Russian officials, now including Putin himself, have responded negatively to the US-Ukraine ceasefire proposal, which is hardly a surprise, since Russian officials have been saying “No ceasefire” every time the topic of Ukraine comes up. But they appear to be sending other messages that the Western press is ignoring but Russians and the Global South may pick up on, such as not being on board with the Trump Administration’s theatrics unduly public process.
As we indicated yesterday, senior Kremlin emissary Yuri Ushakov reaffirmed the repeated Russian rejection of a ceasefire except as part of an agreement that addressed the underlying issues of the Ukraine conflict.1 He did that by replaying what he said to US National Security Adviser on a phone call in a short televised interview. Ushakov tried to have it both ways, saying it was up to Putin to respond officially, but it’s clear that Ushakov was not speaking out of school. Less well reported was that Russian Parliament’s Defense Committee Viktor Sobolev also criticized the US-Ukraine scheme as obviously only in Ukraine’s interest.
I took the speed of the Ushakov remarks, made before friend of and pet negotiator for Trump Steve Witkoff had even arrived in Moscow, to among other things, discuss the US-Ukraine scheme with Russian officials, as a diss, even if it might be too subtle to register on thick-headed and inexperienced Trump officials. The first is the obvious, “What about ‘no’ don’t you understand?” It was disrespectful to Russia to serve up a proposal that tried to talk loudly over what the Russian have said about “no cessation of hostilities until critical matters are settled” since the start of the SMO. So they undercut Witkoff on a fair bit of what he might have been planning to do.2
The second layer of Western disrespect to Russia was the attempt to negotiate via press release. The Russians have also made clear their preference for conducting diplomacy along traditional lines: lower level exchanges of feelers, and lower and more senior private discussions, with announcements made only when there is something to announce (as in progress or some event that forces an official “mumble mumble” on status). Colonel Macgregor, in a fresh talk on the Judge Napolitano show, volunteered at the top of his remarks (starting at 2:38) that we were working against our own interest with this approach:
I think the first thing is it’s unfortunate that we continue to discuss our negotiations and interactions with the Russians in public. I don’t see any point to it. And I think as a result we’re going to be embarrassed somewhat by this latest ceasefire offer. If there is anything the Russians have made clear repeatedly, is that a ceasefire in and of itself is not acceptable. They see that as simply buying more time for their Ukrainian opponent to get equipment, cash, whatever, and rebuild themselves and carry on the fight.
This bad habit may have started with the various members of the US/NATO coalition arm-wrestling with each other in public about how much money and what weapons they would have been sending to Ukraine. It’s bizarre to have given the enemy side so much information. But this may have reflected the Western belief that its materiel was so obviously superior that merely saying the wunderwaffen were en route would have Russian soldiers quaking in their boots. Remember the “Be afraid, be very afraid, Leopard are coming” Ukraine propaganda campaign, which has been disappeared from the Innertubes?
Back to the main event. Putin weighed in not long after that, via a response to a question in a Q&A at a press conference. As you can see, he took the proposal at face value, making clear that even if the form was that the US pushed it on Ukraine, it was something Ukraine would find beneficial and could just as easily have demanded of the US. But as we’ll soon explain, there was another layer to this message. From the Kremlin website:
You know, on the face of it, the US-Ukraine meeting in Saudi Arabia may look like the Ukrainian side made this decision under pressure from the United States. In fact, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side should have asked the Americans for this decision most emphatically, in view of the situation evolving on the ground, as has just been mentioned here.
And what is the current situation on the ground? Many of you have surely noticed that yesterday I visited the Kursk Region and listened to reports from the Chief of the General Staff, the Commander of the North group of forces and his deputy on the situation in the border area, first of all in the Kursk Region, or rather, in the incursion zone in the Kursk Region.
What is happening there? The situation there is completely under our control, and the grouping that invaded our territory has been isolated. It is completely isolated and under complete fire control. The control of Ukrainian troops inside this incursion zone has been lost. At the initial stages, just a week or two ago, Ukrainian servicemen tried to get out of there in small groups. Now it is impossible. They are trying to get out in very small groups of two or three men because everything is under our complete fire control.
The military equipment has been completely abandoned and it is impossible to remove it; it will remain there, one hundred percent. If this area is physically blocked in the next few days, then no one will be able to leave. There will only be two options: surrender or die. I think in these conditions it would be good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a ceasefire for at least 30 days. We are also in favour of it, but there are nuances. What are they?
First, what will we do about the incursion section in the Kursk Region? What would that mean if we cease fire for 30 days? Does this mean that everyone who is in there will just walk out without a fight? Do we have to let them go after they committed numerous heinous crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership issue a command for them to lay down their arms and just surrender? How will this happen? It is not clear.
How will other issues along the entire contact line be solved? It is almost 2,000 kilometres long. As you know, Russian troops are advancing in almost all areas of combat contact. Conditions are also very favourable there for us to block rather large units there.
So, how would these 30 days be used? For forced mobilisation to continue in Ukraine? For more weapons to be supplied there? For retraining the mobilised units? Or would none of this be done?
If so, how will issues related to control and verification be addressed? How can we guarantee and receive guarantees that nothing like this would happen? How will control procedures be organised? I hope everyone understands the complexity of all this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.
Who will order to cease fire? What is the price of these orders? Just imagine: almost 2,000 km. Who will be able to determine who violated the potential ceasefire agreement over a distance of 2,000 km and where exactly? Who will be held responsible for violating the ceasefire? All these issues must be meticulously worked upon by both sides. The idea itself is right, and, of course, we support it.
However, there are issues that must be discussed. I think we must talk them over with our American colleagues and partners, perhaps have a telephone conversation with President Trump and discuss them with him. However, the idea to put an end to this conflict by peaceful means gets our full support.
TL;DR version: “Well, we can of course talk about this idea, but for this to make any sense for us, many many operational details have to be negotiated and implemented. By the time that got done, we could be in Paris.”
Note also that Putin makes clear no one has yet set up a call with Trump.
If you want to have some yucks, the Institute for the Study of War is in a huff because Russia is not on board with the “intentions and goals” of the US-Ukraine proposal, which is to pull a fast one on Russia.
MORE: Putin is offering an alternative ceasefire agreement that is contrary to the intentions and goals of the US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal.
Putin's envisioned ceasefire agreement would grant Russia greatly disproportionate advantages and set conditions for the Kremlin to… https://t.co/gX4s0T3XiT pic.twitter.com/lxWxBmlqU5
— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) March 14, 2025
But a bit more seriously, one of Putin’s words had an inference that seems lost on most outside Russia. From Larry Johnson’s e-mail, Regarding a Ceasefire, Putin says it is About “nuance”:
According to Andrei [Martyanov], Putin’s use of the phrase, there are nuances, is a cultural term connected to a crass joke. I asked Perplexity.AI to explain:
A soldier named Garry asks the general for the definition of “nuance.” The general tells him to take down his pants and bend over. The general proceeds to insert himself into the soldier’s anus and then explains that what the soldier feels compared to what the general feels is nuance.
The humor in this joke lies in the subtle wordplay and implied actions. In Russian, the phrase “There is a nuance” (“Есть нюанс”) can also be understood as a command, “Eat a nuance!” when pronounced quickly. The general’s response to Garry’s question about the definition of nuance is to demonstrate it rather than explain it verbally, creating a humorous and somewhat crude situation.
This joke is an example of how Russian humor often relies on wordplay, double entendres, and sometimes crude or sexual innuendos. It’s important to note that understanding such jokes often requires not just knowledge of the Russian language, but also familiarity with Russian cultural context and humor styles.
Got it? Putin was politely telling Trump’s team of negotiators that they could shove the proposed ceasefire deal in Riyadh up their ass. Russia is not going to be bullied or threatened.
A search on Twitter (Putin + nuance) has turned up no tweets making note of Putin’s coded but very pointed dismissal of the US-Ukraine offer.3
This was unlikely to have been one of Putin’s goals, but his choice of a Russian usage will test the Trump Administration in at least two ways: do they even have any Russian specialists left who will get the dirty joke? Remember Scott Ritter has repeatedly inveighed against State Department Russian experts for having over the past 20 years been majors in what he called “Putin hating studies”. Mind you, that fixation does not necessarily mean that they are not otherwise culturally clued in. But Rex Tillerson did a bit of a purge at State under Trump 1.0, and it’s not clear if there is anyone that Russia-savvy on this team.
And even if they were, and someone told Rubio and Waltz what the use of “nuance” implied, would they tell Trump? It’s hard to imagine, with Trump being an obsessively dominant sort, that he would not respond to Putin’s second layer of meaning, even if only by making a joke. So Trump not manifesting knowledge of Putin’s layered message in their next interaction would point to Trump’s team either being very ignorant or choosing to withhold information.
So despite the appearance of things changing, not much has changed. The US is supporting Ukraine even though it cannot change the trajectory of the war. Russia will keep destroying Ukraine’s army until something breaks. My guess is only then (as in conditions at that point) will it settle on its end game.
_____
1 As our Aurelien points out, that sort of cessation of hostilities is not called a ceasefire in diplo-speak. A ceasefire is understood to be temporary, and the Russians have said that’s not in their interest. The Russians are looking for an armistice.
2 One could be charitable and see the Russians as trying to adapt to American norms. New Yorkers regard it as polite not to waste someone’s time. So perhaps trying to truncate Witkoff’s discussions was a courtesy of sorts.
3 On “How could no one in the West be mentioning this if true?” There were many times when I was working with the Japanese that there were many conditions and news stories in Japan, that ought to have been seen as being of keen commercial interest to US businessmen, that were completely unreported. Admittedly, this sort of coarse jibe seems out of character for Putin, which may be why he made it, to let Russians know the depth of his objection. And it isn’t as if coarse language is never used in diplomatic contexts. Gonzalo Lira reported in one of his YouTubes that “Fuck the EU” Victoria Nuland visited the Kremlin in October 2021. There she told various officials, including IIRC Lavrov, in the most sailor-like Russian, that the US was going to clear the Donbass, and if Russia tried to stop that, the US would respond in a ferocious manner.
65 comments
Comments are closed.
Putin was politely telling Trump’s team of negotiators that they could shove the proposed ceasefire deal in Riyadh up their ass. Russia is not going to be bullied or threatened.
Have to love the Russian language, beautifully nuanced and apropos
OT but good news.
https://www.rt.com/russia/614211-odessa-murder-demyan-ganul/
Thanks. Napolitano was just in Moscow with Larry Johnson. His account is reprinted here.
https://consortiumnews.com/2025/03/13/moscow-nights-and-days/
And out today a transcript where he talks to Gilbert Doctorow about the proposed ceasefire.
https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/03/14/transcript-of-judging-freedom-13-march-edition/
Napolitano has been proven incorrect again, he needs to read NC. The Russians politely said NYET! Did you read the article above? Judge Nap should be embarrassed now. The Russians are not as stupid as the US kakistocracy.
I find it very disappointing that folks who were so good at criticizing the Genocide Joe regime get all starry eyed and hopeful when talking about the DT2 regime.
Putin said no but that he still wants to negotiate. How do you know Trump won’t cave and either get rid of Zelensky or get him to go along? Trump says different things from one day to the next.
For sure that’s what the Judge wants to happen and I agree. Guess we will know what did happen when it happens.
I wish people would stop with the criticism of the Big Don. I think he is doing an excellent job in the continuing destruction of the European order.
And an even better one of wrecking America at home for the profit of the billionaires.
Thanks, the jokes just keep coming – tragic humor is available in spades and free of charge!
The AI explanation of the joke was terrible as it bent itself
backwards trying to be family friendly, completely missing the point.
The joke is a simple play on words.
You are absolutely right, a joke in Russian is a small violation of grammar, leading to the meaning: you have a dick in your ass, and I have a dick in my ass, but there is a nuance.
I wish we would start calling the ISW the Institute for the Advancement of War.
The ISW is run by Victoria Nuland’s sister-in-law, Kimberly Kagan, and funded by defense firms.
Kimberly is “Founder and President”
Your title is more accurate, in my view.
But the ISW title is consistent with the USA rebranding of the WWII “War Department” as the “Defense Department”.
They are just copying the Germans (Reichswehr, Bundeswehr etc.)
I’ve started referring to the Munich Security Conference as the Munich Warmongers Conference.
“this sort of coarse jibe seems out of character for Putin”
Not that out of character. His 1999 quote about “wetting [slang for killing] terrorists in the outhouse” (“мочить в сортире”) is still famous here. He doesn’t do it all the time unlike some other Russian politicians I could think of but he can certainly dip into coarse language for emphasis. Maybe more similar to this case is when he responded to a hypothetical question by referring to what he called “a crude joke about what a grandmother would be if she had the sexual characteristics of a grandfather”.
Looking the outhouse quote up again, it seems that later he expressed regret about using such language after having reached such a level (he had recently become Yeltsin’s prime minister at the time), but added that while what he said was probably wrong in form, it was right in substance.
The Americans think the Russians have not learned that everyone in the West is an abject duplicitous jerk(*+*).
I agree with your conclusion, Yves. I have no idea about this question of Russian nuance. I suspect the Trump team lacks the nuance to understand this level of nuance about Russian nuance. (But I’ll try to confirm with my Russian friends.)
For me the last week has been quite useful to reinforce my understanding of something you wrote yesterday. The Trump team doesn’t know what it is doing. If I really take this to heart then it means I was being foolish to think the Trump team might intend to pull the US out of the war. A team that doesn’t know what it is doing doesn’t have goals like that.
We’re back to where we were at the end of Biden’s term. USA, Canada, and European NATO is singing from the same hymnal again, and sending money, arms and support to Ukraine to keep the war going. It’s a complete contradiction of what people like Mercouris were saying was the new, resolute US position a week or two ago. The cease fire proposal is that Russia should stop it while Ukraine/NATO keeps on. There’s little practical difference between that and the Biden/Zelensky position.
I find it takes some effort to consequently back away from trying to guess intent, policy, pattern, goals, and things like from team Trump’s behavior but it’s the right thing to do. If they don’t know what they are doing then what they do doesn’t indicate what they know.
Mercoursis has become a Trump apologist. A couple of days ago, he was trying to justify tariff damage because a recession was long overdue. Yesterday, he was arguing Russia might agree to a ceasefire if the Ukrainians didn’t pull out of all of the four oblasts but stayed in Zaporzhizhia city, meaning Putin might give ground on the terms he set out as his requirements last June. Why should Russia accommodate the West when facts on the ground have moved even more in their favor? And on top of that, Trump is totally erratic and untrustworthy, even by very low US standards.
There were many intimations of that even before the election, but it’s so pronounced now I can hardly watch him. To his credit, he will have Left alt-media figures like Aaron Mate and Michael Hudson on The Duran, and those programs are worthwhile.
Alarm bells went off for me when he and Alex expressed adoration and sorrow on the occasion of the death of Shinzo Abe.
He’s done it again! He characterized Putin as polite (as opposed to faux polite) even though he acknowledged having heard of the Larry Johnson take on “nusance”>
Plus he read out some post-Putin tweets on Truth Social. I had to run one down to verify Mercouris had read it as badly as he seemed to. In this part “…. we don’t get the Cease Fire and Final Agreement with Russia completed and signed.” Mercouris read the “we” as US + Russia, when that makes no sense given the immediately following “with Russia”. That might not matter except Mercouris then nattered on about how his presumed Trump identification with Russia was meaningful.
Check out Ian Welsh, it’s very easy for non-American anti-imperialists to fall for Trump, Welsh hasn’t but lays out the case pretty well.
I wonder if it is Trump who has no cards.
Bloomberg had an article up on how the oil sanctions are failing, with Russia exporting record amounts of crude.
Then there is the report from a Marine commander that the drawdown of their military supplies sent to Ukraine is already affecting readiness. It happened in a Senate hearing yesterday, and is being under reported.
Then there is the math … the remaining drawdown money from Biden’s admin must be fumes. We know that:
$61B passed back in April 2024;
minus $10B for Israel, IIRC;
Leaves around $50B, minus the $4B reportedly left over for Trump = $46B
Assume it was spent evenly over the last 9 months of Biden, means a pace of around $5B/month
It’s been about 2 months in office for El Trump. We also know that he didn’t halt the funding until a week or so ago, then restarted … no way $4B is left, maybe a billion, assuming he slowed down the Biden pace?
How much longer can that last? Sure, the Pentagon can do some Enron accounting and stretch it out another month but I doubt much longer … the well is running dry.
Plus … after today, presumably we’re on a CR for funding the rest of FY2025 and there is no “must pass” bill to attach a rider to … maybe the debt ceiling?
Trump has found a real card in Starmer who seems to believe to believe that a period of failing war leadership will revive his dying Premiership, even to the extent of blaming Russia for poisoning our water courses and coastal waters with untreated sewage, our towns and cities ridden with street crime, and the vagaries of the British weather. What could possibly go wrong given his clear and insightful, charsmatic, and highly nuanced demagogic gifts of incitement to commit the might of the British military against the worn and flailing forces of Russia?
https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/1900358008321745136
The general said “$2 billion book value was sent under presidential drawdown authority from Marine supplies reserved for combat operations and current training both draw from combat readiness.
The briefing stated the replacement price was $5 billion and a lot of the requisitions are new procurement with unknown time to receive.
Army likely has worse issues whileUSAF may be low on some missiles, and F 16 support drained by both Israel and Kiev donors to get them ready for Kiev.
Another six month and U.S. will be as demilitarized as the EU
I find it takes some effort to frame the USA, the instigator and primary co-belligerent in the war against Russia as an honest broker of peace between US/NATO/ProxyUkraine and Russia.
Ok. Linguistics time, because that AI explanation is…yeah.
Slavic languages, including Russian, are heavily contextual. I.e. oftentimes the same exact word or sequence of words can have a very different meaning depending on the context, which makes . Hence, a whole range of jokes, including the “…but there is a nuance” category, take advantage of this phenomenon.
Examples (which make sense more in Russian than in English, but whatever):
“John has Twitter. Elon Musk has Twitter. But there is a nuance…” – meaning, John is just a user, Elon is the owner.
“Both cops and protesters get free housing. But there is a nuance…” – cops (in this joke) get free appartments for arresting protesters, protesters get to stay for free in the local jail.
“Ukrainian tanks are stopping Russian FPV drones. But there is a nuance…” – meaning, the drones are blowing them up.
The punchline to the original dirty joke, HEAVILY redacted and sanitized – “see, private, now you’re having sex, and I’m having sex, but there is a nuance…”
So when Putin used a version of that expression, he was signalling to any Russian-speaker in range that “our understanding of the word ‘ceasefire’ is completely different from your understanding of the word ‘ceasefire'”. No shoving of any objects into any orifices.
Of course, the point of whether anybody in the Administration understood…the nuance…is an open question.
Martyanov told Johnson otherwise, that there was a specific reference to a crude joke which Johnson confirmed on AI.
Are you saying Martyanov had this wrong? He was in the military. Perhaps nuance used in that context refers to that joke, but not in the wider world?
Wouldn’t that be presuming that the AI that Johnson used had a correct interpretation? SF’s explanation seems to make a lot more sense than the AI’s headscratcher.
For me, at least.
Maybe the AI makes more sense for others?
After all, language does have … nuance. ;-)
Based on what I have seen of Martyanov, I am highly confident he told Johnson whatever the joke was but then told Johnson he could not quote him on the particulars. So I would then guess Johnson tried to get it independently and the AI was close enough. But I will check with Johnson.
Makes sense. Thank you for the checking offer!
I’d agree that that was probably a translation. But was it a GOOD translation….. :)
Humor can be tough – translated humor can be even worse, not least because of cultural differences and suchlike.
A lot of “humor” I saw when in Korea would have fit in quite well with Three Stooges slapstick. Possibly you were in Japan for “The Screamer?”
But the folks I worked with were often at a total loss in regard to puns and other wordplay.
Here’s a rough “translation” of the joke punchline. Translation is in quotations because it’s more of an reinvention.
The general says: I’m having sex and you’re having sex, but there’s a
nuance. Only you are getting f**ked.
A better translation:
I have a pain in the ass.
You have a pain in the ass
But there is a nuance
From another Russian national the same joke and comment thereof:
“(…)
For background, the word nuance landed in Russian in its French form and is perceived as a foreign loanword in the language. There are two characters in the joke, one of them is Chapaev, a brave warrior, hero of the first world war, straightforward and rude, but savvy. The second character is his loyal adjutant, young and trusting friend, Peter, whose name is used in the diminutive form Petka.
A million apologies from me again. I didn’t make up this joke myself, let’s pretend that I’m just a reporter and translator, a messenger, so to speak:
Petka asked Chapaev what a nuance is.
Chapaev replies: “I’ll show you if you take off your pants and bend over.”
Petka obeys and Chapaev sticks his dick in Petka’s ass.
Here Chapaev explains: “Look at the situation we’re in. The dick is in the ass. You feel it, that the dick is in the ass. I feel it, too, that the dick is in the ass. But there is a nuance.”
—
We were taught in English lessons that “excuse me” is said when you are about to do something, and the word “sorry” is said when you have already done it. So, now I’m sorry
(…)”
p.s. pardon vs. sorry reminds me of this famous Antoine Doinel scene in 1968 “Baisers volés”, by Francois Truffaut. The excerpt starts at once and is a bit quick to get the joke the first time.
It´s about the difference between politeness and tact
(Those who watch, it is almost 60 years old:)
“That’s tact!” | STOLEN KISSES | MUBI
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LCWIkJ5s7xE
btw followed by this scene (hard to imagine something shot today containing as much delicate detail by an actress just delivering a monologue):
I’m not an apparition, I am a woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhQZCTxNvmg
I confirmed with a Russian friend. The joke is will known and in this context it world be weird if Putin didn’t intend if.
It is a well known joke. (Even I know it, and I’m pretty sheltered.) On the other hand, Safety First is right. Not every of “but there are nuances” refers to that joke in particular. From the top of my search, I don’t think the headline writers of “citizens who worked for 15 years or more can get their pensions early, but there are nuances” had that one in mind… probably. As for Putin, I’d believe it but I’m not entirely sure, though either way it signals a much more negative view of the proposal than the straightforward English translation.
FWIW, I just ran this by a few Russian friends and family (here in Siberia), and none think Putin was deliberately making a direct reference to the crude joke (and yes, everyone knows the joke.)
It’s more a case of ironic understatement: the Russian objections to the ceasefire proposal are vastly greater than mere nuances.
YMMV
Martyanov was a sailor (rum, sodomy and the lash). :)
…which is why I find his quips over those awful Western sodomites etc. (the Freeeeeench jokes never get old) quite hypocritical…
“Women like men in uniforms. That´s just a fact.”
Wo-ho, that´s quite a statement but not to end but to start with a longer conversation.
But eventually we all are sitting in glass-houses or bunkers throwing stones or firing missiles.
Support for the belief that Putin’s double entendre was intentional comes from Lavrov, who was uncharacteristically crude when he told Starmer he could shove the proposal ‘back up the sh*thole it came from’. Knowing that Putin made a similar albeit coded suggestion clarifies that outburst for me!
The belief is wrong. Medvedev said that. He plays the “bad cop”.
Ooops! I thought it was Lavrov…. Medvedev makes more sense. Thanks.
Comments on the tweet are worth checking out,
https://xcancel.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1900633360852283414
When I read this, I know the real Medvedev wrote it 😂😂
Nice nuance
And there’s more than one way to interpret the joke in the context of Putin’s remarks. I think he was indicating how Russia understands the Ukraine/US proposal.
A peasant and a Russian nobleman are standing beside each other at a urinal. The peasant says “Isn’t it wonderful that since the revolution we are now equal citizens, free to pee at the same urinal? But one thing puzzles me Comrade; Why does my urine splash so loudly, while you pee so silently?” The nobleman answers: “Because, Comrade, I am peeing on your coat.”
“2 One could be charitable and see the Russians as trying to adapt to American norms.”
Far more likely the Russians are following Russian norms – they will hit you back (harder) with the same weapon you used on them. Russian diplomats are very professional and polite so such an unusual departure from protocol surely means they want to send a strong message to the other side.
Will it work? Will Z suit up for his next White House jaunt? Will Americans use diplomatic channels? Watch this space …
That was meant as a tongue in cheek joke. Jokes seem to be controversial these days. The posts made clear the Russians were undercutting the US ASAP while putting on a polite veneer.
More (unwitting?) insults from the US today? The DT diplomacy by “Truth Social” and misleading statements.
https://www.rt.com/news/614227-trump-confirms-call-putin/
“…US President Donald Trump has confirmed Washington’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday about ending the Ukraine conflict. However, Trump’s announcement on Truth Social caused confusion, making it seem like he spoke to Putin personally.
The White House later clarified that US special envoy Steve Witkoff spoke to the Russian president while visiting Moscow…”
Is DT even serious? Does he realize that this will just piss off the Russians, or is that the intention? It is hard to guess what goes on in the mind of the cognitively-challenged and power-drunk
DT is a showman, and he is putting up a hell of a show. When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a king. The palace turns into a circus. It’s wrestlemania every day, until someone taps out.
Hermeneutics aside…
In the spirit of hitting a mule with a 2×4 to get its attention, Putin appeared at the command center in Kursk wearing military dress. The Russian president visited the site of a critical Russian defeat of Hitler’s army and the site of the current destruction of Zelesnsky and NATOs army, wearing a military uniform.
I remain taken by the Sun Tzu saying: “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat” from the last update. Fits the evidence like a glove.
An exam glove, perhaps? Just a nuance.
We give credit to our W. European friends who have thoroughly studied Russian history, its people and especially President Putin.
With that background, we listened very carefully, several times over, to Putin’s conversation with Tucker Carlson last year. While always remaining polite, Putin essentially enlightened that American about both himself, the Russian people; their heritage, their political, and their social make up.
Given that knowledge, we have concluded that the Trump Team has a very steep hill to climb in negotiating with Putin. For instance, everyone knows Black Rock, Big US Ag, Halliburton and others are enriching themselves from the many riches in Ukraine. A sore point for Putin. There’s also the pathetic W. European financiers/politicians clamoring for recognition in the deal.
At this point in time, we don’t see Russia backing off. The “war” over there may continue for several months, until Putin gets back what his country lost when Kruchov (sp) (a Ukrainian Russian) who ceded that territory as WWII ended.
Negotiation is naysaying. The word itself is from Latin nego. In the history of peace talks, there has been acrimony over everything, all the way down to who sits where.
The mere fact that we’re talking about talks shows improvement.
The technical difficulties of a ceasefire are just that: technical. As ceasefires go, this one isn’t very hard to obtain. It’s not like there are multiple armed factions on the battlefield, each with separate chains of command. Almost all of the combatants are regulars. The length of front is a trivial matter. I’m sure that the Russians know how to use a radio.
Losing an opportunity to negotiate would be a big mistake (dare I say, “a big fat mistake” ?). This war is dangerous for everybody.
The main tragedy of the Ukraine War is that all of the participants have badly underestimated their opponents’ commitment level. The Western countries underestimated Russia’s willingness to resort to open war, so they ignored Russia’s ultimatum in ’21. The Russians underestimated Ukrainians’ willingness to fight, which is why their attempted coup de main in ’22 was a fiasco. Since then, everybody has underestimated everybody else’s willingness to endure a war of attrition, while the sunk costs deepen.
Do not underestimate the potential of this war to escalate. The elites in most of the Western countries still favour more war (for example, Canada is on the eve of an election, and none of their major parties want peace). Trump is the maverick out of the Western herd.
If you want to talk about tactics getting the better of strategy, that would be if the Russians really do postpone talks, just because their troops have been advancing a bit lately. Hopefully they do understand the bigger picture, and this bit of verbal sparring is just the typical prelude to further discussion.
But the opportunity to negotiate could be limited, and must not be taken for granted.
EU military stores are near depleted, they have scarcely enough long range missiles to burn a few apartment building, almost no artillery ammunition for the front.
US donations are hurting USMC readiness and training. US Army is short on artillery and USAF has supply issues without donating to Kiev.
The U.S. in short order will have too many less than combat ready units to tilt with anyone.
Russian Federation is aware that U.S. gets very thin in a matter of months.
Requisitions backed by t bills do not fire from cannon.
Sun Tzu: “no prince prospers from long war. “. The prince with factories, oil and short supply lines can prevail.
Sun Tzu spoke about “oil” ?!!!!
😉
In case this is a repetition, my apology – Dexter Filkins for the NEW YORKER:
A Reporter at Large
The U.S. Military’s Recruiting Crisis
The ranks of the American armed forces are depleted. Is the problem the military or the country?
By Dexter Filkins
February 3, 2025
https://archive.is/A7RIn
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/02/10/the-us-militarys-recruiting-crisis
p.s. Larry Wilkerson said the article went back to his and his colleagues urging Filkins to look into the matter.
Ceasefires can be very hard to get. Both sides need to see a benefit in them. Southpark Underpants Gnomes logic (1. no cease fire, 2. ????, 3. Ukraine wins) is not a benefit.
Ukraine is now asking it for two reasons. First it is being pressured by Trump/US, second it is losing badly and a lull in the fighting would allow them to extend the time it takes for them to lose.
What are the benefits to Russia? Ask Putin enunciated there are none unless the ceasefire is a prelude, with hard guarantees, to solving the underlying issues.
As to the willingness of Ukraine to fight. Russia did not underestimate what Ukraine would stomach. There have been three rounds to the peace (yes peace not ceasefire) negotiations and all three were sunk by the US. The last one, as stated by Nuland, because Russia put in clauses that ensured it could enforce Ukraine to abide by the treaty. Which by the way indicates the general attitude of the US/West with regards to treaties with Russia, they are only there to bamboozle Russia and only Russias part in them is to be enforced.
Russia has also not underestimated the willingness of Ukraine after the US convinced Ukraine to fight to the last Ukrainian. What Russia does not want is to take control of the actively hostile to them regions of Ukraine and that means that there needs to be a semblance of order and civilization left so they have an opponent they can talk to (that is also the main reason that the electrical grid in Ukraine still exists). This means it cannot advance to fast and is the main reason for the attritional warfare. Russia wants no more Ukrainian army but still a government they can talk to.
And again with the “There might something bad happening in the future so stop doing what you are doing right now”, do you get out of bed? I mean you could break your leg getting out so you better not do that following your own reasoning? Might as well stop breathing, you could choke doing that.
What benefits are there for Russia to sign the Trump press release? And none of this something bad might happen if they don’t claptrap.
As for strategy? Russian grand strategy is to try and change/fix the underlying problems. You are demanding that Russia throws away their grand strategy aims as to give Ukraine a temporary tactical benefit because Underpants Gnome logic says it is bad for Russia to keep their grand strategy aims. What you are suggesting Russia should is even worse then the mistake you are saying Russia is making since there is no tactical nor strategic benefit for Russia to take the Trump press release and sign it.
Russia is willing to negotiate but the problem is the US/West which is still thinking that the only negotiation with Russia is Russias unconditional surrender.
Further Russia is willing to talk, Putin already highlighted some of the problems that need to be addressed that the US/West was trying to pretend don’t exist.
It will be that western intransigence that is going to be the main reason any ceasefire negotiations are going to be slow, Russia is going to put in clauses that will result in Ukraine not benefiting as they are hoping right now and insure Russia can enforce compliance and the US/West is going to fight tooth and nail against those. The end result will be that Russia is going be blamed for deliberately scuttling the talks and/or deliberately drawing the talks out until they are moot.
Opportunities to negotiate with those that are non-agreement-capable are limitless. You can get as many Minsk agreements as you can digest.
The universal equation of human experience: expectations minus reality equals disappointment.
Adjust your expectations accordingly …
The use of the joke is interesting. I think it best to consider it as the moment when Putin says
“Nuts.”
Which also has its salty side. Likewise, there is the famous Greek “okhi,” which was very direct, although it will shock you to know that Greeks are known for being potty-mouths at times.
I am noting a split at a high level in Europe, even if it is mainly those darn Italians again:
https://www.rainews.it/articoli/2025/03/accusa-di-prodi-armi-indispensabili-ma-per-la-pace-europa-non-ha-fatto-nulla-6767526b-8cf8-4191-a572-7a1a8274586e.html
Prodi is very highly placed, and he isn’t the first seasoned Italian politician to go after Von der Leyen. The Hallelujah Chorus of northern Europe, on the contrary, seems to be snorting something quite volatile to cover up for their cravenness.
I suspect, reading the comments here, that esteemed commenter .Tom is correct:
Preoccupante, ne.
He didn’t say nuts*, but he did say horseradish (which Martyanov instantly connected to the “fellow of the salty nuts”). :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kren_Verkauf.jpg
*The equivalent term in Slavic languages is eggs, and he had to talk about rising price of those a year or so ago.
“The institute for the study of war”…and what “wars” do “they” have experience in? What a joke…but this type of quack think tankery is so enormous now, simply funded by the arms sellers and the pentagon and other neo-orwellian entities….the last two main wars, Vietnam and Afghanistan, cant call Iraq a war, the US lost…rebrand to ”the institute for the study of brute force”…
I spent a few hours searching through available records using Google and different AI systems to clarify in my own mind what exactly Putin has said about Ukraine (and expanding beyond Ukraine) since he took power. I only looked at official translations of Putin’s speeches and comments, not interpretations by “experts” or Western officials. Since the SMO began my listening to his remarks has shown remarkable consistency with his original goals – making the eastern provinces Russian as their members desired, Ukraine remaining neutral and not joining NATO, and de-nazifying the Banderites. Putin has never – not once that I could find – ever stated an interest in expanding further west than eastern Ukraine (though a one other lessor Russian official did speak of taking all of Ukraine once); he has expressed regret at the loss of the Soviet Union but has never articulated recreating it, and while he has expressed support for all Russian people in any country he has never said he wanted to take such countries. Not once. On the other hand, since the Soviet Union fell and Putin first came to power, nearly all Western officials and pundits have stated with certainty that Putin’s goal has always been to recapture most the of the former Warsaw Pact. This Western refusal to hear what Putin has been saying, and certainty that despite what he has been saying for a thirty years his real goal is to take over all of Europe eventually, is exactly the framework that in my opinion makes negotiating any real peace agreement impossible, and Putin knows this. If you look at the printed record – that is, translations of all of Putin’s speeches and remarks – he has been consistent, always, as to his goals and purpose, and the West simply refuses to accept it. I actually think Trump’s instinct, that Russia is a better friend than enemy, is valid, but I am also of the belief that this view on his part will ultimately crumble before the Western obsession. The irony here is that Trump, in arguing for Greenland and the Panama Canal and Canada, is behaving exactly the way the West fears Putin will.
I’m not sure I will be able to read or use the word nuance going forward, without a little smirk from this association. It has a taint.