Reuters ‘sources’ claim they have the scoop on the much-anticipated Russian “memorandum” for peace in Ukraine, which Russian officials have announced they were in the process of writing and presenting to the West.

If there’s any truth to the ‘scoop’, what’s interesting about the contents is that it does appear to outline a broader security architecture on the macro scale, rather than merely hairsplitting over the ‘micro’-level details of post-war troop compositions and such.
The ‘three Russian sources’ with an alleged ear in the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin’s plan includes the demand for Western powers to pledge not only that Ukraine will not join NATO, but that NATO will not expand any further eastward, which primarily only affects Georgia and Moldova at this point, since nearly everyone else has already joined:
The three Russian sources said Putin wants a "written" pledge by major Western powers not to enlarge the U.S.-led NATO alliance eastwards - shorthand for formally ruling out membership to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and other former Soviet republics.
Russia also wants Ukraine to be neutral, some Western sanctions lifted, a resolution of the issue of frozen Russian sovereign assets in the West, and protection for Russian speakers in Ukraine, the three sources said.
This is particularly interesting because it coincides with NYT’s latest which suggests Trump is pushing for a “19th century-style” world where US, China, and Russia divide the globe into spheres of influence.
The evidence they cite is Trump’s Monroe Doctrine-like focus on consolidating America’s control of the western hemisphere, i.e. Panama, Canada, Greenland, etc. Sure, Trump is allegedly considering pulling out troops from Europe, and has made signals of throwing Europeans out with the bathwater when it comes to newly redefined interests—but, it nevertheless still looks more like the US under Trump is clinging to a gluttonous strategy of having one’s cake and eating it too. It’s difficult to defend the argument when, as we speak, Trump is in the process of potentially raising punitive measures against Russia for its actions in its own backyard—what would be unquestionably defined as Russia’s “sphere” in this newly re-districted world imagined by NYT.
The only defense of the thesis one could reasonably make is to suggest that Trump may be slowly weening the US off its fatal anti-Westphalian addiction to meddling in others’ spheres, rather than teetotaling cold turkey. Trump may be attempting to out-maneuver his own neocon deep state patrician class—like Kellogg and co.—by feigning concern for Ukraine, while essentially slowly sabotaging it. His half-hearted threats of punitive measures in the media, as well as cartoonish tirades against Putin, could be a clue to this, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Trump’s outburst almost seems a tad too “on the nose” to be real—as if he suspected the neocons were onto him and needed to throw them off the scent with a kind of virtue ‘performance’ to show he can stand up to Putin.
That being said, if Trump truly envisions a world broken into strictly regulated spheres, it’s unlikely to work out the way he imagines because other rising powers like China will hardly agree to restrict themselves to arbitrary boundaries set by US’ whim; they will seek and do business with whomever they wish. This is nothing more than the dying empire’s last-gasp attempt to delay its own dethronement.
Hubbub rippled through the commentariat today over claims that Russia could strike Germany itself as demonstrative retaliation for supplying Taurus missiles to Ukraine. It was initially kicked off by one of Russia’s top political programs, where a notable military expert said the German arms factory responsible for producing the Tauruses should receive a visit from Oreshnik in response:
RT head Simonyan then corroborated the above in a series of posts:
For the skeptics, Russian chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee Andrey Kartapolov eye-raisingly dispelled further doubts by remarking Russia could potentially strike not only the Taurus carriers and their launch positions, but even ‘wherever the Tauruses are brought from’, for his part leaving little to the imagination:
As a reminder, here was the leaked call between the German commander of the Luftwaffe Lieutenant General Ingo Gerhartz and three of his subordinates—which the German government confirmed was real—wherein they revealed that the targeting data for the Taurus missiles would have to be programmed directly by German staff:
This explains Russia’s outrage. On the other hand, note that Simonyan specifies: ‘if Taurus missiles are used against Moscow’, presumably implying that a retaliatory strike on Germany would only be considered if the missiles are used to hit a particularly sensitive site or area, like the Russian capital itself.
No one really cared when French Storm Shadows were used on secondary targets all over, but the difference here is that the Taurus missiles reportedly have a far greater range, particularly compared to the shorter range ‘export variant’ Storm Shadows Ukraine was given.
Either way, BILD now reports that Merz will not be supplying the Taurus missiles:
BILD found out: The big hit will probably not happen. Although Friedrich Merz, as leader of the opposition, has repeatedly called on SPD Chancellor Olaf Scholz (66) to deliver Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, insiders currently describe the “T-question” as “taboo”.
The abrupt turnabout again left observers with a case of whiplash, and seemed to come precisely after the words ‘Oreshnik’ and ‘Berlin’ were interposed.
I guess that’s what you call deterrence.
That said, Rezident UA quite plausibly claims:
#Inside
Our source in the OP said that Ukraine has already received Taurus missiles and expects only permission to use them deep into Russian territory. The British and German intelligence was engaged in the operation to deploy missiles in Ukraine, the NATO headquarters in the EU will determine the targets for attacks.
Merz, meanwhile, continued to spotlight his magnanimous leadership and deep concern for his own country’s future:
In the meantime, NATO continues to raise the provocation stakes on the Baltic. Putin aide Patrushev revealed that the West is changing its regulatory rules to allow the targeting of Russian ships of the so-called ‘shadow fleet’ more easily:
May 26-RIA Novosti. The West is adjusting the regulatory framework to inspect vessels carrying cargo in international waters in the interests of Russia, said Nikolai Patrushev, Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Maritime Board of the Russian Federation.
Patrushev’s main claim regards the signing into law by Estonian president Alar Karis of the right for Estonia’s navy to fire on civilian ships deemed a “threat”, such as from ‘maneuvering dangerously’—which can obviously be pinned on any Russian ship that refuses to slow down in the face of NATO piracy:
In response to the above, Russia has increasingly signaled its intent to protect merchant marine ships:

The Telegraph article above again reminds us of the definition of ‘shadow fleet’:
But the incident is rippling alarm across the West and inviting questions over just how far its relatively sparse naval forces can challenge the fleet of uninsured tankers that criss-cross its seas every day.
I.e. a ship that has been ‘de-platformed’ from London’s insurance markets against Russia’s wishes.
And on cue, Finnish Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen announced this week that Russia is now escorting its oil tankers with warships in the area full time, although Estonia’s military has somewhat disagreed:

Russia has begun moving its shadow fleet of oil tankers through the Gulf of Finland under the escort Russia's armed forces, Finnish Defense Minister Antti Häkkänen confirmed on May 24 in an interview with the national broadcaster Yle morning show. The Estonian Defense Forces later added that Russia has intensified its patrolling but is not directly escorting the vessels yet.
That’s not to mention the howls of outrage and pearl clutching at claims the Russian Navy has now stolen an Estonian sea buoy:

In fact, the buoy was in international waters—or what Estonia claims is its EEZ—and one can surmise the theft’s purpose: the buoy was positioned directly in the path of Russian tankers for what is likely spy purposes, in order to be alerted of their passage at night, even if transponders are off—for the purpose of criminal piracy. Russia’s stealing of the buoy was a necessary safety measure, most likely.
"With the help of the Latvian Navy, it was possible to match the buoy's movement to the movements of Russian naval ships in the area," he said.
Unfortunately for the neocon wing of the EU, things aren’t developing as they’d like vis-a-vis all this sanctions pressure. Germany’s Suddeutsche Zeitung reports from an ‘internal paper of the German Federal foreign office’ that the US and EU are pulling further and further apart on the sanctions question.
That is to say, once again, there is little consensus and all the more reason to believe things will continue as they are until Ukraine physically breaks.
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
Estonia is really "cruisin' for a bruisin'" Are its leaders so dumb that they think NATO will actually defend them if Russia, for example, sends the Estonian Navy to Davey Jones locker in retaliation for its piracy in the Baltic?....
Again, for the record, an EEZ simply means you have exclusive economic rights to do things like fish or extract oil. It does not mean that you "own" those waters, so anything you leave lying about unattended (e.g. a buoy) is indeed fair game.