A new question has emerged in Washington over the negotiations aimed at ending the Russia-Ukraine war. According to people familiar with U.S. consultations with European partners, CIA Director John Ratcliffe is preparing to play a more prominent role in contacts with Moscow and Kyiv.
The report surfaced shortly after another diplomatic mission by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who visited Moscow and Kyiv. Their trip revived negotiations after a prolonged pause, but produced no public breakthrough on ending the war or arranging a trilateral meeting between the leaders.
According to the published account, U.S. officials told European counterparts that Ratcliffe could assume a larger role. Washington is also said to be considering reduced involvement for Witkoff and Kushner. The White House has announced no formal decision to restructure its negotiating team.
Daycom’s preliminary analysis of open and verified material indicates that the central feature of the story is the gap between unofficial signals and Washington’s public position. This is not a confirmed appointment of Ratcliffe as a new chief negotiator, but a possible shift in the internal balance of roles.
The CIA responded categorically. Agency spokesperson Liz Lyons called the report that Ratcliffe was preparing for a larger negotiating role false. That denial sharply limits any claim that Washington has already changed its diplomatic architecture, even if internal discussions over responsibilities are taking place.
Ratcliffe’s name, however, did not appear in the diplomatic context without precedent. On August 25, the CIA director made a previously unannounced trip to Moscow, where he met senior Russian intelligence officials. The Kremlin confirmed the contacts but said he did not meet Vladimir Putin.
Donald Trump described the CIA director’s trip at the time as “semi-routine,” while also linking it directly to broader efforts to end the war. The U.S. president suggested such contacts might produce results, although Washington disclosed neither a full agenda nor detailed conclusions from the Moscow meetings.
According to people familiar with that mission, Ratcliffe raised the possibility of a trilateral meeting involving Trump, Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He also explored whether intelligence-to-intelligence contacts could help move Moscow toward more substantive diplomatic engagement with Washington and Kyiv.
For a CIA director, that represented a noticeable expansion beyond the usual public image of an intelligence chief. His formal responsibilities remain intelligence collection and analysis, counterintelligence and covert operations. At the same time, the agency’s director maintains direct relationships with foreign intelligence services.
That network helps explain why Ratcliffe could be useful in talks with Russia. Intelligence channels can carry messages outside formal diplomacy, test another side’s intentions and address subjects that may be too sensitive for immediate discussion at the political level or through conventional diplomatic institutions.
Such a mechanism is particularly relevant to Ukraine negotiations because distrust between the parties remains profound. Washington must not only transmit proposals to Moscow and Kyiv, but assess whether their stated positions reflect actual intentions and whether Russia is prepared to move toward any meaningful compromise.
An intelligence channel, however, cannot automatically replace political negotiators. Decisions on territory, ceasefire terms, security guarantees, sanctions or future U.S.-Russia relations require a direct political mandate. A CIA director can supplement diplomacy in that system, but cannot simply substitute for it.
Only days earlier, Witkoff and Kushner spent more than three hours in talks with Putin at the Kremlin before traveling to Kyiv. Zelenskyy described the restoration of the negotiating process as important and thanked the American side for trying to revive diplomacy after months of stagnation.
In Kyiv, the U.S. representatives discussed a possible trilateral format, security guarantees, territorial questions and conditions on the battlefield. No agreement that would bring an end to hostilities was publicly announced. After their departure, Russia resumed large-scale attacks on the Ukrainian capital.
The lack of a breakthrough may have strengthened debate in Washington over what the next negotiating model should look like. Yet one inconclusive diplomatic mission does not amount to the removal of its participants. The White House continues to show confidence in Witkoff and Kushner, with no announcement that Ratcliffe is replacing them.
There is another reason why changing personnel may not solve the core problem. Russian and Ukrainian positions remain fundamentally divided over territory, security guarantees and the conditions for ending the war. A new negotiator may alter the channel of communication, but cannot by himself remove those disagreements.
Moscow continues to advance demands Kyiv considers unacceptable, including claims concerning Ukrainian-held parts of Donetsk region. Ukraine insists that any agreement must include credible security guarantees and must not become a temporary pause that Russia could use to prepare for another offensive.
The timing is also significant. September contacts by Witkoff and Kushner formally revived the process, but have yet to produce a leaders’ meeting. On September 10, Zelenskyy said he did not expect trilateral negotiations before Russia’s parliamentary elections scheduled for September 20.
For Ratcliffe, a larger role would mean moving from a predominantly intelligence mission into far more visible political mediation. He already has direct channels to Russian intelligence agencies and access to highly sensitive U.S. assessments of the war, but a diplomatic mandate carries a different kind of authority and responsibility.
For now, the episode suggests Washington is exploring additional channels rather than completing a reshuffle. Ratcliffe has already become part of the broader Russia-Ukraine diplomatic effort, but the scale of that role remains unsettled. With the CIA denying an expansion, Witkoff and Kushner remain at the center of U.S. negotiations.
