I needed to get these thoughts out of my head, so I wrote a quick draft that I might work on further in the future. This is definitely not good enough right now, but I'll be glad for any criticism so I can identify the issues better. It's also not sourced, so all facts are either from memory or maybe even unverified and possibly incorrect.
The Draft
As a disclaimer, I'll admit I'm mostly writing this by ear and don't have much in the way of references, but I believe we should actually put in an effort to understand policies such as these. The strategy of being permanently befuddled by Trump admin actions, or worse, writing them off as plain stupidity suits liberals but not those who call themselves Marxists. If we're confused, that's an indictment on us. This is not meant to be a final word on the subject but rather a place to put my thoughts and maybe start a discussion. I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
With that out of the way, Trump has pledged as part of his campaign to impose 25% tariffs on the Rest Of The World. Although I do concede that it's plausible he didn't think this through initially, I believe there's a logic to it otherwise his admin would've quietly dropped it and moved on or adapted it. Currently, there's talk of sanctioning even Taiwan, which got me thinking I've had it wrong for a while.
In the international division of labour, the USA mainly produces military and capital goods in order to maintain its (and Europe's) dominance over the dependent world, as well as highly specialised industrial products, mostly software and oil products. Its agriculture is big enough to flood small countries such as Haiti, which provide the manufacturing of cheap goods like clothes.
Over the past 50 years it has grown increasingly reliant on Europe/Japan for specialised (but non-military) production such as cars, and with the rapid industrialisation of China over the past 20 years it has embedded itself into that sector's demand.
Its main export companies are the likes of Exxon (oil), Boeing (aerospace), and Johnson&Johnson (pharmaceuticals, medical supplies), while its greatest imports are naturally what's necessary to keep those going, crude oil, vehicles, circuits and such.
Now let's get to the current situation of the Empire. The European economy has stagnated to the point of zero growth, Middle Eastern oil exporters have joined BRICS and are no longer reliant on exporting crude oil only to NATO industries. And while anti-hegemonic movements like the Alliance of Sahel States, Ansarallah shouldn't have their economic importance ocerstated, they are a symptom of the unsustainability of the Empire.
In summary, the US's national economics is built around 1) military, 2) eletronics and 3) oil on its exports, and its imports the intermediate or raw products for the production of those exports or internal consumer goods.
Therefore it'd make no economic sense in a vacuum for the US to impose sanctions and tariffs on those imports, which is where the analysis usually stops. I believe the tariffs do not have an economic purpose but rather a belligerent one. By imposing tariffs on Europe, Canada, even if not actually implemented, the US can force those countries into submission for other means and kill their autonomy.
Calls for tariffs and then "annexation" of Canada forced the abdication of the country's leader. Economically, Canada can't by itself just divest its economy from the US in a reasonable timeframe, so whoever is elected is gonna have to be different from Trudeau, either by completely submitting the country to US interests, or trying to go against the US and facing an economic meltdown that will lead to the first option later on. The Conservatives seem poised for a landslide victory already.
The same applied to a lesser extent the English PM Starmer, who hasn't really resigned but did not push back in any way (as he does), and signaled intention to "cooperate", a nice contrast to his party's position that Trump shouldn't even be allowed to speak on Parliament some years back. But Reform UK has already used this opportunity to clarify they'll be at the ready when the time comes to replace Labour.
So far this strategy has worked on subordinate imperial core countries (West Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia) to force the alignment of broader political interests against their own economic ones.
Colombia's Petro's reaction, immediately proposing to pay back in kind on tariffs and achieving his political victory is, to me, the greatest demonstration of what this is about. The tariffs were not about the tariffs, and the US is more than willing to hurt itself a little so it can hurt smaller dependent nations to further their goals. The US backed down because Colombia was willing to fight a trade war for something that, at this moment, wasn't that crucial to them (torturing immigrants on military planes and making a show of it).
Now they announce that immigrants will be sent to Gitmo, in a way bypassing the need for flight authorisations, but also as an escalation. Mark my words, whichever country tries to effectively block this will also be threatened by "Trump Tariffs". Tariffs will be proposed, possibly alongside more overt actions like visa restrictions, sanctions and ultimately military intervention. Whether they win or lose, the tariffs are probably the first thing they'll back down on because they're not important.
In short, the tariffs are just a foreign relations tool, not an economic one. They're the gun or the bomb, not the war goal. If some dispute is being framed around the tariffs by Imperial media, or even centre-left English outlets, dig deeper. There may be something actually worthy of note being fought over.
I have no internet and I must post.
Please be careful not to conflate the official confirmation with Kots's writing that you're quoting in the OP. This whole "they swore to never be captured" thing is not officially confirmed and there should be a disclaimer about that.
Other than that, I think it's fair to assume this must've been happening since this November announcement:
Source: https://www.rt.com/news/607999-putin-ukraine-conflict-global/
It makes sense that they participated in some combat, and I'm wondering why other anti-US countries like Venezuela aren't at the very least sending generals to get some experience there.
Edit: Alexander Kots's Wikipedia page is really funny: