'So stupid it feels like a joke': Trump admin ruthlessly mocked over bomb return request

Alexander Willis
November 28, 2025

RAW STORY


Smoke billows from a location in southern Lebanon as seen from Marjayoun near the Israeli-Lebanese border, Lebanon, November 27, 2025. REUTERS/Karamallah Daher

The Trump administration was dog piled by critics after a Lebanese news outlet claimed that the United States is demanding the return of an advanced bomb it had recently dropped on the country but failed to detonate.

A local Lebanese news outlet, Al-Markaziya, reported that a recent Israeli strike on central Lebanon near Beirut that killed five people and injured 25 saw at least one bomb – an American-made GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, a precision-guided glide bomb that costs around $39,000 to manufacturer – land without detonating.

And, according to the outlet as reported by India Times on Friday, Trump administration officials are now asking for the bomb to be returned, and out of fear that it could be reverse engineered and allow Trump administration adversaries like China or Iran develop similar weapons.

With more than 4,000 Lebanese having been killed from Israeli strikes since late 2023, a significant share of which was done with American-made weapons given Israel is the single-largest recipient of American foreign aid, the alleged request was largely met with mockery and scorn among critics.

“Is this a meme?” asked X user “tweeterbird,” who’s shared content critical of the Trump administration for its focus on artificial intelligence, as well as content critical of the Israeli government. “This is so stupid it feels like a joke.”

“What can be more ridiculous than this?” asked another X user, “ManofGod,” whose profile says they specialize in AI and robotics.

Israel has launched an extensive campaign against Lebanon’s Hezbollah in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent siege on Gaza. Among Israel’s most notable operations in Lebanon was its 2024 pager attack, an operation that saw thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies explode simultaneously across the country, killing and injuring thousands of civilians and Hezbollah members alike.

Israel is violating all its ceasefire agreements and escalating on all fronts

Israel is using existing ceasefire agreements to establish new realities on the ground, projecting itself as the regional hegemon by launching attacks on Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank.

By Qassam Muaddi and Mondoweiss Palestine Bureau

November 28, 2025 

MONDOWEISS

Israeli army tank deploys near the Gaza border, May 20, 2025. (Photo: © Saeed Qaq/ZUMA Press Wire/ZUMA Wire/APA Images)

The war that Israel allegedly fought on “seven fronts” a year ago is supposed to be over. But Israel is now escalating on all fronts to achieve what it could not during the war, launching strikes and military incursions across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank.

In Gaza, Israeli airstrikes killed over 20 Palestinians in a single day last Sunday as home demolitions have continued throughout the week; in Lebanon, Israel assassinated Hezbollah’s chief of staff, Hassan Ali Tabtabai; in the West Bank, the Israeli army has launched a wide-ranging military operation concentrated around the towns and villages of the northern Tubas governorate; and in Syria just this morning, Israel launched missile and artillery strikes in the southern Damascus countryside, killing 13 Syrians.

All of this takes place as Israel is nominally party to two ceasefires, respectively with Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel’s violation of both has become routine and has escalated significantly in recent weeks.

In Gaza, local sources tell Mondoweiss that a new status quo has emerged in which Israel continues to seize the opportunity to assassinate Hamas leaders in Gaza while claiming its actions are in response to an alleged “violation” on the part of Hamas. Israeli forces have also conducted dozens of demolitions of Palestinian buildings over the week, accompanied by shelling in eastern Gaza City, Rafah, and Khan Younis. Last Sunday, Israeli airstrikes killed over 20 Palestinians in a single day, and on the Tuesday before that, the Israeli army killed 33 Palestinians in a single night.

In all cases, the military either claims that Palestinian fighters trapped in Rafah and surrounded by Israeli forces allegedly violated the ceasefire, or it claims that Palestinian fighters approached the yellow line demarcating the area from which Israeli forces had withdrawn since the ceasefire came into effect last October.

But Israeli forces have been shooting at Palestinians near the yellow line indiscriminately, many of them trying to return to their homes in the area. The line remains invisible to most Gaza residents and can only be identified by the yellow concrete blocks Israeli forces have placed across various points, supposedly demarcating the ceasefire withdrawal borders, which effectively cut Gaza in half. The Israeli army also dropped leaflets over Palestinian encampments west of the yellow line, warning them that anyone who approaches the virtual border will expose themselves to danger.

Through these policies, the Israeli army is entrenching Gaza’s de facto division into two areas, one controlled by Hamas and the other controlled by the Israeli army. Even though this state of affairs is supposed to be temporary and linked to the “first phase” of the ceasefire, the deliberate ambiguity of the deal’s terms and the lack of an implementation mechanism make it easy for Israel to declare that Hamas is in violation of the terms — and hence refuse to withdraw further from Gaza. The effect this has had is to force almost all of the Strip’s population into less than half of its already overcrowded territory.

Meanwhile, in the West Bank, Israeli forces have launched a wide-scale military operation in the northern West Bank concentrated around the so-called “pentagon of villages” — Tubas, Tammun, Aqaba, Tayasir, and Wadi al-Fara — which the Israeli intelligence establishment considers a “hotbed” of resistance activity. Ostensibly to root out resistance in the Tubas district, local residents told Mondoweiss that the real reason for the military invasion is to thin out the population in the area, laying the groundwork for land confiscation and settlement building.

In Lebanon, the international peacekeeping forces — UNIFIL — reported last week that Israeli forces had committed around 10,000 violations of the ceasefire deal with Lebanon, including 2,500 land incursions and 7,500 airspace violations, since entering into its ceasefire with Hezbollah a year ago in November 2024. The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot also reported that the Israeli army has conducted 1,200 land raids into 21 Lebanese villages over the past year.

These violations escalated significantly over recent weeks, culminating in the strike that killed Hezbollah chief of staff Tabtabai on Sunday, who is considered the highest-ranking Hezbollah member to be targeted since the ceasefire began. Following the assassination, Israel put its forces near Lebanon’s border on alert, as Hezbollah officials insinuated the possibility of a response. This series of escalations now threatens to blow up the Lebanon ceasefire.
Using ceasefires to establish realities on the ground

Both ceasefire deals in Lebanon and Gaza were only made possible after long months of mediation, in which Hezbollah and Hamas each eventually accepted terms that allowed Israel to maintain forces in their territories, without any practical guarantees that the ceasefires would be sustainable.

Yet Israel is using these truces to establish new realities on the ground, entrenching its occupation of parts of Gaza and southern Lebanon while asserting its military dominance on the regional stage. This projection of control aims to impose Israel’s vision for a “new Middle East” and a new status quo that recognizes Israel as the uncontested hegemon.

This can be gleaned in Israel’s active escalation in Syria, where Israel has tried to counter the expansion of Turkey’s influence in the country.

Israeli forces continue to position themselves in Syrian territory while conducting land raids in cities such as Quneitra and its surroundings. Last Monday, official Syrian TV reported that Israeli forces “bulldozed extensive farming areas” in the Syrian village of Breiqa in the southern part of the country. Meanwhile, on Thursday, Syrian media outlets reported that Israeli fighter jets flew over several Syrian governorates, and on the following day, an Israeli force invaded the Syrian town of Beit Jinn. When the force was reportedly uncovered, clashes between the Israeli force and Syrians reportedly led to the injury of two Israeli soldiers. According to Syrian state TV, Israeli shelling and strikes led to the killing of 13 Syrians, including at least two children.

Israeli strikes across Syrian territory have continued to become more flagrant over recent weeks, while previous strikes in Damascus in July aimed to strengthen Druze separatist elements in Suwayda. The reality on the ground Israel hopes to create is one of regional fragmentation.

In Gaza, this is manifesting in the recently declared plan to build “alternative safe communities” that would make up a “new Gaza” in the part of the Strip under Israeli control, which appears to have received U.S. backing. Earlier in July, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz had stated that Israel would create a “humanitarian city” built over the flattened remains of Rafah, which was supposedly meant to house 600,000 Palestinians and would be used as a pathway for Palestinians to “voluntarily migrate” out of Gaza, a plan that was characterized by UN officials and human rights experts as a “concentration camp.”

In that same month, a Reuters report revealed that the U.S.-run and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — so-called “aid” sites meant to replace the UN’s aid distribution system, but where thousands of Palestinians were gunned down in what were described by Gazans as “death traps” — had drafted plans to create so-called “Humanitarian Transit Areas” meant to facilitate the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. The GHF was itself the “brainchild” of Israeli officials, the New York Times reported last May.

Now that plans for a “new Gaza” have surfaced as part of the Trump-backed ceasefire framework, new reports have begun to emerge that UG Solutions, the U.S. military subcontractor that provided security for the GHF, is now recruiting for a new deployment in Gaza to run ten to 15 more aid sites during the ceasefire.

All these developments take place as Israel attempts to continue to advance its goals. In Lebanon and Syria, it is to establish itself as a regional hegemon, and in Gaza, it is to achieve during the ceasefire what it could not achieve during the war — the ethnic cleansing of Gaza under the rubric of “voluntary migration.”

Israel is losing the battle of public relations.

Israel is violating ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon, and Trump is allowing it

In recent days, Israel has dramatically escalated its violations of the ceasefire in both Gaza and Lebanon, which have been met with utter silence from the United States. Could this mean a return to the full-scale atrocities of the past two years?

By Mitchell Plitnick 

 November 27, 2025 

MONDOWEISS


Benjamin Netanyahu with Donald Trump at the Ben Gurion airport in May 2017. (Photo: Amos Ben Gershom GPO)


According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “ceasefire” means: “a suspension of active hostilities.” The so-called “kids’ definition” is: “a temporary stopping of warfare.” That all seems clear enough.

But Israel’s definition differs significantly. They understand “ceasefire” to mean: “they cease, we fire.”

This is not news to Palestinians, Lebanese, or any of Israel’s neighbors. Much like how Israel and its supporters like to say that there was “peace” before October 7, 2023, questions of violence are always defined not by whether there is shooting or bombing but by whether Israelis are getting hit with those bullets and bombs.


When the United States imposed or brokered ceasefires between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah, it was well understood by all that Washington would have to keep Israel on a tight leash for the agreements to hold. It was not hard to anticipate that the attention to that task would not be sustainable under Donald Trump.

Recent events have proven that to be true. Israel has never held to either ceasefire, of course. But in recent days, it has dramatically escalated its violations in both Gaza and Lebanon, and these violations have been met with utter silence from the United States.

Are we about to see a return to the full-scale atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon that became so sickeningly familiar these past two years? And why did the U.S. go to the trouble of brokering these ceasefire agreements if they were just going to let Israel destroy them so flagrantly and easily?

Above all, what is Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu trying to achieve, as he seems to be calling all the shots, directly or indirectly?
Israel’s aims

Israel’s goals are clear enough: endless war.

After the United Nations Security Council shamefully voted to endorse Donald Trump’s colonialist plan to impose conditions on the Palestinians as the price for stopping Israel’s full-scale genocide in Gaza, Netanyahu reacted not like a leader who had gotten what he wanted, but like a man who just saw a development he needed to prevent.

“Israel extends its hand in peace and prosperity to all of our neighbors” and calls on neighboring countries to “join us in expelling Hamas and its supporters from the region,” he said in a series of posts on X.

Expulsion of Hamas was not part of Trump’s plan or the Security Council’s resolution. Netanyahu obviously added this to prick Hamas, add fuel to his efforts to undermine the Trump plan, and to toss a bone to his right flank.

Israel had never heeded the ceasefire to begin with. More than 340 overwhelmingly non-combatant Palestinians have been killed since the ceasefire was put in place, and over 15,000 more structures in Gaza have been destroyed, just as flooding, overflowing sewage, rains, and the cold weather of approaching winter start to hit the already battered population.

In just the past few days, though, Israel has killed more than 60 Palestinians in Gaza, a sign of escalation. It is no coincidence that this uptick comes on the heels of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman’s (MBS) visit to Washington where he once again insisted, much to Trump’s annoyance, that if Donald Trump wanted to see a normalization deal between his kingdom and Israel, there would need to be a clear, committed path to a Palestinian state with a timeline. Whether MBS was sincere about that or not, Netanyahu has no intention of making even the slightest gesture in that direction, and the escalation in Gaza was, at least in part, his response to that part of the Trump-MBS confab.

Israel’s justifications for its attacks on Palestinians are threadbare and reflect how little Washington cares.

Netanyahu claims that Hamas has repeatedly violated the ceasefire by sending their people across the arbitrary line Trump drew in Gaza, when, in fact, these are Hamas members who were caught on the wrong side when the ceasefire was imposed and have been cut off from their commanders.

Other Israeli claims are equally thin and disingenuous, such as the false claim that Hamas is killing Palestinian civilians or that they staged a body recovery, which is true but hardly merits the mass slaughter Israel engaged in response.

But for the most part, Israel is not even bothering to justify their actions. They simply say, “There was a Hamas person there,” and that is good enough for the U.S. and most of the mainstream Western media. This is despite the fact that Hamas has stuck to their side of the agreement, in terms of refraining from attacks on Israelis, despite the fact that, legally, they have every right to attack an occupying army.
Setting sights on Lebanon

Yet as much as Israel continues to escalate in Gaza, they are wary of reigniting the global outcry that has quieted a bit as some people — mostly those eager to go back to disinterest in the plight of the Palestinian people — accept the idea that the slightly slower pace of genocide occurring now can be called a “ceasefire,” and an end to “the war.”

Israel is hoping that the isolation that was created, mostly by popular movements, during the genocide might ease. Netanyahu, who is always seeking ways to have the best of both worlds, will not end the killing in Gaza to achieve this, but is hoping the illusion of an end to genocide might take hold. So far, it has not, despite the fact that many sources, even some Arab ones, persist in referring to the ceasefire as if it were genuine.

Netanyahu needs perpetual war. An Israel that faces diplomatic challenges abroad and internal questions at home is not a hospitable one for Netanyahu’s election chances next year.

Lebanon offers an alternative. While there may be protests regarding attacks on Lebanon as well, it has not generated the same kind of global response as attacks on Gaza. With even less provocation from Hezbollah than they have gotten from Hamas (which, itself, was virtually nil), Israel has stepped up the attacks on Lebanon that it also never ceased.

There could not be better proof that Israel has no interest in peace and regional stability, but prefers a state of constant war.

The ceasefire deal that was struck last year between Israel and Lebanon calls for the Lebanese military to take over the defense of the country in the south, where Hezbollah has been the de facto defense force for decades. The new Lebanese government agreed to do this and to work with Hezbollah to bring about the absorption of the group’s armed wing into the Lebanese military, unified under the solitary command of the Lebanese government.

This should be exactly what Israel wants. It would mean that Hezbollah, which would continue to be a political entity in Lebanon, would no longer have an independent armed wing. Their fighters and arms would instead be controlled by a government that is not only friendly to the West but also heavily dependent on it for its economic recovery.

The Lebanese military made it clear from the outset that they would not — and indeed, they could not — disarm Hezbollah by force. They are not about to risk another civil war after the way the last one devastated the small country.

Persistent Israeli attacks and Israel’s refusal to leave key areas in southern Lebanon have greatly complicated matters. Hezbollah has evacuated its sites in the south, but they are not prepared to disarm while Israel continues to occupy Lebanese territory and launch regular attacks. That is not an unreasonable position; they are simply asking that Israel fulfill its side of the ceasefire.

Israel assassinated Hezbollah’s chief of staff Haytham Ali Tabatabai last Sunday, in a clear escalation that was widely interpreted as a warning to Lebanon and the U.S. over what they considered the “slow pace” of Hezbollah disarmament and their claims that Hezbollah is slowly building up an arms cache again.

Indeed, the pace is slow, and it seems that Hezbollah is likely rebuilding its stock of weapons. However, their support from Iran is greatly diminished, as are their domestic manufacturing capabilities; therefore, any rearming is a much slower process than it might have been in the past.

Israel’s refusal to abide by even one moment of the terms of the ceasefire agreement is the greatest impediment to the process that the Lebanese government has been insisting is the only way they can not only disarm Hezbollah, but also normalize the country’s entire security apparatus, bringing it under one authority.
The U.S.’ short attention span

At first, when the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel was announced, the United States seemed to understand that the Lebanese military, weak as it is, would need to work with Hezbollah, not against it, in order to achieve the outcome everyone seemed to want. The Trump administration also seemed to get it.

But neither the outgoing Biden administration nor the incoming Trump one was prepared to push Israel to abandon its positions in southern Lebanon. Nor was either prepared to rebuke Israel for its continuous attacks, even when those attacks were directed at civilians, or even United Nations personnel.

American diplomats have sent mixed signals. Trump’s Special Envoy for the region, Tom Barrack, has vacillated between complimentary words on the progress being made by the Lebanese government in its talks with Hezbollah and threats of Israeli action if the process of disarming Hezbollah is not completed soon.

When Trump took office, he sent similarly mixed messages. While he voiced his support for the Lebanese government, he almost immediately started pushing the government to accelerate the process of disarming Hezbollah.

While Trump seemed to understand that Israeli attacks made this already difficult task much harder for the fledgling Lebanese government — asking Israel to “scale down” its attacks — he continued to show impatience with a process that requires careful steps, not bluster.

For Trump, his aims were largely achieved by his ability to claim a ceasefire in Gaza, however false a claim that may be. In Lebanon, the truce was not technically of his making; he likely would not mind a new round of large-scale warfare, which he could then claim to have brought to an end. The reality of such claims, and how they actually play out on the ground, is of no importance to him.

In recent days, Trump has focused his attention on Russia and Ukraine, and, as a result, he is paying even less attention to Gaza and Lebanon than he was before. Netanyahu noticed.

In looking at what Trump is pursuing in Ukraine, and the potential wealth he personally stands to gain from his plans there, it is obvious that any interests he may have had in Trump casinos and towers in Gaza or Beirut are insignificant next to the mineral and other forms of profit he hopes to leech out of Ukraine.

In the end, Trump decided to act in Gaza largely out of his concern for his business partners in Qatar, after Israel’s attack there crossed a line. That rebuke has now been registered, and his interest lies elsewhere.

No one is reading this more clearly than Netanyahu. He will continue to pursue his Genocide 2.0 in Gaza, allowing a quarter of the aid needed into Gaza rather than none of it, and featuring daily killings of a slightly lower number than before.

Lebanon is where he envisions a return to larger-scale fighting, but, at least for now, he needs Hezbollah to retaliate for his provocations. So far, they haven’t taken the bait.

But how much more provocation can they realistically be expected to stand for? That is the bet Netanyahu is making with the full knowledge that Trump has turned his attention away from these actions. Trump, being his mercurial self, could pivot back, but there is little reason for him to do so at this point.

Trump Gaza Plan Condemned as ‘Concentration Camps Within a Mass Concentration Camp’

After previous plans by Israel for the mass expulsion of Palestinians, onlookers fear the proposal to house some displaced Palestinians in “compounds” they may not be allowed to leave.

Displaced Palestinians warm up by the fire after their homes were destroyed following heavy rain in Gaza City, on November 25, 2025.
(Photo by Omar al-Qattaa/AFP via Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Nov 26, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

A new Trump administration plan to put Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied parts of Gaza into “residential compounds” is raising eyebrows among international observers, who fear it could more closely resemble a system of “concentration camps within a mass concentration camp.”

Under the current “ceasefire” agreement—which remains technically intact despite hundreds of alleged violations by Israel that have resulted in the deaths of over 300 Palestinians—Israel still occupies the eastern portion of Gaza, an area greater than 50% of the entire strip. The vast majority of the territory’s nearly 2 million inhabitants are crammed onto the other side of the yellow line into an area of roughly 60 square miles—around the size of St Louis, Missouri, or Akron, Ohio.

As Ramiz Alakbarov, the United Nations’ deputy special coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, explained Monday at a briefing to the UN Security Council: “Two years of fighting has left almost 80% of Gaza’s 250,000 buildings damaged or destroyed. Over 1.7 million people remain displaced, many in overcrowded shelters without adequate access to water, food, or medical care.”

The New York Times reported Tuesday that the new US proposal would seek to resettle some of those Palestinians in what the Trump administration calls “Alternative Safe Communities,”on the Israeli-controlled side of the yellow line.

Based on information from US officials and European diplomats, the Times said these “model compounds” are envisioned as a housing option “more permanent than tent villages, but still made up of structures meant to be temporary. Each could provide housing for as many as 20,000 or 25,000 people alongside medical clinics and schools.”

The project is being led by Trump official Aryeh Lightstone, who previously served as an aide to Trump’s first envoy to Jerusalem. According to the Times: “His team includes an eclectic, fluctuating group of American diplomats, Israeli magnates and officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—the sweeping Washington cost-cutting effort overseen earlier this year by Elon Musk.”

The source of funding for the project remains unclear, though the cost of just one compound is estimated to run into the tens of millions. Meanwhile, the newspaper noted that even if ten of these compounds were constructed, it would be just a fraction of what is needed to provide safety and shelter to all of Gaza’s displaced people. It’s unlikely that the first structures would be complete for months.

While the Times said that “the plan could offer relief for thousands of Palestinians who have endured two years of war,” it also pointed to criticisms that it “could entrench a de facto partition of Gaza into Israeli- and Hamas-controlled zones.” Others raised concerns about whether the people of Gaza will even want to move from their homes after years or decades of resisting Israel’s occupation.




But digging deeper into the report, critics have noted troubling language. For one thing, Israeli officials have the final say over which Palestinians are allowed to enter the “compounds” and will heavily scrutinize the backgrounds of applicants, likely leading many to be blacklisted.

In one section, titled “Freedom of Movement,” the Times report noted that “some Israeli officials have argued that, for security reasons, Palestinians should only be able to move into the new compounds, not to leave them, according to officials.”

This language harkens back to a proposal earlier this year by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who called for the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinians in Gaza.

Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”

Prior to that, Trump called for the people of Gaza—“all of them”—to be permanently expelled and for the US to “take over” the strip, demolish the remaining buildings, and construct what he described as the “Riviera of the Middle East.” That plan was widely described as one of ethnic cleansing.

The new plan to move Palestinians to “compounds” is raising similar concerns.

“What is it called when a military force concentrates an ethnic or religious group into compounds without the ability to leave?” asked Assal Rad, a PhD in Middle Eastern history and a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC.

Sana Saeed, a senior producer for AJ+, put it more plainly: “concentration camps within a mass concentration camp.”

The Times added that “supporters insist that this would be a short-term arrangement until Hamas is disarmed and Gaza comes under one unified government.” Lightstone has said that reconstruction of the other parts of Gaza, where the vast majority of the population still lives, will not happen unless Hamas, the militant group that currently governs the strip, is removed from power.

But while Hamas has indicated a potential willingness to step down from ruling Gaza, it has rejected the proposal that it unilaterally disarm and make way for an “International Stabilization Force” to govern the strip, instead insisting that post-war governance should be left to Palestinians. That plan, however, was authorized last week by the UN Security Council.

In addition to raising concerns that “those moving in would never be allowed to leave,” the Beirut-based independent journalist Séamus Malekafzali pointed to other ideas Lightstone and his group want to implement. According to the Times, “It has kicked around ideas ranging from a new Gaza cryptocurrency to how to rebuild the territory in such a way that it has no traffic.”

Malekafzali said, “Former DOGE personnel are attempting to make Gaza into yet another dumb tech experiment.”

Like Katz’s plan months ago, the new Trump proposal calls for a large compound to be built in Rafah, which Egyptian officials warned, in comments to the Wall Street Journal, could be a prelude to a renewed effort to push Palestinians across the border into the Sinai Peninsula.

But even if not, Jonathan Whittall, the former head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Palestine, said it hardly serves the humanitarian role the Trump administration and its Israeli co-administrators seek to portray.

“If plans for these ‘safe communities’ proceed, they would cement a deadly fragmentation of Gaza,” he wrote in Al Jazeera. “The purpose of creating these camps is not to provide humanitarian relief but to create zones of managed dispossession where Palestinians would be screened and vetted to enter in order to receive basic services, but would be explicitly barred from returning to the off-limits and blockaded ‘red zone.’”

He noted that there is a conspicuous lack of any clear plan for what happens to those Palestinians who continue to live outside the safe communities, warning that Israel’s security clearances could serve as a way of marking them as fair targets for even more escalated military attacks.

“Those who remain outside of the alternative communities, in the ‘red zone,’” he said, “risk being labelled ‘Hamas supporters’ and therefore ineligible for protection under Israel’s warped interpretation of international law and subject to ongoing military operations, as already seen in past days.”

Obstacles to Gaza plan

It would be a mistake for Pakistan to send troops for the stabilisation force in Gaza.

Maleeha Lodhi 

Published November 24, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

BY approving a US-sponsored resolution, the UN Security Council handed an international mandate to President Donald Trump’s 20-point ‘peace plan’ for Gaza. But it did this without any input from Palestinians. Hamas rejected the resolution saying it fails to meet Palestinian rights and demands and “imposes a mechanism to achieve the [Israeli] occupation’s objectives”.

The resolution can only be implemented if Hamas signs up to it. This means complex negotiations lie ahead if the plan is to progress beyond the present ceasefire, which is being violated daily by Israeli forces, who have also been crossing the ‘yellow line’. This has taken the Palestinian death toll to almost 70,000 in the two-year genocidal war imposed by Israel.

The UNSC resolution is short on specifics and ambiguous in key areas. It ignores all previous resolutions on Palestine. It authorises the creation of a vaguely defined transitional governance body, the Board of Peace, chaired by Trump and members decided by him, to oversee a Palestinian “technocratic” committee responsible for day-to-day running of Gaza. It also authorises the BoP to establish a temporary multinational international stabilisation force (ISF) “to deploy under unified command acceptable to the BoP”.

This will not be a UN peacekeeping mission nor be overseen by the UN. Its mandate is unclear and details are lacking on its scope and structure. It is however tasked to “demilitarise the Gaza Strip” and carry out “permanent decommissioning of weapons from non-state armed groups”, including Hamas.

The original US draft made no reference to Palestinian statehood. But at the insistence of Muslim countries, the final resolution mentions a “credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood”. But this is wrapped in so many conditions that it denudes it of real meaning. Weak Arab negotiators failed to get a firm commitment to a Palestinian state in the resolution. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains firmly opposed to any Palestinian state.

The UNSC resolution was welcomed across the world as a step towards peace despite concerns of many countries and Council members, including Pakistan, about its lack of clarity in core areas. China and Russia, who abstained on the vote, both voiced concern about the vague nature of key elements, lack of Palestinian participation and absence of commitment to a two-state solution.

China’s ambassador to the UN, Fu Cong, said the resolution “does not [reflect] the fundamental principle of Palestinians governing Palestine”. Russia’s UN envoy, Vassily Nebenzia, described the stabilisation force as “reminiscent of colonial practices”. In a scathing critique, the UN special Rapporteur for Palestine said, “Rather than charting a pathway towards ending the occupation and ensuring Palestinian protection, the resolution risks entrenching external control over Gaza’s governance, borders, security, and reconstruction. The resolution betrays the people it claims to protect.”

In Gaza itself, the UNSC resolution’s main provisions were viewed with great scepticism, according to Al Jazeera reporters on the ground. One resident told the news outlet “Our people … are able to rule ourselves. We don’t need forces from Arab or foreign countries to rule us”. The transitional governing arrangement is seen as outsiders deciding the fate of Palestinians. The international stabilisation force is viewed with deep suspicion — “not as a guarantee of protection but rather a foreign security arrangement imposed without their consent”.

Of course, it is the stance of Hamas and other Palestinian factions that is consequential for the resolution’s enforcement. Hamas still controls Gaza up to the ‘yellow line’ held by Israel. Its popularity has risen since the ceasefire, according to the latest poll by the West Bank-based Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research. Hamas has rejected the UN resolution on a number of grounds. It said the resolution “imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip”. Assigning the international force to disarm groups resisting the occupation “strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favour of the occupation”.

Hamas has argued that any international force, if established, “must be deployed only at the borders to separate forces, monitor the ceasefire, and be fully under UN supervision”. “It must also operate exclusively in coordination with official Palestinian institutions.” “Resisting the occupation by all means is a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws and conventions.” Hamas also said disarmament is an “internal matter” linked to the end of occupation and creation of a Palestinian state.

It is possible Hamas may be prepared to disarm in exchange for total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which would end its occupation. But that can only be tested in serious negotiations that have to take place if the UN-endorsed Trump plan is not to collapse.

The expectation from the stabilisation force to demilitarise Gaza and disarm resistance groups is likely to deter several Muslim countries from joining it. Some of them are engaged in talks to contribute to the force. Israel has to approve countries that can be part of the force. So far it has rejected Turkiye’s participation. The international force will be answerable to the BoP and is intended to work with Egypt and Israel to demilitarise the Gaza Strip. That means it can get caught in a shooting war and act like an enforcement force rather than a peacekeeping one. Its task will also be to secure the borders and train the Palestinian police.

There are at least three reasons why Pakistan should not join ISF. One, it should not be part of a force whose key task is to police Hamas, not protect Palestinians. The implications for Pakistan, for example, of any clash between its troops and Palestinians would be serious. Two, deployment would involve close cooperation with Israel and arguably lure Pakistan into a trap to recognise Israel and join the Abraham Accords. Moreover, Israel’s continuing ceasefire violations and occupation of over half of Gaza pose major obstacles to Trump’s plan. In these circumstances, Hamas will not disarm. Walking into such a quagmire would therefore be a mistake for Pakistan.

The challenges facing implementation of the Gaza peace plan are formidable. At this inflection point for the plan, it is uncertain whether it will be able to deliver peace or meet the same fate as so many failed plans for Palestine have in the past.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, November 24th, 2025

NAKBA II

Israeli army launches new operation in West Bank

Tubas (Palestinian Territories) (AFP) – Israel's military on Wednesday launched a new operation against Palestinian armed groups in the occupied West Bank, where a local governor told AFP that Israeli forces had raided several towns.


Issued on: 26/11/2025 - FRANCE24

The Israeli army confirmed to AFP that it was a new operation, and not part of the one launched in January 2025 © Zain JAAFAR / AFP

The Israeli military, police and internal security service said in a joint statement that they had begun "a broad counter-terrorism operation" in the north of the Palestinian territory after they received intelligence about "attempts to establish terrorist strongholds".

The military said the operation began with air strikes to isolate the area, which were followed by "searches" on the ground, during which suspects were apprehended and funds were confiscated.

The Israeli army confirmed to AFP that it was a new operation, and not part of the one launched in January 2025, which primarily targeted Palestinian refugee camps in the northern West Bank.

Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967.

The operation, which began overnight, was taking place in predominantly agricultural Tubas, the northeasternmost of the 11 governorates in the West Bank.

Ahmed al-Asaad, governor of the Tubas region, told AFP: "This is the first time that the entire governorate is included -- the whole governorate is now under Israeli army operations."

Asaad said Israeli forces raided the towns of Tammun and Tayasir, and the Al-Faraa Palestinian refugee camp.

"The army has closed the city entrances with earth mounds, so there is no movement at all," he added.

He told AFP that "an Apache helicopter" was involved in the operation, and claimed it had fired in the direction of residential areas.

"This is a political operation, not a security one," he said.
Injuries reported

An AFP photographer saw some soldiers walking around inside Tubas city, with a few armoured cars driving through and a surveillance aerial vehicle buzzing overhead. Most shops were closed.

The road entrance to nearby Tammun had been closed off by a military vehicle.

An ambulance was allowed to go through but citizens were not. Armoured cars were driving around at the scene.

The Palestinian Red Crescent Society said its teams in the governorate had treated 10 injured people, four of whom had to be transferred to hospital.

The operation, which began overnight, was taking place in predominantly agricultural Tubas © Zain JAAFAR / AFP


It added that some of its teams were "facing obstruction in transporting patients in the city of Tubas and the town of Tammun since dawn", and were still responding to calls for help following the raids.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two Palestinian militant groups proscribed as terror organisations by many countries, condemned the Israeli operation.

Hamas said in a statement that it was part of a policy "aimed at crushing any Palestinian presence in order to achieve complete control over the West Bank".

Violence in the West Bank has soared since Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war, and has not ceased despite the fragile truce between Israel and Hamas coming into effect last month.

Israeli troops or settlers have killed more than 1,000 Palestinians, many of them militants, but also scores of civilians, in the West Bank since the start of the Gaza war, according to an AFP tally based on Palestinian health ministry figures.

At least 44 Israelis, including both soldiers and civilians, have been killed in Palestinian attacks or Israeli military operations, according to official Israeli figures.

© 2025 AFP

ECUMENISM & CONSTANTINIANISM

1,700 years ago, bishops and an emperor wrote a creed. Millions still recite it in church

(AP) — Leo will commemorate the 1,700th anniversary with Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Peter Smith
November 21, 2025
RNS/AP

Centuries of church schisms show that if there’s a doctrine to be fought over, there’s a good chance Christians will fight about it.

That repeated splintering is what makes the Council of Nicaea — a meeting of bishops 1,700 years ago in present-day Turkey — so significant today. And why Pope Leo XIV is traveling on Nov. 28 to the site of this foundational moment in Christian unity as part of his first major foreign trip as pope.

In 325, the council hashed out the first version of the Nicene Creed, a statement of faith that millions of Christians still recite each Sunday.

“The occasion is very, very important — the first global, ecumenical council in history and the first form of creed acknowledged by all the Christians,” said church historian Giovanni Maria Vian, coauthor of “La scommessa di Costantino,” or “Constantine’s Gamble,” published in Italy in tandem with the anniversary.

Convened by the Roman emperor, Nicaea marked the first — but hardly the last — time that a powerful political leader took a leading role in shaping a far-reaching church policy. It was an early collaboration of church and state.

Leo will commemorate the 1,700th anniversary with Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Catholic, Orthodox and most historic Protestant groups accept the creed. Despite later schisms over doctrine and other factors, Nicaea remains a point of agreement — the most widely accepted creed in Christendom.

Other events have been commemorating the council, from the global to the local. The World Council of Churches, which includes Orthodox and Protestant groups, marked the anniversary in Egypt in October. At a Pittsburgh-area ecumenical celebration in November, the tongue-in-cheek catchphrase was, “Party like it’s 325.”

Unified empire, divided church

The Council of Nicaea is important both for what was done and how it was done.

It involved an unprecedented gathering of at least 250 bishops from around the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine had consolidated control over the empire after years of civil war and political intrigues.

Constantine wouldn’t formally convert to Christianity until the end of his life. But by 325, he had already been showing tolerance and favor toward a Christian sect that had emerged from the last great spasm of Roman persecution.

Constantine wanted a unified church to support his unified empire. But the church was tearing itself apart.

It’s sometimes called the “Trinitarian Controversy,” though the debate wasn’t so much about whether there was a Trinity — God as Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit — but about how the Son was related to the Father.

Historians debate exactly who taught what, but an Egyptian priest named Arius gave his name to the influential doctrine of Arianism.

It depicted Jesus as the highest created being, but not equal to God. The opposing view, championed by an Egyptian bishop, said that Jesus was eternally equal to the Father.

An effort at compromise

Constantine called a council to sort things out. It’s called the first “ecumenical” or universal council, as opposed to regional ones.

The bishops nearly unanimously supported a creed endorsed by the emperor. It’s a shorter version of the Nicene Creed recited in church today. It declared Jesus to be “true God” and condemned those who proclaimed Arian ideas.

The creed described Jesus as equal to the Father, of “one substance” — “homoousios,” a term from Greek philosophy rather than the Bible.

The council also adopted a formula for determining the date of Easter, which had been controversial. The council approved the calendar favored by Arian sympathizers, setting Easter for the Sunday after the first full moon of spring. That gave each side a win, said David Potter, author of “Constantine the Emperor” and a professor of Greek and Roman history at the University of Michigan.

“The Council of Nicaea was an extraordinary diplomatic success for Constantine, because he got the two sides to agree,” he said.

As a result, an emperor’s theological legacy endures.

“I’ve often thought that it’s nice that a piece of imperial legislation is read out every Sunday,” Potter said.


Ominous language about Jews

When the council set its formula for determining Easter, it made a point of distancing the observance from that of Jewish Passover. It used highly contemptuous language for Jews.

“Institutional antisemitism was absolutely a feature of the church,” Potter said.

He noted that such harsh language was common on all sides of ancient religious disputes among early Christians, Jews and pagans. But it helped set a precedent for centuries of persecution of Jewish minorities in Christian lands.

The settlement unsettled

Despite agreement on the creed, it didn’t settle things. In fact, Arius made a comeback, returning to political favor.

NEW: Bring more puzzles and play to your week with RNS Games

Doctrinal debate raged for another couple of generations — even in the streets of the new capital of Constantinople.

“Old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers, they are all busy arguing,” wrote St. Gregory of Nyssa late in the fourth century. “If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten. If you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told … the Father is greater and the Son inferior.”

In 381, another emperor convened a council in Constantinople. It affirmed an expanded Nicene Creed, with added lines describing the church and the Holy Spirit. The final version became the standard text used today. It’s sometimes called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Later -isms and schisms

That largely took care of the Arians, but new controversies arose in later centuries.

Some churches in Asia and Africa, including the Oriental Orthodox bodies, accepted the Nicene Creed but rejected later councils amid disputes over how to talk about Jesus being both human and divine. Pope Leo, while in Turkey, also plans to meet with representatives of two Oriental Orthodox groups, the Armenian Apostolic and Syriac Orthodox churches.

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches had their own schism in the 11th century. They’d already been growing apart over such things as papal authority, but a big controversy was that the Western churches had added a clause in the Nicene Creed that the Eastern ones hadn’t agreed to. Specifically, the original creed said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father,” but Catholics added, “and the Son.”

Protestant churches later split over other issues, though most held to the Nicene Creed. Historic churches such as Lutherans, Anglicans and Presbyterians explicitly affirm the creed. Many modern evangelical churches that don’t officially affirm the creed, such as many Baptists, have their own statements of faith that largely agree with it.

A few notable exceptions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, don’t accept the Nicene formula.

The Catholic and Protestant churches also began observing Easter differently than the Orthodox a few centuries ago, using an updated solar calendar — and opening yet another breach in Nicene unity.

Still, Nicaea offers hope to a divided church, said the Rev. John Burgess, a systematic theology professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary who is a Presbyterian minister and a scholar on Eastern Orthodoxy.

“An event like the 1,700 years of Nicaea is really the celebration not of a reality but of a hope — of what Christians at their best know ought to be the case, that there is a deep call to unity,” he said.

___

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Signs of the Times

Pope to be tested on first trip to Turkey and Lebanon

(RNS) — I don’t expect a home run on his first time at bat, but neither will he strike out.

FILE - Pope Leo XIV greets pilgrims in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, Oct. 7, 2025. 

(AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Thomas Reese
November 24, 2025
RNS



(RNS) — While Americans are recovering from their Thanksgiving dinners, Pope Leo will be flying to Turkey and then Lebanon. His first international trip, these five days abroad will show whether Leo is ready for primetime on a global stage.

The trip has two major themes: ecumenism and peace.

The trip to Turkey was planned by Pope Francis to celebrate the 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, most famous for approving the Nicene Creed that attempted to bring unity to Christians who were fighting over Christology and other theological issues.

The creed unites the Catholic Church with Orthodox churches and many Protestant churches.

RELATED: Pope Leo embraces the radical challenge of Catholic social teaching

Ecumenism has come a long way since I was a child, when Catholics and Protestants avoided each other’s churches (even for weddings and funerals) and treated each other as heretics. Earlier, it was even worse, with Protestants and Catholics killing each other over their differences in France (1562-1598) and in the Eighty Years’ War (1566-1648) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648).

Blood was also shed between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, including the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204. The 1054 mutual excommunication between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople was not lifted until 1965 by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I.

Except in Ireland, the 20th century was a time of peace among Christians, but it was not until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that the Catholic Church fully committed itself to ecumenism. Heretics became “separated brothers and sisters.” Christians prayed together, exchanged pulpits, held theological dialogues and worked together for the common good.

Progress was made on many old issues, like justification by faith or works. Catholics are no longer selling indulgences. Although Catholics and Protestants still do not share the Eucharist, the Mass is now in the vernacular, the cup is shared with the people and the clergy encourage the faithful to read the scriptures. Luther would have been pleased.

But as quickly as issues were resolved, new ones came up, especially relating to sexual morality and the ordination of women. I joke with my Protestant friends that, considering the changes that have occurred in Catholicism and Protestantism, today Luther would be a Catholic.

The Vatican sees the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea as an opportunity to celebrate ecumenical progress and to stress that what unites Christians is greater than what divides them. Dialogue and cooperation must continue.

Leo had limited involvement in ecumenism as a priest or bishop. Only 14 percent of Peru is Protestant. But his work and travel as prior general of the Order of Saint Augustine educated him on the wide varieties of Christianity, and the Vatican has an office of experts whose sole function is ecumenical dialogue and who have doubtless prepped Leo for this trip.

But no trip to Turkey can ignore the war that is happening just north of the country on the other side of the Black Sea.

Pope Francis was accused of tilting toward Russia because of his comment that the U.S. provoked Russia with its desire to bring Ukraine into NATO. He also encouraged Ukraine to show the “white flag,” which was interpreted as surrender when he meant a ceasefire for negotiations.

He also hoped the Vatican could provide a neutral spot for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. The Vatican has been successful in negotiating prisoner exchanges and the return of Ukrainian children taken into Russia during the war.

Like Francis, Leo had no diplomatic experience before becoming pope, but he will be well briefed before he gets on the plane to Turkey. He will avoid making spontaneous comments on the war and will stick close to the positions articulated by the Vatican Secretariat of State, especially by calling for a ceasefire and an end to the bombing and killing.

U.S. foreign policy can change radically with the election of a new president, but Vatican foreign policy stays pretty much the same no matter who is pope.

The trip to Lebanon will be a boost for Christians in the Middle East, where they are suffering, especially in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank. Christians have left the Middle East in droves. The region needs peace and stability.

Lebanon is still reeling from the 2020 explosion of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate in Beirut that killed 218 people, injured 7,000 more and caused $15 billion in damage. The pope has promised to visit the site of the explosion.

Meanwhile, Israel has targeted Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon with little concern for collateral damage. According to The Associated Press, “Israeli airstrikes over southern Lebanon have intensified in recent weeks.” The most recent attack in Beirut’s southern suburbs killed five people and wounded 25 others. This is just a few miles from where the pope will be visiting.

RELATED: Catholic bishops decry treatment of migrants without mentioning Trump

Everyone will be watching to see what the pope will say about Israel’s actions in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. This is a minefield for even the most experienced diplomat, which Leo is not. Again, he will be well prepared by Vatican experts, and I predict he will stick to the policies articulated by the Vatican Secretariat of State. He will support a ceasefire, negotiations and the two-state solution.

This first international trip will be a very public test of Leo’s papacy. I don’t expect a home run on his first time at bat, but neither will he strike out. A base hit will be a win.

ISRAEL BREAKS CEASFIRE, AGAIN

Hundreds attend funeral of Hezbollah top commander killed in Israeli strike

Hundreds of supporters on Monday joined a funeral procession for Hezbollah military chief Haytham Ali Tabatabai and other members of the militant group whom were killed by Israeli strikes on Beirut. Israel has escalated its attacks on Lebanon in recent weeks as Hezbollah has rejected the terms of a truce that call for the group to disarm.


Issued on: 24/11/2025 
By: FRANCE 24

An Israeli strike on Sunday killed Hezbollah's top military chief and four other members of the militant group. © Ibrahim Amro, AFP

Hezbollah held the funeral Monday for its top military chief and other members of the militant group a day after Israel killed them in a strike on Beirut's southern suburbs.

Haytham Ali Tabatabai is the most senior Hezbollah commander to be killed by Israel since a November 2024 ceasefire sought to end more than a year of hostilities between the two sides.

His assassination comes as Israel has escalated its attacks on Lebanon, with the United States increasing pressure on the Beirut government to disarm the Iran-backed Hezbollah.

Israel's military said Sunday it had "eliminated the terrorist Haytham Ali Tabatabai, Hezbollah's chief of general staff".

The group announced the deaths of Tabatabai and four other members in the attack.

Israel kills a senior Hezbollah official in Beirut strike

In Beirut's southern suburbs, a densely populated area where Hezbollah holds sway, hundreds of supporters joined Monday's funeral procession for Tabatabai and two of his companions.

Hezbollah members in fatigues carried the coffins, draped in the group's yellow flags, to the sound of religious chants, an AFP correspondent said.

The crowd yelled slogans against Israel and America, while supporters carried portraits of the group's leaders and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hezbollah said Tabatabai assumed the role of military leader after the most recent war with Israel, which saw the group heavily weakened and senior commanders killed.

Israel has carried out near daily strikes on Lebanon despite the truce, usually saying it is targeting Hezbollah members and infrastructure to prevent the group from rearming.
'Very limited' options

According to the agreement, Hezbollah was to withdraw north of the Litani River, some 30 kilometres (20 miles) from the border with Israel, and to have its military infrastructure there dismantled.

Under a government-approved plan, Lebanon's army is to finish disarming Hezbollah in the area by year end, before tackling the rest of the country.

Hezbollah has rejected calls to disarm.

After Tabatabai's killing, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would "not allow Hezbollah to rebuild its power" and urged Lebanon's government to "fulfil its commitment to disarm Hezbollah".

A source close to the group told AFP on condition of anonymity there were "two opinions within the group – those who wish to respond to the assassination and those who want to refrain from doing so – but the leadership tends to adopt the utmost forms of diplomacy at the present stage".

Last December, Hezbollah lost a key supply route through Syria with the fall of longtime ruler and ally Bashar al-Assad.

Washington is also demanding that Beirut cut off the group's funding from Iran, which slammed Sunday's killing as "cowardly".

Atlantic Council researcher Nicholas Blanford told AFP that "Hezbollah's options are very limited".

"Its support base is clamouring for revenge but if Hezbollah responds directly ... Israel will strike back very hard and no one in Lebanon will thank Hezbollah for that," he said.
Hezbollah defiance

Sunday's strike was the biggest blow to Hezbollah since the ceasefire "because of (Tabatabai's) seniority and the fact that it demonstrates the Israelis can still locate and target senior officials despite whatever protective measures Hezbollah is undertaking" since the war, Blanford added.

Senior Hezbollah official Ali Damush told the funeral that Tabatabai's killing aimed "to frighten and weaken (Hezbollah) into retreating ... surrendering, and submitting, but this goal will never be achieved".

Israel was "worried about Hezbollah's possible response – and should remain worried", he said, urging Lebanese authorities to "confront the aggression by all means ... and reject the pressures that seek to push Lebanon to comply with American dictates and Israeli conditions".

Lebanon's army says it is implementing its plan to disarm Hezbollah, but the United States and Israel have accused Lebanon's authorities of stalling.

Condemning the attack, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said Sunday that "the only way to consolidate stability" was through "extending the authority of the state over all its territory with its own forces, and enabling the Lebanese army to carry out its duties".

A Lebanese military official told AFP last week that US and Israeli demands to fully disarm Hezbollah by December 31 were "impossible" considering personnel and equipment shortages, expressing concern at the risk of confrontations with local communities that support the group.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Trump admin crafted Russia-friendly peace plan with help from Kremlin in 'secret meetings'

Carl Gibson

November 24, 2025  

ALTERNET

The peace plan that President Donald Trump's administration offered to end the ongoing war in Ukraine has been widely criticized for being overly accommodating to Russia. Now, a new report shows that Russia may have been even more intricately involved in its composition than previously known.

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that the proposal — which Trump administration special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner (who is also the president's son-in-law) — relied heavily on input from a "Kremlin insider." Kushner, Witkoff and the Kremlin advisor huddled behind closed doors in multiple "secret meetings" in Miami, Florida, according to the Journal.

That Kremlin advisor was identified as Kirill Dmitriev, who the Journal described as an envoy of Russian President Vladimir Putin who also has ties to Kushner. Witkoff also met Dmitriev during his April trip to Moscow. The 28-point plan has been described as a "framework" to end the war, though multiple senators allege Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio described it as "essentially the wish list of the Russians." (Rubio has denied making that comment)

THE REAL SECRETARY OF STATE

Jared Kushner listens as U.S. Vice President JD Vance speaks during a press conference following a military briefing at the Civilian Military Coordination Center in southern Israel on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. Nathan Howard/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

The three men reportedly met for three days in late October at Witkoff's home in Miami, where Dmitriev communicated multiple items the Kremlin demanded in order to agree to end hostilities with Ukraine. The Journal reported that Dmitriev called for Ukraine to never be allowed to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), pull all troops out of the eastern Donbass region and other territory Russia wanted to control (like the Crimean Peninsula, which it illegally invaded in 2014). The Kremlin also wants Ukraine's military to be capped at a much lower number than its current 900,000-member force.

Dmitriev also specifically called on the Trump administration to engage in multiple economic agreements in the areas of artificial intelligence, energy and other industries. The Journal also reported that the bulk of the plan was written by both Kushner and Witkoff before they even engaged with Russia or Ukraine.

When Witkoff and Kushner attempted to engage senior Ukrainian officials to get their input on the peace plan, one told the two Trump administration envoys that the deal was better for Russia than for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy thanked the two men for working toward ending the war, but also said their plan needed revisions.

Trump administration officials maintain that the final version of the plan will be more accommodating to Ukraine, and suggested amending it to raise the cap on the size of the Ukrainian military beyond what Russia wanted, and that language permanently barring Ukraine's membership in NATO could be removed.

Click here to read the Journal's report in full (subscription required).

'Not an accident': Trump kept his own CIA director 'out of the loop' on Russian peace deal

John Ratcliffe swears in as CIA Director, in the Vice President’s Ceremonial Office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House campus in Washington, U.S., January 23, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard/File Photo

Carl Gibson

November 24, 2025  

ALTERNET

President Donald Trump's administration appears to have excluded top intelligence officials from sensitive negotiations with a major adversary — even CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

That's according to journalist Michael Weiss, who reported Monday that Ratcliffe was "not privy" to the Russian peace deal that Trump administration special envoy Steve Witkoff has been negotiating with Vladimir Putin's government. Weiss cited an unnamed "U.S. intelligence source" who confided: "It was not an accident CIA was kept out of the loop on an American deal with a Russian operative."

Ratcliffe wasn't the only top American official kept in the dark about the deal. Foreign policy analyst Jimmy Rushton — who is based in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv — pointed to a recent Washington Post report while observing: "The State Department didn't know about Witkoff's 'peace plan,' congressional GOP didn't know, the US IC didn't know, and apparently even Trump didn't know the detail.

The peace plan between Russia and Ukraine was reportedly assembled without any input from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The Post reported that U.S. lawmakers from both parties were concerned that the plan could be interpreted as "rewarding" Putin for his 2022 invasion of Ukraine's Donbass region.

"Some people better get fired on Monday for the gross buffoonery we just witnessed over the last four days," Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a retired brigadier general in the U.S. Air Force, wrote on his official X account. "This hurt our country and undermined our alliances and encouraged our adversaries."

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio quipped that the peace plan was "not the administration’s position" and is "essentially the wish list of the Russians." Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) made similar remarks, said during the recent Halifax International Security Forum that the agreement Witkoff and Putin's government brokered "is not our recommendation" and "not our peace plan." Rubio later refuted wrote on X that the peace plan was "authored by the U.S." and is "offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations."

House Republican considered resigning over Trump's 'surrender plan': report

Bacon dubbed the peace plan "Witkoff's Ukrainian surrender plan," 

Robert Davis
November 24, 2025

RAW STORY

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Representative Don Bacon of (R-NE) faces reporters as he arrives for a House Republican conference meeting to choose a nominee in the race for House Speaker at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., October 24, 2023. REUTERS/Leah Millis/File Photo

A Republican lawmaker in the House of Representatives was so distraught by the latest proposed peace deal for Russia's war in Ukraine that he considered resigning from Congress, according to a new report.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) told Axios that he was "appalled" by the 28-point peace deal, which some experts have said seems to have been written by the Russians. The proposed peace plan also made several pro-Ukrainian lawmakers on The Hill furious, including several Republicans, according to the report.

The plan calls for Ukraine to significantly reduce the size of its military, cede land to Russia, including land that Russia does not currently control, give up its long-range missiles that can reach Moscow, and stop attempting to join NATO.

Bacon dubbed the peace plan "Witkoff's Ukrainian surrender plan," Axios reported, a nod to President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, who helped negotiate the deal.

Bacon has previously announced that he would retire in 2027.

"In the end, I have a commitment to our constituents to fulfill my term," Bacon told the outlet, adding that he "shared [his] anger" with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) but "didn't mention resignation."

Bacon's threat came at a politically vulnerable time for Trump and the Republican caucus. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), one of Trump's allies, announced her retirement recently, citing ongoing tensions with Trump.

A report by Punchbowl News suggests that more "explosive" resignations may be coming because of Trump's erratic behavior.

GOP senator swipes Vance while shredding peace plan: Not 'worth the paper it's written on'

Matthew Chapman
November 24, 2025 

RAW STORY


FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) meets with reporters following the weekly Senate caucus luncheons on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 24, 2024. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw/File PhotoFILE PHOTO: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) meets with reporters following the weekly Senate caucus luncheons on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 24, 2024. REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw/File Photo

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) took to X on Monday to slam the recently-circulated "peace" plan for Ukraine that turned out to be heavily influenced by the Russian government — and without directly mentioning him by name, went after Vice President JD Vance for defending it.

McConnell, who previously served as the Republican leader in the Senate, and who has clashed with the vice president on previous occasions, particularly took issue with Vance's claim that critics of the plan don't understand "some critical reality on the ground."

"I’m told that to criticize a proposed deal that initially hewed closely to Russia’s preferred outcome is to misunderstand or misstate 'some critical reality on the ground.' So let’s talk about reality on the ground," wrote McConnell. "This fall, Ukrainians were polled on their views of war termination. Overwhelming majority (75%) would reject plans that constrain UKR’s military and forfeit territory they controlled. And 76% say they would fight on in the absence of U.S. support. In other words, a peace deal that doesn’t secure Ukraine won’t actually stop the killing."

Moreover, McConnell continued, "The price of peace matters to Americans, too! Demand for Ukraine to give up territory is a fringe position among Trump voters (16%). More popular? Sanctions on Russia and support for Ukraine."

"Conclusion: The most basic reality on the ground is that the price of peace matters," McConnell concluded. "A deal that rewards aggression wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on. America isn’t a neutral arbiter, and we shouldn’t act like one."

McConnell is not the only Republican lawmaker to balk at the plan. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), usually a firm ally of the president, stated, “While there are many good ideas in the proposed Russia-Ukraine peace plan, there are several areas that are very problematic and can be made better."

Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine cut to 19 points from 28

European leaders were unhappy with many of the points on the Trump peace plan for Ukraine and the list has been parred from 28 points to 19 now. / White House

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin November 24, 2025

EU leaders consider some of the 28 points of the American plan for resolving the Ukrainian conflict unacceptable and the number of items on the list has been parred back to 19, the Financial Times reported on November 24.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated this following an informal EU summit on Ukraine in Luanda on the sidelines of the EU-African Union summit on November 24.

"There's little reason for hurrah-like optimism. <...> There's absolute agreement among European leaders that work on the 28 points presented several dozen hours ago must continue, some of which are unacceptable," the prime minister said at a briefing broadcast on his office's social media pages.

The Kremlin rejects many of the amendments made by the Europe that was floated last week and discussed by Ukraine and its western allies in Geneva on November 23, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s top foreign policy advisor.

Ushakov said the original version he had seen contained many points that were agreed at the Alaska summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15, which were largely acceptable to the Kremlin. However, many of the new elements introduced by Europe at the weekend were not acceptable. \

Once Ukraine and its western partners have thrashed out a compromise version that is acceptable to them, the proposal will be shared with the Kremlin for more talks to try and find a workable final version that will be the basis for a ceasefire in the almost four year long war.

European leaders were not satisfied with the clause on reducing the Ukrainian Armed Forces' numbers. Furthermore, Tusk himself emphasized the need to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia.

The plan previously suggested a cap of 600,000 men be placed on the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), but the EU wanted that limit increased to 800,000, which would give Ukraine by far the largest army in Europe.

The US proposal also called for sanctions relief and reintegrating Russia’s economy into the global economy, but sanctions would be removed on a case by case basis and no timeline was given.

Tusk noted that a clause on deploying Nato fighter jets to Poland as a security guarantee for Kyiv had been removed from the proposed plan. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at a press conference at the end of the day of talks in Geneva that there were now two versions of the plan, one with 28 points and another with only 26.

The clause to allocate $100bn from Russia’s frozen assets to a reconstruction fund has also been excluded, according to Bloomberg citing sources. The proposal stipulated that the US would receive 50% of the profits from the unspent assets, which would be transferred to a US-Russia investment fund.

The question of territories has also been fudged and the substantive decisions on territories will be put off to be discussed at a face-to-face meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, according to Ihor Brusilo, deputy head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, speaking to Bloomberg.

If this idea is accepted then it would be a repeat of the format proposed as part of the Istanbul peace deal in April 2022, when it was decided that questions regarding the sovereignty over the Crimea were to be put off for direct negotiations between the two presidents at that time as well.

During a press conference after the talks in Geneva were wrapping up, Rubio said the number of items on the list had fallen to 26, but the Financial Times subsequently reported that the list has been reduced further and now only contains 19 times, citing people briefed on the discussions. The people did not specify which elements had been removed.

RBC-Ukraine, citing sources, reported that most of the provisions of the American peace plan were agreed upon and partially amended during the Geneva talks. According to the publication, the delegations were able to reach agreements on several points including:

• Agree on the size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) cap set at 800,000, up from the original 600,000 men;
• the control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) should be returned fully to Ukraine’s control;
• the format for prisoner exchanges, and the return of convicted prisoners.

These points were finalized following discussions that the negotiators described as "the most productive in the past ten months." Washington also assured European partners that their concerns regarding EU and Nato security guarantees will be taken into account during the subsequent talks.

The parties decided to postpone discussions on territorial concessions and the constitutional provision stipulating Ukraine's non-accession to Nato and push them to the presidential level at a proposed meeting between Putin and Zelenskiy.
Separately, Politico reported that an alternative 28-point plan for Ukraine prepared by so-called E3 (Germany, France, and the UK) has lost its relevance, after other EU officials present at the Geneva talks refused to support the project.

One EU official told Politico that the E3 proposal document was "already outdated," while other diplomats said it did not reflect the current state of the consultations, which were clearly moving very fast.

Hungary has remained firm in its opposition to further European support for the war and thrown itself behind the US peace plan to bring the fighting to an end.

The EU once again is undermining the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine being negotiated by the US, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Facebook. In his opinion, all European politicians are “obliged to unconditionally support the peace plan,” since this is in line with the principles of “humanity and common sense.”

Europe demands more work on US peace plan to end Russia-Ukraine war

The United States has set a Thursday deadline for Ukraine to accept its controversial 28-point peace plan, placing Kyiv’s embattled government under acute pressure. US President Donald Trump has described the proposal as “a starting point”, but both the substance and the process have provoked concern in Ukraine, Russia, and many European capitals.


Issued on: 24/11/2025

RFI

Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Andriy Yermak, left, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, right, talk to the press as their consultations continue at the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Geneva, Switzerland, Sunday, 23 November, 2025. © Martial Trezzini / AP

The US peace plan requires Ukraine to cede Crimea and much of the Donbas to Russian sovereignty, cap its military at 600,000 personnel, and constitutionally commit to never joining NATO.

The proposed settlement also offers phased sanctions relief and economic reintegration for Russia, in exchange for a non-aggression pact and “reliable” US-led security guarantees for Ukraine.

Notably, European leaders learned of the plan only belatedly, and it was drafted without Ukrainian input, raising alarm about its fairness and longevity.'


'Difficult choice'

Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelensky faces what he calls “a very difficult choice”, weighing the prospect of losing vital US support against the indignity of territorial loss and strategic compromise.

“The Ukrainian government will not agree to these conditions,” according to Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of Ukraine’s parliamentary foreign policy committee. “For us, it means surrender,” he says.

Russian officials have publicly welcomed elements of the US draft that align with Kremlin positions but remain wary about enforcement, with the non-aggression pact echoing past agreements that Russia breached.

But EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said that “it’s clear Russia wants to cement its gains and restore its position in the global economy, but this plan does not require genuine concessions,” adding that “for any plan to succeed, it must have the support of Ukrainians and Europeans”.

In this photo provided by the Press Service Of The President Of Ukraine on Nov. 21, 2025, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky looks into the camera while delivering a video address to the nation in Kyiv, Ukraine. AP - Press Service Of The President Of Ukraine


European commentators and senior diplomats have also voiced strong concerns. German political scientist Constanze Stelzenmüller from the Brookings Institution described the US plan as “outrageous”, warning that “If implemented, it would allow Russia to become the apex predator in Europe. It represents a complete degradation of diplomacy.”

The abrupt nature of the US process, and its perceived disregard for European consultation, may weaken the West’s united front in future negotiations.

Experts suggest the plan is unlikely to gain acceptance “without further substantial revision and credible international guarantees”, according to a senior Chatham House analyst.

Chatham’s Orysia Lutsevych described Trump’s plan as effectively a "brainchild of the Kremlin," presenting Russian demands as an American peace plan and resembling a demand for Ukrainian capitulation.

She noted it limits Ukraine’s sovereignty, imposes territorial concessions, and dictates military and political terms unfavourable to Kyiv.

Her colleague Keir Giles characterised it as a transmission of Russian surrender demands facilitated by the US, “unrealistic and unenforceable,” with an inherent risk that Russia seeks to leave Ukraine defenceless for future aggression.

Both stress that meaningful negotiations require Ukrainian and European backing to modify or reject the plan point by point rather than wholesale acceptance.
Europe’s counter proposal

On Sunday, an EU counter-proposal, (as seen by Reuters) unveiled in response to US pressure, avoids explicit territorial concessions, proposing that the lines of contact be the starting point for future negotiations.

It allows Ukraine to keep a larger standing army (up to 800,000), and does not bar NATO membership outright – opting instead for “robust” coordinated security guarantees that could evolve with future alliances and consensus.

Reconstruction would be funded via frozen Russian assets and broad EU market access, aiming for a longer-term, balanced reintegration of Russia into global institutions.

Zelensky pushes EU to unlock €140bn in frozen Russian assets

At an EU-Africa summit in Angola, where emergency talks on the US proposal completely overshadowed proceedings on Monday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Russia must be involved in any talks.

"The next step must be: Russia must come to the table," Merz declared.

"If this is possible, then every effort will have been worthwhile," he added.

Comparison of differences between the US and European peace proposals regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. © RFI/Jan van der Made

As the Thanksgiving deadline looms, the prospects for the US plan appear bleak.

Ukrainian leaders, with broad civil society support, remain unwilling to accept deep territorial losses or restrictions on sovereignty.

Russia, while pleased with many provisions, might object to certain security arrangements and demands for military withdrawal and remains sceptical.

"Russia has not so far received the official text of the American version of the Ukrainian settlement plan, which was adjusted during consultations between the United States and Ukraine in Geneva,” according to Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov quoted by Tass news agency on Monday.

EU chiefs hailed progress towards a deal but also said there were outstanding issues to resolve.

"There is a new momentum in peace negotiations," European Council President Antonio Costa said on the sidelines of the summit in Angola.

"While work remains to be done, there is now a solid basis for moving forward," added European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said "tremendous" progress had been made at the talks.

"I honestly believe we'll get there," Rubio said, adding: "Obviously, the Russians get a vote."

(With newswires)

Rubio Praises Geneva Talks With Ukraine, Says Trump ‘Pleased’ With Progress

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (r) and Ukrainian delegation head Andriy Yermak.

 Photo Credit: @AndriyYermak, X

November 24, 2025 
By RFE RL

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said there has been “tremendous progress” at talks on ending the war in Ukraine, and that President Donald Trump was “pleased” when he briefed him on the discussions.

Rubio spoke to reporters for a second time on November 23, after talks with a Ukrainian delegation in Geneva that he earlier said had been “the most productive and meaningful” since the Trump administration took office in January.

“There’s still some work to be done, but we are much further ahead today at this time than we were when we began this morning and where we were a week ago, for certain,” Rubio said.

He did not elaborate on what the points were, but said security guarantees for Ukraine were something that “has to be discussed” and that work would continue on November 24.

The meetings in the Swiss lakeside city are focusing on a US plan to stop fighting that has raged since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The plan has not yet been officially disclosed, although key elements have been leaked — sparking Kyiv’s allies to suggest that it is highly tilted in Russia’s favor.

Trump had earlier said the plan was not his final word, suggesting changes could be made to it. But in comments on Truth Social on November 23 indicated frustration with European and Ukrainian positions.

“Ukraine’s ‘leadership’ has expressed zero gratitude for our efforts, and Europe continues to buy oil from Russia,” he wrote in all-caps comments.

Two European Union member states still purchase Russian crude oil: Hungary and Slovakia. NATO-member Turkey also buys Russian crude.

Apparently responding in a social media post, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pointedly stated his gratitude “personally to President Trump” for help that “is saving the lives of Ukrainians.”

In a later post, Zelenskyy also gave an impression of the pace of diplomacy in Geneva.

“A lot is changing – we are working very carefully on the steps needed to end the war,” he said. “Tomorrow will be no less active.”
What’s In The Deal?

Many of the terms of the proposed deal require sweeping concessions by Kyiv and appear to mirror many of the Kremlin’s demands — including surrender of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions — known as the Donbas — and Crimea, along with setting limits on the size of its military.

Kyiv would also be required to enact a constitutional prohibition on joining NATO, while restrictions would be put on the Western military alliance itself regarding the stationing of its troops. Financial sanctions on Moscow would also be eased under the plan.

In return, Ukraine would receive some form of “security guarantees,” most notably from the United States, be allowed to join the European Union, and receive some financial benefits. Russia would also be required to withdraw from some Ukrainian areas it currently occupies.

Amid pushback from US lawmakers and foreign allies, Trump on November 22 left open the possibility of changes being made to the plan.

Asked by reporters if his proposal was his “final offer to Ukraine,” Trump said, “No.”

Ukraine’s European allies, who were not involved in drafting the US plan, have said the proposal requires “additional work.”

Reuters news agency reported details of European counterproposals that included a larger force size for Ukraine and a US security guarantee like NATO’s Article 5 — under which an attack on one country is considered an attack on all.

Rubio said he had not seen any European counterproposals.
Democrats, Republicans Push Back

The US plan has also received criticism among influential members of Trump’s own Republican party, including a joint statement with rival Democrats that calls for changes in the proposal.

“We will not achieve that lasting peace by offering [Russian President Vladimir] Putin concession after concession and fatally degrading Ukraine’s ability to defend itself,” said the statement, signed by three Democrats, one Republican, and one independent senator.

Veteran Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, a former Senate leader, wrote on X that “rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America’s interests.”

Republican Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he is “highly skeptical” the plan will bring about peace.

Rubio has denied remarks by Republican Senator Mike Rounds, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, and independent Angus King that the proposal was not drafted by Washington but was the Kremlin’s “wish list” handed over by the Russians.

Western media outlets have cited sources as saying the document was largely the product of talks between Witkoff and a special envoy for Putin, Kirill Dmitriev.

Meanwhile, officials in Russia and Ukraine reported on new strikes on November 23.

An 11-year-old girl was among 19 people injured by drone strikes in Ukraine’s Dnipropetrovsk region, said Vladislav Haivanenko, head of the regional military administration.

Moscow’s Vnukovo airport suspended flights as the city’s mayor, Sergei Sobyanin, reported incoming Ukrainian drones.

Zelenskyy has said his country faces “one of the most difficult moments” in its history, warning that it risks losing one of its key allies — Washington — but that Kyiv would not “betray” its own interests in any negotiations.

RFE/RL journalists report the news in 21 countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established.

The US ‘Bait And Switch’ Operation Targeting Putin’s ‘Root Cause’ Principles – OpEd


November 24, 2025 
By Alastair Crooke

So, now we have the details of the 28-point so-called ‘peace plan’ which Ukrainian Parliamentarian Goncharenko has provided claiming it to be a translation from the original.

The text – written as a putative legal treaty – will strike any experienced reader as an amateur production, hinging, in several parts, on ‘subsequent discussions’ and on ‘expectations’.

That is to say, much is left ambiguous, vague nor firmly nailed down. Such a plan would, of course, be – in the round – unacceptable to Moscow (although they may not disavow it outright). Even so, the plan has aroused fury and pushback in Europe. The Economist (reflecting the Establishment view) calls the paper “a terrible American-Russian proposal … which checks off many of [Russia’s] maximalist demands and adds a few more”.

The Europeans and Britain want Russian capitulation, pure and simple.

The point here, which Moscow makes clear, is that Kirill Dmitriev – Steve Witkoff’s interlocutor in the drafting – does not represent President Putin, nor Russia. He has no official mandate whatsoever.

Putin spokesman Dmitri Peskov curtly states:

“There are no formal consultations between Russia and the U.S. on the settlement in Ukraine; but contacts exist. Maria Zakharova stated that “the Russian Foreign Ministry has received zero official information from the U.S. about any alleged ‘agreements’ on Ukraine that the media is enthusiastically circulating””.

“Moscow’s position is that Russia is open to dialogue only within the ‘boundaries of its stated principles’, and the U.S. has not, as of yet, offered anything official that could serve as a starting point”.

So what is going on? Two politically inexperienced ‘non-envoys’ have had conversations, and out of these talks have stitched together some apparently speculative proposals. It is not even clear whether Dmitriev had a nod of assent for his talks with Witkoff in the U.S. in October, or whether he was acting on his own initiative. Russia’s Foreign Ministry is disavowing any knowledge of the content of these extensive discussions. It would be extraordinary if Dmitriev was keeping nobody in Moscow in the loop.

In any event, President Putin has sent his own riposte to the flood of stories circulating in the western media (based on leaks to Axios apparently deriving from Dmitriev):

Dressed in military uniform, Putin visited the command post of Battlegroup West on the front line, where he simply stated that the Russian people “expect and need” results from the Special Military Operation (SMO): “The unconditional attainment of the goals of the SMO is the main objective for Russia”, he said.

Putin’s response to the U.S. therefore is clear.

It looks then as though this discussion document written from the American perspective was conceived as a classic ‘bait and switch’ exercise. Secretary Rubio has repeatedly saidthat he doesn’t know “whether Russia is serious about peace – or not”:

“We’re testing to see if the Russians are interested in peace. Their actions – not their words, their actions – will determine whether they’re serious or not, and we intend to find that out sooner rather than later … There are some promising signs; there are some troubling signs”.

So, the proposals likely have been a ‘set up’ to test Russia. For example, they ‘test’ Russia in multiple areas:

“It is expected … that NATO will not expand further, based on dialogue between Russia and NATO, but mediated by the U.S.; Ukraine will receive ‘reliable security guarantees’ [undefined]; the size of Ukraine’s armed forces will be ‘limited’ [sic] to only 600,000 men; the U.S. will be compensated for these guarantees; should Russia invade Ukraine, [then] in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of new territories and all other benefits will be revoked; the U.S. will cooperate with Ukraine on joint reconstruction … and operation of Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities”.

“The lifting of sanctions [on Russia] will be discussed and agreed upon gradually and on an individual basis”.

“$100 billions of frozen Russian assets will be invested in U.S.-led reconstruction and investment efforts in Ukraine. The United States will receive 50% of the profits from this undertaking; Russia will legislatively enshrine a policy of non-aggression toward Europe [no mention however, of any reciprocity by Europe].

“Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk will be recognised de facto as Russian; Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact; Russia renounces other annexed territories”.

This paragraph effectively amounts to a ceasefire – not a peace settlement – with recognition being only de facto (and not de jure):

“This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Peace Council headed by President Trump”.

“Once agreed, the ceasefire will enter into force”.

This set of proposals is not likely to be accepted by the Europeans, Russia or even Zelensky. Their purpose is to dictate a completely new start-point to any negotiation. Any Russian concessions stipulated in the text will be ‘pocketed’ by the U.S., whilst the rug will be pulled on Russia’s ‘stated principles’. The pressures on Russia will escalate.

In fact, escalation has already begun. Coinciding with publication of the proposals, four long-range U.S.-supplied and targeted ATACMS were fired deep into Russian pre-2014 territory at Voronezh, which is where Russia’s over-the-horizon strategic radars are situated. All were shot down, and Russian Iksander missiles immediately destroyed the launch platforms and killed the 10 launch operators.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has threatened yet more sanctions for Russia, and Trump has indicated that he is ok with Senator Lindsay Graham’s 500% sanctions proposal for those trading with Russia – provided that he, Trump, has complete discretion over the new sanctions package.

The overall aim to these proposals clearly is to corner Putin, and push him off his fundamental principles – such as his insistence on eliminating the root causes to the conflict, and not just the symptoms. There is no hint in this paper of any recognition of root causes [expansion of NATO and missile emplacements] beyond the vague promise of a “dialogue [that] will be conducted between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation, thereby ensuring global security and increasing opportunities for cooperation and future economic development”.

Blah, blah, blah.

It seems that escalation is ahead. Russia will need to consider how to militarily deter the U.S. effectively, yet without starting up the steps of the escalatory ladder to WW3.

The balance between deterrence and keeping a door open to diplomacy is a fine line – Too great an emphasis on deterrence may (counter-productively) only incite a countervailing ratchet up the escalatory ladder by an adversary.

Whereas too much emphasis on diplomacy, may well be perceived by an adversary as weakness and invite an escalation of military pressures.

The Witkoff-Dmitriev proposals may (or may not) have been well intentioned, but the keepers of the deep architecture of global redemptio equitis are unlikely to allow Russia to preserve its ‘contrarian’ values.

Kirill Dmitriev, it appears, may have been ‘suckered’.

Alastair Crooke

Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat, founder and director of the Beirut-based Conflicts Forum.

What Europe Should Do About A Bad Ukraine Deal – Analysis


Soldier with the Ukraine flag. Photo Credit: NATO

November 24, 2025
ECFR
By Jana Kobzova


On the positive side, the Ukraine-Russia peace plan advanced by the US government earlier this week shows that Donald Trump remains committed to securing a deal.

On the negative side, however, the list is rather longer. Apparently cooked up by American and Russian envoys Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev—though the exact authorship remains murky—the deal would blow through a series of red lines long held in Europe and, until recently, the US too. Borders cannot be changed by force? All countries are equally sovereign and free to choose their foreign partners and alliances? No third party should hold a veto over who becomes a NATO member? All gone in the 28 points shared by US officials, which seem to stem from a different assertion: the strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they must.

28 steps… to the next war

But more than principle is at risk in this deal. In practice it would create a material threat to Ukraine’s independent existence: from capping the numbers of its armed forces personnel to forcing Kyiv to both abandon the territories it still controls in Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts and recognise Russia’s control over them. Ukraine’s withdrawal from the Donbas and that region’s demilitarisation would create the ideal circumstances for Moscow to attack Ukraine again in a few years. It would strip Kyiv of its defensive “fortress belt” in the Donbas. And it would send a powerful signal of impunity by instituting an amnesty denying justice to Ukrainian victims of Russian war crimes. In short, it would erect a giant, eastwards-facing “come back soon” sign over the entire country.

Some in Europe question how much this would matter to the rest of the continent’s security. In fact, quite a lot: the proposal would tie its censure of Ukrainian NATO membership (which the deal would write into the country’s constitution) to a total stop on future NATO expansion of any sort. That would affect not just current candidate states like Bosnia and Herzegovina but also ones where there is an ongoing debate on their neutrality and potential NATO application, like Austria or Moldova.

Other shifts codified in the proposed deal are more subtly worded. To agree that “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland” suggests that American ones—deployed under this or future US administrations—cannot be there. To propose a new pact between Russia, Ukraine and Europe that settles “all ambiguities of the past 30 years” evokes Moscow’s demands to move NATO infrastructure as far away from its own western borders as possible, effectively eliminating the alliance’s deterrence on its eastern flank. All this would create dangerous precedents affecting the whole of Europe. The success or failure of Europeans to revise it will shape not only Ukraine’s future but also that of the rest of the continent.

The reported architects of the deal, Witkoff and Dmitriev, are both real estate investors and strangers to international law and norms. Both serve strongmen leaders sensitive to losing face. In those origins lie weaknesses that Europeans can exploit:Vladimir Putin has not yet fully accepted the text (calling it a “basis” of a deal). That may be because the Kremlin is sceptical of the Trump administration’s ability to stick by its promises, or because it fears Dmitriev as a businessman has focused more on commercial matters than the security ones that matter most to Putin.
There also seem to be doubts on the American side. Some Republicans have already criticised the outline deal. Unpredictable as ever, Trump has himself described it as not the “final offer”.
Trump and Germany’s chancellor Friedrich Merz have reportedly agreed a working group to review the deal’s text and E3 advisors met with the Ukrainians and the US over the weekend of November 23rd—further showing that Europeans have time remaining to shape the final terms. There is an opening for them to achieve that, if they are focused and united enough to do so.

Ceci n’est pas un deal

There is, then, an opening: a chance for Ukrainians and Europeans to say to Trump “yes, but”. They have learned from experience that it is better to say this, and then try to change the US president’s mind behind the scenes.

But the duration of that opening may well be short. For all the objections to the 28 points among American officialdom, the Trump administration has made it clear that it is impatient for a deal and that Kyiv should not expect a better one if it seeks to wait it out. Behind this lies an implicit but serious threat: the US could halt its intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance support for Ukraine, with immediate and grave implications for Kyiv’s ability to defend itself or hit targets inside Russia.

In the next few days and weeks, Europeans will try to make the final deal better than the one currently on offer. As they do so, they should adopt these three priorities:

1. Challenge America’s judgement on the war’s trajectory

From US statements about the proposed deal, it is clear that Washington believes Russia’s position will not worsen in the next months, while Ukraine’s will deteriorate. This analysis risks tipping into fatalism, and Europeans can help push back against that by weakening Russia economically, militarily and on the actual battlefield.

Economically, Europe can continue to seek out and sanction Russia’s “shadow fleet”, its transport ships with concealed identities, much more thoroughly than it is doing now. That would cut the country’s oil revenues and thus its military budgets. The EU should intensify inspections of suspected ships in member-state territorial waters and should bring forward its plans to ban more shadow-fleet vessels.

Militarily, Europe can do more to disrupt Russia’s war infrastructure. Ukraine’s needs are broad, but one thing would make a particular difference. In recent months Kyiv has increased its attacks inside Russia, including on oil-refining facilities, undermining the Kremlin’s effort to shield its population from the impact of the war and thus limit the domestic backlash. Currently, Ukrainian strikes happen on a roughly biweekly basis, which is a long-enough time interval to let Russian authorities conduct quick fixes and repairs. Europe could enable Ukraine to reduce those intervals greatly by providing additional long-range artillery capabilities and support for Ukraine’s own production capacity.

On the battlefield itself, Europe can ensure Ukraine’s crucial ability to keep defending itself while negotiations with Russia are ongoing. Much of the talk in the past few months has focused on Ukraine’s amazing drone advances. But as the winter approaches and the weather worsens, drone use is decreasing and the need for battlefield artillery, including 155mm-caliber weapons, becomes more acute. Front-loading more such supplies now would help Kyiv hold the line and deny Moscow further advances, challenging Trump’s perception of the war’s trajectory. Europe can also help Ukraine become more self-sufficient in drone components. It still buys some of these from China, but some of the Ukrainian drone companies privately confirm[1] that they already produce as much as 80% themselves—and could do more with the right support.

European leaders talking to Trump should not just present the above measures to the US president as possible acts, but as commitments that will happen irrespective of his actions. Only thus do they have a chance of changing the administration’s perception of Ukraine’s prospects.

2. Use all available bargaining chips—and do not give them up without the right assurances

An US-Russia deal will leave many Europeans feeling powerless. But they should resist that reaction. The continent has significant leverage, and must now use it to maximum effect.

Naturally this includes European financial support for Ukraine, which now greatly exceeds the American contribution. But the core of this leverage is Russia’s frozen assets. The US-Russia deal proposes to transfer $100bn of these to a Ukrainian reconstruction vehicle controlled by the two external powers. But of the frozen Russian assets, the US holds no more than $5bn in value where Europe holds almost $200bn. So Trump’s plan, even as it currently stands, would require European cooperation.

EU talks on using those frozen assets are currently stalled due to opposition from Belgium, where many of them sit, and whose government fears legal repercussions if the assets are seized. Germany’s Merz, on the other hand, is now using real political capital to argue for using them to support Ukraine.

Europe can meaningfully shape the proposed peace deal if it moves fast on this topic. That means Merz and others brokering agreement and overcoming Belgian concerns. They should tie this action to critical scrutiny of the commercial dimensions of the US-Russian proposal, insisting that European publics would accept the use of European-based Russian assets to stabilise Ukraine and/or backfill European spending on the country’s defence—but it would be hard to accept that these will just generate mega-profits for American investors.

Relatedly, Europeans also need to spell out more clearly their commitment to Ukrainian security guarantees in the event of peace.

3. Come to the table with clear red lines upholding European sovereignty

European cooperation with any Ukraine peace deal must be conditional on a series of red lines upholding the continent’s own sovereignty. Europeans’ starting point should be that they will not curb their support for Ukraine, or agree to concessions on Ukraine, in the event of a deal that weakens their overall right to protect Europe’s own security.

As such:Decisions about which fighter jets are stationed on European territory will be made in democratic European states themselves rather than in Washington or Moscow.
Likewise, changes to the constitutions of European countries will be made in those states and not imposed on them from the outside.
Europe will not accept the precedent of external powers setting caps on a European country’s armed forces. It will also refuse to recognise territorial changes achieved through force, not least as doing so would potentially spell destabilisation not just in Ukraine, but also in the Western Balkans.

Where Moscow officials and propagandists rant about the “Nazi” regime in Kyiv, Europeans will judge partner governments not by the barbs and prejudices of others, but by relevant UN and Council of Europe conventions.

The US-Russia proposal begs many other questions. But what it lacks most of all is an answer to this one: what is the US actually ready to offer, besides acting as a broker of a capitulation deal for Ukraine, to secure peace?

It may sound facetious, but it is not. For this is the fundamental question before Kyiv and its European backers as the Trump administration moves towards a sell-out to Moscow. The US has already curbed its support for Ukraine. Much as it has been irresponsibly slow in investing in Ukraine and in its own defence and resilience, Europe has helped to fill the gap.

So today, what is the US actually putting on the table? What will Trump do if Ukraine signs up to the plan? How will he ensure that the country will not face a new, bigger war a few years down the line? Those are the questions Europeans need to ask themselves as they respond to a bad plan from America that will define the future of their own continent. They have been too slow. Their power is less than it should be. But they do have agency in this situation, and must use it.

It is said that Dean Acheson, as American secretary of state, once proclaimed the following of the Vietnam War: “It is worse than immoral, it is a mistake”. The US-Russia deal as it now stands would be just that.

It would, of course, be immoral: telling the world that democratic sovereignty and self-defence can be overridden with few lasting consequences. But more than that, it would also be a mistake. It would embolden an endemically revisionist Russia, teaching Moscow all the wrong lessons. It would weaken Europe as a whole. It would trade a bad war now for a worse one within a few years. Europeans and Ukrainians can help prevent that next war—if they act together now.

The author thanks her ECFR colleagues Jim O’Brien and Nicu Popescu for their input on this commentary.

[1] Private discussion with Ukrainian drone producer, 2025About the author: Jana Kobzova is co-director of the European Security Programme and senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Her research interests centre around developments in eastern Europe, with a focus on Ukraine and on improving the EU’s response to crises in its neighbourhood

Source: This article was published by ECFR


ECFR

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) is an award-winning international think-tank that aims to conduct cutting-edge independent research on European foreign and security policy and to provide a safe meeting space for decision-makers, activists and influencers to share ideas. We build coalitions for change at the European level and promote informed debate about Europe’s role in the world.

A draft of the 28-point plan reviewed by AFP:

1. Ukraine's sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.


4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

10. The US will receive compensation for the security guarantees it provides. If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee. If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated and recognition of its new territories and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked. If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will also be deemed invalid.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine will be established, including the creation of a Ukraine Development Fund, the rebuilding of Ukraine's gas infrastructure, the rehabilitation of war-affected areas, the development of new infrastructure and a resumption of the extraction of minerals and natural resources, all with a special finance package developed by the World Bank.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy, with discussions on lifting sanctions, rejoining the G8 group and entering a long-term economic cooperation agreement with the United States.

14. Some $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine, with the US receiving 50 percent of the profits from the venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine's reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen, and the remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance.

21. Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de-facto recognition along the line of contact. Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, which will then be used to create a buffer zone.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve prisoner exchanges and the return of remains, hostages and civilian detainees, and a family reunification programme will be implemented.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by US President Donald Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to the agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Trump’s ‘Munich’ agreement is nothing but Russian demands. The world must reject it.

UKRAINE CAPITULATION PLAN

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2025/11/ukraine-capitulation-plan-text-of-us-28.html

The Nestor Makhno Archive - index