Budanov Confirms Ukraine War Discussed at Ratcliffe's Moscow Meeting

The head of the Ukrainian President's Office, Kyrylo Budanov, commented on the visit to Moscow by US CIA Director John Ratcliffe, which took place on August 25. In a statement to the outlet Novosti.LIVE, cited by RBC-Ukraine, Budanov confirmed that the war in Ukraine became one of the topics raised during the talks, but emphasized that the discussion took place 'in context' and was not the main item on the meeting's agenda.

Call for Restraint

Responding to questions about the purpose of the head of US intelligence's visit to the aggressor state, Budanov urged against drawing premature conclusions and called for waiting for official statements from both sides. 'Let us be restrained in our public statements,' the President's Office head noted, stressing that publicly discussing the details at this stage is inadvisable.

Rescheduled Visit and Agenda

According to Budanov, the visit was initially planned 'somewhere else,' but was rescheduled. He described the main themes of the meeting as 'the relations, so to speak, between the two countries.' This indicates that the agenda had a broad diplomatic character and was not limited exclusively to the military track.

The Russian Side's Position

In Moscow, the fact of the meeting was confirmed. Russian SVR Director Sergey Naryshkin stated that he met with the CIA director and that the parties discussed matters within the competence of intelligence services. Thus, the Russian side limited itself to phrasing about the work of intelligence agencies, without disclosing details of the discussion on the Ukraine direction.

Contradictory Data

There are differences in emphasis between the statements of the two sides. Kyiv, through Budanov, directly confirms that the war in Ukraine was discussed, but 'in context' and not as the main issue, and also points to the rescheduling of the visit from the originally planned location. The Russian side, by contrast, describes the meeting exclusively in terms of intelligence services' competence, neither confirming nor denying the existence of a separate Ukraine track. A discrepancy also exists in the assessment of scale: for Kyiv, it is part of a broader diplomatic agenda; for Moscow, a working contact between intelligence services. Until official positions from both capitals emerge, these versions remain incompatible in detail.

Context and Significance

Budanov's statement came against the backdrop of ongoing discussions around possible formats for resolving the conflict. Earlier, the public sphere featured reports of preparations for trilateral contacts with US participation, as well as statements on tasks to end the conflict. In this situation, the confirmation that the Ukraine issue was raised at the level of intelligence chiefs is seen as an indicator that the diplomatic channel between Washington and Moscow on Ukraine remains active, although it is not the sole subject of bilateral contacts.