Camo-Putin Emerges to Punt Ball Back to Trump

Yesterday, Putin sent a powerful message to the West by appearing draped in full military camo regalia for the first time, perhaps, ever. There have been times when he wore a camo jacket over his suit when conducting an inspection of the General Staff HQ:

And other times when he donned a more informal ensemble, like during a visit to the Dnepr Group HQ near Kherson in 2023:

But this appears the first time he’s ever strapped on a full set of military camo to signal himself as wartime Commander-in-Chief.

The message was clear: “We’re prepared to take this conflict to the end, should our demands not be met.”

Peskov, for his part, interpreted it a little differently. He admitted that the uniform was in fact a deliberate message, but not a bellicose one pertaining to the war at large, rather signaling resolve to defeat the enemy in the Kursk region, specifically:

I beg to differ. Peskov is being diplomatic, without need to upset the applecart. But it’s obvious such strong symbolism, which was made at the time the US negotiations team was en route to Russia, was done to reinforce the notion that Russia “has the cards.”

This is particularly the case given that Trump had also just raised the heat by claiming he could “devastate” Russia economically, should Russia choose not to play ball on the amateurishly cobbled-together ceasefire:

“I can do things financially that would be devastating for Russia.”

Putin’s choice of attire could have likely been a response to the above not-so-subtle threat from his American counterpart.

And before we even get to the negotiations and Putin’s answer—speaking of the threat above, word has it a major part of what Trump may have been referring to has already taken effect. It concerns Biden’s ‘exemptions’ allowing sanctioned Russian banks to process European payments for oil sales up to the date of March 12, 2025. Trump, it is being reported, has declined to extend this, which means as of yesterday there should be a new major clamp down on Russian oil sales, at least in theory:

ZeroHedge reports the White House is being intentionally ‘mum’ on the matter, for leverage purposes, but could extend the exemptions, though as of now they have expired.

At this moment the administration remains mum, but here's what Fox Senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich wrote Wednesday, hours after the waiver expiration:

Unclear if President Trump reissued waiver on Russian General License 8L - allows other countries to buy Russian oil using US dollar, US payment system. Biden’s waiver expired at midnight.

If POTUS did NOT reissue it, oil prices could rise by $5/barrel by some estimates… but if he DID, POTUS could face some of the same criticism Biden faced, saying it played to Putin’s hand. The White House Press Secretary told us she did not believe it has been reissued but would check on it.

Treasury, State, and WH did not have answers for us yesterday ahead of the deadline.

As per the above projection, the move could raise oil by $5 per barrel, which would obviously be a huge boon to Russia, provided it continues to find ways to navigate around restrictions with its secret backdoors and shadow fleets. Keep in mind, cutting the EU off from Russian oil would arguably hurt the EU far more than Russia, which would be a double boon for Putin; not only would Russian oil profits potentially rise, but the EU itself would be hurt economically, suffer inflation, and be in even worse position to support Ukraine militarily. For Russia, what’s not to like about that?

Presumably, though, Trump has—or thinks he has—more weapons in his arsenal, as hinted at by Scott Bessent:

The Trump administration will "without hesitation" impose the toughest sanctions against Russia if this is necessary for success in negotiations on a Ukrainian settlement - US Treasury Secretary Bessent

We’ll get back to that in a minute.

Let’s now turn to Putin’s response to the ceasefire ‘offer’ today, which can be seen in full below:

Summary:

Putin's first comment on Ukraine: "I thank Mr. Trump for paying so much attention to the settlement in Ukraine."

Putin: "We agree with proposals to end hostilities, but we proceed from the fact that this cessation should lead to long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of the crisis."

"We are for a 30-day ceasefire, but there are nuances."

"Are we supposed to let the Ukrainian Armed Forces out of the Kursk region if they are currently blocked there? Or will the Ukrainian command tell them to lay down their arms?"

"How will Ukraine use these 30 days? Will it continue mobilization? Will it rearm the army?"

"In general, we support the idea of ​​a peaceful end to the conflict, but there are many issues that need to be discussed."

"We also want guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not mobilize, will not train soldiers, and will not receive weapons."

"The Russian army is "advancing almost everywhere, it is unclear how the situation on the contact line will be resolved in the event of a ceasefire."

"And how will the issues of control and verification be resolved? Who will determine who violated what along the 2,000 kilometers? Who will give orders and what will be the price of these orders? At the level of common sense, this is clear to everyone, these are serious questions. These are all questions that require painstaking research from both sides."

Firstly, Putin brings up some good points. A lot of this rushed ceasefire attempt sounds good on paper, but is unrealistic in practice. How would any of it be enforced, and what does Russia have to gain from it to begin with?

The other thing is, Ukraine has just released their own ‘red lines’, which contravene virtually every one of Russia’s most important demands:

Ukraine presented the US with its "red lines" for peace talks:

No restrictions on the size of the army;

No restrictions on Ukraine's participation in the EU and NATO;

Russia should not have a veto over Ukraine's participation in international organizations.

What exactly, then, is the point of giving Ukraine a 30-day ceasefire, when they are expressly rejecting Russia’s core conditions?

The other point few people have mentioned is that Russia is the only party in this ‘deal’ which essentially gains nothing, and this applies to the wider discussed conflict settlement from the standpoint of the US. The going assumption from the US is that Russia will be “allowed to keep” certain territory it already holds, while Ukraine is given actual new items, whether it’s admission to some bloc, further funding and aid, etc. But think about this: Russia already controls the territories it has won—no one has the right to “give them” to Russia, via some ‘stamp of approval’—Russia already has them. Then what exactly is Russia’s incentive to agree to any deal?

If Russia doesn’t agree it gets to keep the current territories, if it does agree it gets to….keep current territories, but with some quasi-legitimization, which won’t matter anyway since Ukraine has expressly stated they will never legitimize any annexed territory.

It gets worse. Today, Trump even suggested that Russia may have to give the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant back to Ukraine as part of the final peace deal:

They are literally not listening to any of Russia’s conditions or demands. Russia has stated repeatedly that no land can possibly be given to Ukraine, because it is now enshrined in the Russian constitution. How deluded does Trump have to be to actually even remotely believe that Russia would hand over the largest nuclear power plant in Europe to Ukraine? It merely proves the point I made last time: the United States team is not serious about these negotiations, and are merely rushing out a bunch of ad hoc goose-eggs to score quick political points.

The charade also continues to highlight the incredible hypocrisy of the ‘Rules Based Order’. On the very same day that Trump and the West attempted to guilt-trip Russia into an unfavorable ceasefire, Trump himself threatened to forcibly annex a fellow NATO member’s territory—in front of the Reichsmarschall of NATO himself, no less:

In another video he says:

TRUMP ON GREENLAND: "Denmark's very far away & really has nothing to do...What happened? A boat landed there 200 years ago or something and they say they have rights to it. I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t think it is, actually."

Particularly egregious are continued reports that a forced military action to seize Greenland is “still on the table”. Even the Danish Defense Committee Chairman was forced to respond to this hostile act:

The Chairman of Denmark’s Defense Committee, Rasmus Jarlov responds to today’s statement by U.S. President Donald J. Trump while meeting with the Secretary-General of NATO, in which he said that he believed the U.S. annexation of Greenland would happen, with Jarlov stating, “It would mean war between two NATO countries. Greenland has just voted against immediate independence from Denmark and does not want to be American ever.”

What Jarlov references above is the new polls that show 85% of Greenlanders do not want to become a part of the US. What makes the hypocrisy even more outrageous is that in the video above, Trump even hints at a potential referendum for Greenland to join the US. So, referenda are “not democracy” when it comes to Russia in Crimea, Donbass, and elsewhere—but are fine when the US does it?

The irony was not lost on many observers, who noted that the US is now effectively more of a direct threat to NATO than Russia ever was. Russia has never so much as even hinted at forcibly seizing any NATO territory, while the US is now openly discussing this very fact. Recall that the entire putative purpose of NATO is to ‘protect its members’—a fact the “defensive” alliance so boastfully prides itself on, when it constantly reminds us that NATO is not primarily aimed at Russia.

Nothing proves the contrary more: the alliance has now shown beyond the shadow of a doubt, its only purpose is to threaten and wage war against Russia, while the “defense” portion is a totally bogus red herring, given that one of the original founding members from 1949 is now at threat of hostile invasion, and the very head of NATO himself couldn’t be bothered to show an iota of concern.

Article 5? What Article 5?

That’s not to mention this alleged news:

The other glaring contradiction of Trump’s nonsensical position was revealed today when he elected to escalate sanctions and ‘pressures’ against Russia. You see, Trump claims the US has no interest in the conflict, and is essentially not on one side or the other, with Trump even previously having suggested the conflict was not Russia’s fault. He presented himself as a neutral player whose only desire was to bring the bloodshed to an end, no matter how it’s done or who is declared the ‘winner’.

But his actions have exposed this fraud. If he wanted to end the conflict as quickly as possible, he would cease supplying Ukraine, at which point all the bloodshed he pretends to care so much about would quickly end as Ukraine would be forced to capitulate. Instead, he’s now openly chosen to prolong the conflict, given that it’s obvious by supplying Ukraine, Russia will only be emboldened, with both sides now fighting on indefinitely.

Granted, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes action currently in play that we aren’t privy to, and which could eventually redeem Trump’s ‘surface-level’ shenanigans. Trump may feel pressured or trapped into ostensibly supporting Ukraine for now, while still retaining plans to undermine Zelensky and try to bring Ukraine’s ability to fight to an end. After all, the ‘resumption of US aid’ is not new weapons aid, but simply the resumption of the trickle that Biden had already previously earmarked.

Getting back to Putin’s ‘diplomatic’ rejection of the ceasefire, one last thing needs to be said. I’ve stated previously that the way Russia operates is the diplomats and lower functionaries play bad cop and deliver the harsh reality directly, while Putin is forced to play a more delicately balanced and ambiguous role as ultimate statesman and peacemaker, partly to maintain a certain image for important allies like China and the BRICS nations. His rejection of the deal sounded like acceptance to many people, such that it generated an uproar amongst the doomsayer quarters. But as always, it was the aides and functionaries who transmitted the direct sentiment.

In this case, Putin’s foreign policy aide Ushakov told Skabeeva:

Commentary by Yuri Ushakov, Assistant to the President of Russia:

🔻Ceasefire with the so-called Ukraine:

▪️Russia is not interested in a temporary ceasefire, it is interested in a long-term resolution of the conflict.

▪️Ushakov called the idea of a temporary ceasefire against the backdrop of the offensive of the Russian Armed Forces a hasty action that does not serve the long-term peace.

▪️Ushakov considers the proposal for a temporary 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine a trick and an attempt to give the Ukrainian military a respite.

▪️The final attitude of Russia towards the idea of a temporary ceasefire will be formulated by Vladimir Putin.

🔻Russia - USA relations:

▪️There is a "normal exchange of opinions, in a calm manner" between Russia and the USA.

▪️The Americans understand that Ukraine's membership in NATO cannot be discussed in the context of a peaceful settlement.

▪️The USA has identified a mediator in the negotiations with Russia - it is not Steve Witkoff.

▪️Witkoff came to Russia to discuss not only the Ukrainian issue, but also bilateral relations between Russia and the USA.

He says quite plainly that the current ceasefire proposal is nothing more than a respite for Ukraine to regain its strength—something Putin implied, albeit while ‘beating around the bush’.

Russian ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin separately reinforced this:

Kelin “We will consider the American proposal for a ceasefire. We will stop military actions only when we have a full, comprehensive agreement. Russia has repeatedly stated that a temporary ceasefire is not an option for resolving the situation.

Several other figures repeated this as well, including Lavrov. Also, note the above WSJ headline’s acknowledgment of the inanity of a ceasefire leveraged with zilch, given that Russia has all the cards and zero incentive. Recall Rubio’s puerile reasoning: Russia should merely do the US a favor and make a “gesture of good will”.

Ultimately, Putin’s manner of rejection was summarized well by one analyst:

How did Russia react to the American initiative for a 30-day ceasefire?

Putin politely thanked Trump for his attention to the problem and responded in great detail to all this “is the ball in Russia’s court?”

In short, “the idea is good, but not feasible.”

In just a couple of minutes, Putin, having supported the proposal, asked so many practical questions that the authors of the initiative will have to answer them for a very long time. And the first attempt will be made today by Trump's emissary Witkoff, who flew to Moscow and who was largely supposed to answer these questions. Before throwing the ball to Russia, you should pump it up well.

Summary: there will be no truce in the near future.

By the way, Yermak also announced that Ukraine “would never accept a frozen conflict”:

So, what are we even talking about here, then? In that light, what can possibly be the purpose of a 30-day ceasefire other than to allow Ukraine a quick breather, to restock its reserves and button-up critical breakthroughs on the frontline?

—

FT’s latest declares that Zelensky is in his “final act”:

https://archive.ph/lx9RZ

Still, there is incipient speculation in Kyiv’s political circles over how long Zelenskyy will stay in office. “We are in the final act [of Zelenskyy’s presidency],” says a senior Ukrainian official. “And the hot phase of the war.”

—

Lastly, a battlefield update.

Sudzha has now been fully liberated:

And in fact, virtually all of Kursk is nearly done, with only a small bit in the west and south left in Ukrainian hands:

But notice the yellow circle above. In the opening video of Putin’s statements to Gerasimov, he ‘instructed’ the general to consider creating a security zone along the Russian border, which is interpreted to mean a buffer zone on the Sumy side. We had just been speaking about whether Russian troops would continue on into Sumy, and it seems they have, capturing swaths of territory over the border already.

Granted, some of the above had already been taken in the past few weeks and months, but Russian forces now advanced and gained more territory since yesterday:

We’ll see just how big a ‘buffer zone’ Putin envisions, or whether it’s merely euphemism for continuing the assault toward Sumy itself.

At the end of the day, Russia’s forces will likely be prioritized towards first winning back the legitimate Russian territories in full, i.e. the remainders of Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson. It wouldn’t make sense to prioritize liberating Sumy and Kharkov prior to the Russian citizens of the aforementioned four first being liberated. But of course, depending on Russia’s reserves and remaining capabilities, advancing pressure on Kharkov and Sumy can always be utilized to facilitate the capture of the other legally recognized regions.

In the wane of the Kursk operation, by the way, Zelensky officially declared it to have been a great success:

Perhaps he uses some measure of success unfamiliar to us—let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, is the deflated ball back in Trump’s court? Share your thoughts!

---

Your support is invaluable. If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate if you subscribed to a monthly/yearly pledge to support my work, so that I may continue providing you with detailed, incisive reports like this one.

Alternatively, you can tip here: buymeacoffee.com/Simplicius

---