Even though the Russians have made clear that they are in an uncompromising mood about Ukraine, the US has been so thick about getting the message that the Russians have resorted to using a two by four. The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal have as their lead stories that the Russian have rejected the 30 day ceasefire scheme cooked up in Jeddah between the US and Ukraine as the way to get peace negotiations rolling. Mind you, this unofficial but really not so response may be a sign that Russia recognizes that it is dealing with an even more “gang that can’t shoot straight” bunch than the fabulously lightweight Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan and does not see much point in coddling them. More on that angle in due course.
Here is what the much-broadcast “rejection” amounted to. The interviewee, Yuri Ushakov, is an aide to Putin and an adviser on the Ukraine negotiations. As you can see, he is senior enough to be an interlocutor to Mike Waltz:
Russia says it isn't interested in a temporary ceasefire but a permanent, long-term peaceful settlement with Ukraine. Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/0Haf6xyHxM
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) March 13, 2025
Ushakov told the RT reporter that he told Waltz that the Russian position was no ceasefire. When he asked if his statement amounted to a Russian rejection, he demurred and said the two presidents would be talking. But Ushakov could have easily deflected the question had he wanted to or more importantly, had the Kremlin wanted to.
A similar fast-out-of-the-box reaction didn’t get as much play in the Western press:
⚡️ Temporary ceasefire is 'absolutely unacceptable' — Member of Russian Parliament’s Defense Committee Viktor Sobolev
In a personal statement, Sobolev says that such a truce would only 'play into the hands of Ukrainian fascists', allowing them to 'regroup and rearm' https://t.co/NBTbpbNoaD pic.twitter.com/7BXYOPVMdj
— RT (@RT_com) March 11, 2025
Notice Putin shortly after the US-Ukraine scheme was announced donned military fatigues during a visit to Kursk. Most readers know that Ukraine invaded Kursk, a Russian oblast, but didn’t get very far, and have been throwing men and material into Kursk as Russia has kept chewing away at their position. Hard-core military types have been upset that Russia did not dispatch the Kursk operation quickly, but I can see the logic of bleeding the Ukrainians there. Keeping a presence in Kursk became critical to Ukraine preserving appearances that it could keep up the fight against Russia, so they kept wasting soldiers and weapons to hold a strategically unimportant position.
Putin’s change in attire seems out of proportion to merely commemorating the imminent success of the clearing-Kursk operation (readers: did he ever suit up during the Chechen war?). So I put this in the category of yet-another over-the-top message to the very thick Americans. Some Americans took it that way:
🇷🇺 Putin in a military uniform?
❌ Guess he didn’t like the idea of a temporary ceasefire.
🇺🇦 UKRAINE IS FUCKED! pic.twitter.com/izyVLcueUN
— Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinklle) March 12, 2025
Reader Safety First described the key points Putin made :
Putin, very, very uncharacteristically, donned a military field uniform, rolled down to the regional HQ in Kursk (Gerasimov was already there), and made a 5-minute on-camera statement, one of the two salient points of which is that he “strongly suggested” the military considers establishing a buffer zone around Russian borders after finishing clearing out the Kursk region. If that isn’t a signal to the Americans about any ceasefires, I do not know what is…
His second salient point, by the way, was to stress that any Ukrainians captured in the Kursk region were not actually POWs, but rather “terrorists”, i.e. persons who have violated Russia’s criminal anti-terrorism statutes.
Let’s return to Ushakov’s remarks. As indicated yesterday, I was highly confident the Russians would not entertain the US-Ukraine scheme, but I had assumed they would go through the diplomatic motions, of at least having a what I called a tea and cookies chat, and yet again restating Russia’s conditions before talks could begin. As readers pointed out in comments, Russia could also have gone for slow-walking to get expectations down: “We agreed in Riyadh that we needed to get the diplomatic machinery on both sides back in operation before we can entertain any proposal.”
So why a speedy and very public rebuff? One possibility is that it was important to reassure the Russian public that Putin was not going all wobbly in response to a US overtures, particularly after the important milestone of the Ukraine rout in Kursk.
But I can see at least two other motives. Ushakov pointed out that Putin and Trump will be talking. Getting the message out fast that the ceasefire was na ga happen would recalibrate Trump’s expectations for what he could accomplish in that talk. The alternative, that Trump was all pumped up on the mistaken belief that Putin would agree to the ceasefire, perhaps after wrangling some concessions from Trump, could result in an unpleasant conversation.
Another motive might be to discourage the US from attempting to engage in diplomacy via press release. Ushakov made his remark before Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff landed in Russia. In a recent talk on Nima’s Dialogue Works, John Helmer argued that Witkoff’s job was to talk business. I am dubious. Witkoff seems to be Trump’s favorite negotiator. He dispatched Witkoff to handle a diplomatic matter, that of browbeating Netanyahu into accepting a ceasefire. If Witkoff was indeed traveling to Moscow to (along with other matters) to try to move the peace talks forward, he would find it embarrassing to have part of his agenda undercut before he landed on Russian TV.
The Financial Times write-up of the Ushakov remarks and other developments includes:
Russia’s rejection of the US proposal aligned with Putin’s hardline stance ahead of high-level talks later on Thursday in Moscow, where Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, has landed…
Ushakov said Witkoff, who spoke to Putin last month as the US began extraordinary attempts at a rapprochement with Russia, would not be the White House’s main envoy to Moscow.
The Russian adviser said Washington and Moscow had agreed that any future contacts would be “of a closed nature” and declined to name the envoy.
It could also be that the Russian side is even getting pissed and having to work to maintain its famous froideur. John Helmer, in the same talk with Nima, emphatically made the same point we did, that the US was siding with and backing Ukraine despite trying to pretend it was going to be a fair broker. He picked up that it included a demand based on ia debunked Ukraine propaganda claim: “…. return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children.” He added that the US-Ukraine Joint Statement had it all backwards, in setting the objective as “negotiations toward an enduring peace that provides for Ukraine’s long-term security”. Putin has been talking since the 2007 Munich Security Conference about the West’s threat to Russian security, and the resulting need for a new European security architecture. This is yet more proof that the US pays no heed to Russian words or interests.
In his talk yesterday, Alexander Mercouris read the Joint Statement as indicating that the US and Ukraine would negotiate together with Russia. I don’t infer that, but if Mercouris has this right, this would be another show-stopper. The Ukrainians do not want peace. Or maybe this would not be so bad from the Russian vantage. I could see the Russians maneuvering with the Ukrainians to thwart any forward movement.
This raises a final big issue: it is extremely hard to negotiate with people who don’t know what they are doing, which is the Trump team and the Ukrainians in spades (remember that the Zelensky government is composed heavily of members of his old production team, which is why they are so good at PR and stunts and not much else). I’ve been in that position occasionally, and it is very hard to lead functionally incompetent people (as in they may be skilled at other matters, but not the task at hand), since you need to take charge without looking like you have done so. I can’t imagine either the Trump or Ukraine team to be tractable.
In the mean time, the Europeans are trying to escalate. From Axios:
Polish President Andrzej Duda has called on the U.S. to move some of its nuclear arsenal to Polish territory to deter potential future Russian aggression…
Duda told the Financial Times in an interview published Thursday that the U.S. could move nuclear weapons stored in Western Europe or the U.S. to Poland, and that he’d discussed the idea with U.S. envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Keith Kellogg.
Scholz is on his way out, but is still reaffirming the European commitment to prevent an end to the war, since on current trajectories, it will be on Russian terms:
Scholz said that Russia is striving to demilitarize Ukraine, but that this cannot be allowed.
He stressed that a strong army is "the most important guarantee of the country's security." pic.twitter.com/RSwPzaI0Mg— Sprinter Observer (@SprinterObserve) March 13, 2025
So despite the US and its mouthpieces saying the ball was in Russia’s court, it’s now back on the US side of the net. We’ll see what happens next.
The word “security” of Kiev’s Stalin drawn borders is same US offensive missile in Kiev.
Ceasefire would be Minsk III.
The battlefield will determine “security” outcomes, US is duplicitous
From an outsider view, US position, rather than duplicitous is basically incoherent. Wanting to impose conditions everywhere though unable to come to terms with the changing realities of the world. One day you have Rubio saying the world is no longer unipolar and the following day acting as if it is. The result is that diplomacy cannot work. Worse is Ukraine’s government which cannot discern between PR, war and diplomacy. Everything is PR. I read once this phrase here “The flip side of this, that everything is PR and thus cannot be trusted, is that everything communicates“, which implies that it is easy for the Russians manipulate the Ukrainians because they are always telegraphing their real intentions via PR.
Maybe Rubio is the problem and some of the other people surrounding Trump (yes you Jared)?
My takeaway FWIW is that Trump is ruled by vanity rather than greed or even power. And being the new Nixon goes to China (and maybe even going to China) would put him in the history books, big time. That doesn’t mean he knows what he is doing but it could mean he has an idea of where he is going. It’s still only March. There are years ahead for the situation to clarify.
Of course this rosy scenario seems way less certain re Israel. But let’s see what happens there as well. Maybe Trump will finally awaken the antiwar movement.
IMO.
The last time Putin wore camo is in 2022 during military exercises.
See 3:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlZJhIMXFmI
It could be a sign of a coming escalation.
The USA is losing control of world trade , countries have stopped using the dollar more wish to do so but are afraid of the tariffs and sanctions USA would impose , the way the USA intends to take a tighter grip on world trade is to tackle those that are easy such as their neighbours Canada and Mexico and the remainder of the middle east ,then those in the middle ground which are EU and UK and then the biggies one at a time Russia first then India then China , trouble ahead is that if the USA get this wrong Russia might find its BRICS partners getting involved , so far they have not but thats primarily be ause its still a so called “proxy” war played out in Ukraine , but that could change overnight and change unexpectedly considering the volotivitiy of the likes of Trump Zelensky Starmer Der Leyen.
Re BRICS partners:
Yes. The attitude of China and India (especially) were very important in the beginning of the SMO to defeat sanctions. One wonders what they (India especially) will do if the US begins to assert major pressure, like demanding they no longer buy Russian energy. We’ll see.
I think we’re seeing a significant amount of noise, which may or may not go anywhere. 8.5 hours of negotiation to produce that rather thin release seems excessive, so there may be things we haven’t heard about.
It’s also unclear whether they envision triangular talks or something more like shuttle diplomacy.
Time will tell!
” (remember that the Zelensky government is composed heavily of members of his old production team, which is why they are so good at PR and stunts and not much else)”
Thanks for putting this tidbit in. It’s the first time I’ve seen it (or the first time it stuck), and now a lot of things make more sense.
Anyway, the internet is awash in a meme called the Fell For It Again Award. It’s been getting a lot of use in the last year or two for this admin and the last.
When I first heard that the US & Ukraine had agreed on a cease fire I just about fell over laughing because it hadn’t included Russia. I’m now left wondering who sold this idea to the Trump team that this would be a good approach? Was this just intended to sidetrack the Trump team from actually having constructive negotiations or discussions about what needs to happen to end the conflict? I mean, if you even thought a cease fire might have been agreeable to Russia, I don’t see how that could have been a legitimate thought without including new elections within that cease fire window, otherwise why would Russia even give it the time of day to read.
This is just another cycle of the west ‘negotiating with itself’. I think there is an accidental truth in there: US and Ukraine have temporarily stopped fighting.
Favorable factoids:
Keith Kellogg sidelined: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2025/03/11/what-happened-to-keith-kellogg-00223867
Ukraine out of ATACMS:
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-atacms-usa-military-aid-weapons-running-out-donald-trump-russia-peace-2043959
MSM finally admits Ukraine lost Kursk. Only interesting because imo the narrative has to reflect something roughly consistent with reality. Normies still think Ukraine is winning by ruining the Russian economy via inflation and in every battle because Russian meatwave tactics.
Thanks for this post. My first reaction is a personal reflection on a very bad boyfriend I dated a long, long, long time ago. Charming, funny, smart, attractive… and a jerk, (it took me a while to see that last bit). So, he’d be a jerk, I’d say “that’s it. goodbye.” Then sure as anything after a week or so he’d come wheedling back with the most charming excuses and sincere promises. Rinse and repeat a few times, until I finally figured out his game. Be gone, jerk! / ;)
For some reason the current US and EU treatment of Ukr and RU reminds me of that guy. ha.
About that Root Cause thingy the Russians to their credit bring up. One might say the true root csuse of this conflict and so many others is The West and it’s seeming ingrained colonialist values. It might further be said that the only way to get rid of that root cause might be to get rid of The West. Forever.
Putin to Trump:
“Hmm, very interesting dead cat you have there. But his intestines are spilling out of his guts, and he’s starting to stink. Let’s bury him … I have a much nicer cat over here, and as a bonus, he’s still alive …”
“…This raises a final big issue: it is extremely hard to negotiate with people who don’t know what they are doing, which is the Trump team and the Ukrainians in spades…” Some of the things that the foreign policy crew of the DT2 regime have said is just as nutty, or even nuttier than the JB regime. It’s getting freakier every year. Kakistocracy on Parade
My understanding of the latest: Putin has listed the conditions required, and his doubts about a workable ceasefire., The US will almost certainly not accept the conditions. Putin suggested that DT call him to discuss. I guess we have to stay tuned for the next development. Does the US really believe Russia will acquiesce? or is this just another stunt?
If one believes that reports by the Russian Ministry of Defence are more or less accurate with regards to Ukrainian losses Kursk has been more or less as costly for Ukraine as Bakhmut/Artemisk was in its day with 67.000 casualties so far. I agree that the Russians have used Kursk as an attrition zone given the interest of Z and that is why it has gone for so long. Besides, the Russians have mostly lost phantom NK troops there, if one wilfully believes Western reports.
Its interesting to note that so many of the excellent commentators on Judge Nap – Sachs, Ray McG, Ritter – seem to believe that Trump is serious about peace and that he is playing some kind of 4D chess. They suggest ignoring what his underlings (or even Trump) say publicly about the proposed ceasefire and threats of sanction escalation. And more egregiously, they ignore his form vis-à-vis endorsing of genocide in Gaza (and concomitant restrictions on free speech at US universities), and increasing sabre-rattling against China.
I can’t see how Putin is going to get any meaningful (and sustainable) agreement on a long-term security architecture in place (esp given that the US is agreement incapable – let alone Europe). Therefore Putin will need to continue the SMO to its conclusion, whilst Europe will need to pick up the strain of supporting Ukraine, whilst the US pivots to West Asia and/or China.
2025 does not feel like a year of de-escalation!
“This raises a final big issue: it is extremely hard to negotiate with people who don’t know what they are doing, which is the Trump team and the Ukrainians in spades (remember that the Zelensky government is composed heavily of members of his old production team, which is why they are so good at PR and stunts and not much else).”
Where’s Paddy Chayefsky when you need him?
The satire of the satire of “Servant of the People” is long over due. Guess it would hit home too hard what a set up it was all along.
I don’t think Putin has gone back on one of his original requirements for a ceasefire – that the Ukraine withdraw its troops from the four currently contested oblasts. I would bet good money that if the Ukrainian troops let the Russians know that they’re running away, and all the troops, trucks, tanks, and whatnots are seen heading west, that the Russians would probably be agreeable to not shooting at them.
Though it does sound like some new terms and conditions may have been added to the newest edition of “Ceasefires for Dummies.”
As far as the uniform, it could be as simple as not wanting to mess up a (likely) spendy suit and shoes in the boonies. Not to mention uniforms are WAAAAAAY more comfortable than suit and tie.
The one thing that has me wondering – and I’d be interested in alternate points of view – is why UKR troops would be “terrorists” in their Russian incursion. Best guess – subject to revision – is that since there’s no “declared” war between the parties, the option to “invade the other guy,” very common during wartime, is not seen as being on the table. I haven’t seen (though I haven’t looked very hard) for the “how does THAT work?” on that issue.
PS: In case I hadn’t mentioned, many many thanks for turning Comments back on! I come for the articles, but stay for the thinkings!
The “terrorists” thing is rhetoric. There is a state of armed conflict in the Kursk region, and so the law of armed conflict applies. This says that combatants (ie uniformed members of a nation’s armed forces) should be treated as prescribed by the Geneva Convention if taken prisoner, and that non-combatants (everybody else) who have surrendered should still be protected and looked after, even if they don’t have all of the GC rights. That’s it. There is nothing about “terrorists”, though individual soldiers believed guilty of criminal acts in the context of an armed conflict could still be put on trial.
If US somehow deploys nuclear weapons in Poland, will they insist that they are keeping “their” nukes like Ukraine “should” have?