Or they concluded Bortnikov has more influence with Putin than the fuckwit Kirill Dmitriev, with whom Witkoff has been dealing with for nearly two years. Or they just needed a boilerplate line to justify Ratcliffe’s trip.

Or they concluded Bortnikov has more influence with Putin than the fuckwit Kirill Dmitriev, with whom Witkoff has been dealing with for nearly two years. Or they just needed a boilerplate line to justify Ratcliffe’s trip.Marc Polymeropoulos (@Mpolymer)I’ve no problem at all with the intel diplomacy, but a key line from  @BarakRavid story definitely caught my eye… As a line of thinking from Ratcliffe is rather curious/ interesting:  “The sources told Axios that Ratcliffe concluded that Bortnikov is a constructive player who could help restart diplomatic efforts.”  So Bortnikov and constructive don’t necessarily go hand in hand, off top of my head. Because after all-the FSB had responsibility for intel collection/OPE/active measures in prep for the Ukraine war, and failed rather spectacularly.  So this can’t mean that Ratcliffe believes Bortnikov is a moderate.  Maybe however he’s more influential with Putin (better routine access than SVR boss Naryshkin?), and because of Bortnikov’s internal security FSB duties, has a closer appreciation for the dire economic situation inside Russia? Regardless, very unlikely this will work.  Re my above ruminations, appreciate comments on Bortnikov and his “constructive nature” from those actual Russia experts far more steeped in the intracacies of Russian intelligence (media/academics/former USG officials, anyone hav at it, I’m quite curious).—  https://x.com/Mpolymer/status/2093961321985306885