On August 25, Moscow received not only CIA Director John Ratcliffe but also the head of the Vatican’s diplomatic service, Paul Gallagher. The coincidence is difficult to regard as insignificant.
Moscow Accepts the Vatican’s 'Good Offices'
After meeting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Gallagher said the Vatican was ready to offer any “good offices” in the hope of helping resolve the conflict in Ukraine.
Lavrov had previously described the idea of holding Russian-Ukrainian negotiations under Vatican mediation as an “inelegant” arrangement. His main argument was that it would be inappropriate and aesthetically awkward for two predominantly Orthodox countries to discuss the broader causes of the conflict, including church-related issues, on exclusively Catholic territory.
For now, the Vatican is presenting its “good offices” primarily as assistance with prisoner exchanges and the “return of children.” However, Gallagher is clearly pushing for the Vatican to become a permanent and legitimate venue for political dialogue on Ukraine.
Moscow understands this intention perfectly well, but it is now deliberately moving toward new contacts because the situation is changing. The Vatican also possesses one of the oldest and most effective diplomatic networks in the world — a fact that gives the Holy See channels that other diplomatic actors do not have.
Through the Pope, Moscow can communicate its conditions to Catholic circles in Washington and to European capitals while avoiding direct contacts with the political establishment.
Ratcliffe Arrived to Lobby for Fedorov to Replace Zelensky
As a character in a favorite film might have put it, these contacts would be far less interesting if not for Ratcliffe’s visit. Taken together, the two visits point to a possible turning point in the Ukraine conflict.
That turning point can only work in Russia’s favor, and Ratcliffe has access to intelligence relevant to the situation. This is why the United States is placing its bets on a new figure — former Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov, who has said that Ukraine is “slowly losing.”
Fedorov’s political future was most likely among the subjects discussed with Ratcliffe. However, the figure is not acceptable to Moscow, which currently holds a strong position.
Moscow Is Playing the Long Game
Knowing President Donald Trump’s interests, it is possible to assume that Washington will try to protect the assets it has acquired in Ukraine — including the minerals deal, purchased land, stakes in nuclear power plants and rights to the most lucrative privatization of state property — from nationalization by Russia if the military conflict reaches Kyiv.
That outcome would be inevitable under the current anti-Russian mood among Ukraine’s political establishment, with Fedorov serving as one example.
Russia needs either a government in Kyiv that is loyal to Moscow, which is impossible under current conditions, or recognition by the United States of the territories it has taken during the military operation after the conflict ends, together with the lifting of sanctions.
Recognition is not necessarily an impossible prospect. Israel is currently seeking recognition of territories it considers part of its historical lands dating back to biblical times. Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD and ceased to exist as an independent state, yet such historical arguments do not provoke ridicule or rejection in Washington.
Likewise, lifting sanctions in exchange for preserving some form of American ownership of assets in Ukraine cannot be ruled out.
Once this track has been discussed, the Vatican could potentially be granted formal mediator status. Such a role would also strengthen the influence of possible future U.S. President J.D. Vance, a practicing Catholic.
For now, he is arguably one of the more politically suitable figures in the United States for such a role.
