The CIA has ramped up its intelligence operations targeting Russia and continues to provide crucial support to Ukraine, even as Donald Trump pressures Volodymyr Zelensky to cease attacks on Russian refineries. This situation underscores a growing contradiction between U.S. intelligence activities and the decisions coming out of the White House.
An article in The Atlantic by journalist Shane Harris reveals how CIA Director John Ratcliffe leads an agency that is actively working to undermine Moscow's military and economic capabilities, while Trump seeks to broker deals with Vladimir Putin and blames Zelensky for prolonging the conflict.
The investigation highlights that U.S. intelligence continues to furnish Ukraine with information used to conduct deep strikes into Russian territory. American satellites provide early detection of missile and drone launches, which is vital for the defense of Ukrainian cities.
A former high-ranking intelligence official who frequently visits Ukraine told Harris that on the ground, "the CIA is in the lead." Meanwhile, an intelligence officer from a Baltic country, which closely collaborates with Washington to counter Russian influence, noted that current agency operations are "much more aggressive" than during the Joe Biden administration.
Contradictions in U.S. Policy
The paradox lies in the fact that this escalation coincides with a presidential policy aimed at curbing some of the most effective Ukrainian operations against Russia.
The CIA is helping to weaken the Russian economy while Trump demands a halt to the attacks. Ukrainian bombings of Russian refineries and other oil installations have become one of the most effective economic pressure tools against the Kremlin.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Russian refineries suffered an average of one attack every three days during the first eight months of 2026. This campaign has diminished refining capacity, caused fuel shortages, and forced Moscow to restrict exports to ensure domestic supply. Russian diesel production fell by nearly 30% compared to prior levels.
For Kyiv, targeting Russia's energy infrastructure means reducing revenues and supplies that sustain Putin's military machine. However, for Trump, these attacks have turned into a political and economic issue.
The U.S. president attributes part of the global fuel price increases to the damages caused by Ukraine, although conflicts with Iran and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have also severely affected the global energy market.
Axios reports that Trump repeatedly requested Zelensky to halt attacks on Russian refineries. When Kyiv refused, the U.S. administration threatened to limit intelligence sharing and the acquisition of American weapons financed by European allies.
Zelensky later confirmed that his generals were warned about a potential cessation of intelligence cooperation.
Trump's Economic Overtures to Russia
The contradiction intensified on October 9, when Trump announced an agreement with Putin to facilitate the supply of millions of tons of Russian diesel to international and U.S. markets.
The Department of the Treasury supported the announcement with an authorization that eased certain sanctions on transactions involving this fuel. The decision surprised Ukrainian and European negotiators engaged in peace talks with U.S. representatives in Miami, according to sources consulted by The Atlantic.
Some of Trump's advisers had counseled against making new concessions to Putin without securing concrete commitments to end the war. Nonetheless, Moscow offered no equivalent quid pro quo.
The U.S. intelligence community has long held a different assessment than the president seems to follow: Putin persistently wages the war because he believes he can win, whether through military victory or by exhausting the West's resolve to support Ukraine.
According to Harris, this conviction partly explains the intensification of Russian hybrid operations against Europe, which include sabotage, communication interference, and drone provocations against NATO defenses.
Meanwhile, Trump has intensified his personal criticisms of Zelensky. In recent remarks to Newsmax, he described him as a leader "more difficult to deal with" than Putin, accused him of extending the conflict, and urged Ukrainians to elect a new president.
Ratcliffe's Delicate Position
The CIA Director finds himself in a unique position within this contradictory policy. According to The Atlantic, Ratcliffe is among Trump's closest advisors and regularly participates in national security decisions. Yet, both U.S. and European officials consider him aware of the threat Russia poses to Ukraine and its allies.
In August, Ratcliffe made a secret trip to Moscow to meet with Russian intelligence leaders. The aim, according to sources familiar with the meeting, was to communicate the U.S. assessment of the war's progression: Russia had not achieved decisive advances, but Ukraine had also failed to expel invading forces from its territory.
The visit took place through a discreet intelligence communication channel, informally known as "the channel," which allows Washington and Moscow to exchange messages outside conventional diplomatic negotiations.
Ratcliffe did not meet with Putin, but his Russian counterparts were expected to relay the conversations' content to their superiors. The goal was for the Kremlin to receive a direct assessment of the conflict's stalemate, independent of reports from Putin's inner circle.
In September, Ratcliffe briefed Zelensky on his Moscow trip during a meeting in Ireland, when their respective planes stopped for refueling.
A senior Ukrainian intelligence officer quoted by Harris praised the professionalism of U.S. agents in Ukraine and expressed confidence in Ratcliffe's ability to convey a realistic assessment of the war to Trump.
The Director's Limits: Ultimately, the President Has the Final SayRatcliffe's position does not imply he is ready to oppose the president. Officials consulted by The Atlantic believe Ratcliffe sees his role as providing information and assessing the consequences of decisions, rather than setting foreign policy.
If Trump were to order the suspension of intelligence cooperation with Ukraine, the Director would comply, even if there were internal reservations about the consequences.
This threat is not hypothetical. In October, during renewed Russian attacks on Kyiv, Ukrainian authorities reported disruptions in early warning systems that hampered the detection of some missiles.
Sources consulted by Harris indicated that part of these issues might have been due to technical failures, though suspicions also arose about potential restrictions on U.S. assistance.
Trump later assured that Washington continued to share intelligence with Ukraine. A general suspension of this cooperation has not been confirmed.
The episode highlights Ukraine's reliance on U.S. capabilities that the president can limit by political decision.
Ratcliffe's CIA continues to help Ukraine resist and strike Russian targets, while Trump seeks to halt these attacks, eases energy sanctions on Moscow, and pressures Zelensky to accept his negotiation terms.
For now, both lines of action coexist within the same administration.
The continuation of the first depends on a president whose recent decisions have favored an economic rapprochement with Putin, precisely as U.S. intelligence services believe Russia remains committed to prolonging the war until Ukraine and its allies are exhausted.
Key Questions About U.S.-Russia-Ukraine Dynamics
What role is the CIA playing in the Ukraine conflict?
The CIA is actively providing intelligence to Ukraine, helping to undermine Russia's military and economic capabilities through strategic information sharing.
How is Trump's stance on the conflict different from the CIA's actions?
While the CIA supports Ukraine with intelligence to counter Russian advances, Trump is pressuring Zelensky to stop attacks on Russian infrastructure and is seeking to ease energy sanctions on Russia.
What impact do Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have?
Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries have led to reduced refining capacity, fuel shortages, and forced Moscow to restrict exports, significantly impacting Russia's economy.