is STILL not defeated after 4 years.

Neither NATO nor Russia has any formal defence pact with its respective proxy.

Russia has a “strategic partnership” with Iran. Which means: help as much as they can, but without spending money, troops or equipment.

That’s something you can wrap up in an afternoon. Which makes it tradeable.

And America holds Ukraine. Washington can similarly stop the flow of intelligence, the targeting, and the money. It doesn’t have to sign anything or announce anything. It can just… stop.

Both are the domain of the intelligence services. Which is kind of on-point for the CIA to have a talk to their counterparts.

Switch off by Tuesday.



I did not answer “why now” yet:

Midterms are fast approaching. Trump needs a “win”. Or something that looks like it. And the optics aren’t great:

A few billions in destroyed bases and irreplaceable radars that blinds the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” more than anything.

On the other hand, Ukraine has lost. It has already lost about 2 years ago. Actually no, it lost in five weeks when they wanted to sign the memorandum but the City talked them back and the war began. After that, it has been kept running by money and hardware injections from the west. But now they’re really really losing. Pinky promise for real this time!

Consider that Odessa is completely blocked so Ukraine can’t export any of its grain, or steel. 2 major export products. Consider that Russia has been targeting (a while ago) the locomotives that could pull the trains to export this produce. Consider that Russia has been targeting gas stations [not talking about these, but I digress again]. Consider that Russia has been pummeling Kiev lately. Consider that we’re seeing tons of “volunteers being bussed” in Ukraine, but not in Russia (where they sign up of their own free will - clearly a sign they’re completely and thoroughly brainwashed!).

So Ukraine is losing, and Trump wants to get rid of that stain and pass it on to the next fall guy, which probably will be his muppets in the EU.

And there’s nothing Trump can do in Ukraine because Russia has serious security considerations there.

So that’s an easy: let it go. Declare “job done” and move on.

But Trump needs the Strait open, and oil flowing. Otherwise the whole world’s economy comes tumbling down. And it’ll be ALL his fault (or so everyone will think - which is kind of true, but also beside the point).

So, because Russia is losing so badly in Ukraine, and the US is the greatest army in the world (just don’t look at interceptor shortages): why not remove your respective support and let the chips fall where they may?



One other (even further out there) theory: it’s about Finland.

Remember that in WW2 Finland sided with Germany in attacking the Soviet Union to reclaim lost territories from a few years before that. Then they switched and attacked Germany when it was clear the latter was losing.

So saying that there’s no love lost between Russians and Finns is kicking in an open door.

In 2023, Finland was allowed to join NATO with some complaints from Russia, but without any war.

To get back to Ukraine, the stated reason was that Ukr would have let the US/NATO store nuclear weapons on its territory, creating a security nightmare for Russia.

So, because Ukraine’s example seems not very easy to understand, Finland signed into law (July 1, 2026) the permission to import, transit, supply and store nuclear weapons. This law cancelled the blanket ban on nukes that was in force since 1987. Helsinki says there are no plans to host anything - pinky promise. But why not keep the old law in force then?

Maybe - and this is pure speculation - it was about Finland?




source

Polymarket odds put peace talks by EOY at 57% after Ratcliffe’s visit. Before his visit, it was 46%. Draw your own conclusion about “wisdom of the crowds”.



I tried to talk to Sam… She’s nice after all. Even if slightly infuriating how wrong she is.

But I’m the one propagandised by Putin’s ever-relentless social media army… Can’t it simply be that I have no stake whatsoever in the matter but just use my logic, my common sense and put more weight behind the words of someone who does not outright lie to me all the time?

Either way, I told her a (very short - within 255 chars else she won’t listen) version of this. All she heard was “Iran”. So suddenly she said that she told me this all along - nope she didn’t - and went straight back to her nukes.

There’s no point arguing with someone who’s already won… And I don’t know why I sometimes bother. Neither do I understand why she can accept nuclear annihilation instead of a much more down-to-earth explanation. Probably it’s not sparkly enough?

Either way, we’ll know soon enough.