Archive November 26, 2025

As Washington intensifies its diplomatic efforts to end the nearly four-year-old conflict, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will travel to Moscow next week. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll will meet with Ukrainian officials in the coming days.

Trump’s initial 28-point peace plan was modified after European leaders called it a capitulation to Russian demands, which included Moscow keeping captured Ukrainian territories.

Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said “we’re making progress” on a revised peace plan that appeared to award Ukraine more of its demands, and added that Kyiv was indeed “happy”.

The contentious 28-point peace plan, which was developed with limited assistance from Ukraine, was provided by Al Jazeera after it leaked last week. It also contained plans for Ukraine to completely abandon any plans to join NATO and cut its military might in the eastern Donbass region. The plan met with strong pushback in Ukraine and the European Union, as critics said the deal would reward Moscow for invading its smaller neighbour.

Meanwhile, a leaked recording that shows Witkoff instructing a Russian diplomat on selling a Ukrainian deal has drawn criticism in Europe.

Details of a 19-point peace plan that has been completely revised are still being developed. Here’s what we know about what may have changed based on statements from American and Ukrainian officials:

What was the initial strategy?

The proposed 28-point peace plan was made public last week after a Ukrainian official leaked it to international media outlets. According to the US media, Witkoff, Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, created it. Before developing and submitting the plan to Trump for approval, the pair had previously met with top Russian diplomat Kirill Dmitriev and Ukrainian leader of national security Rustem Umerov.

Among other things, the plan proposed de-escalation and buffer zones, that Ukraine would receive security guarantees from the US that it would have to pay for, and that Russia would take no further aggression against Ukraine or its neighbours.

Additionally, it was suggested that Moscow would pass a non-violent resolution to Europe, that both sides’ civilians and prisoners of war be exchanged, that the parties involved in fighting would receive amnesty, and that Moscow would stop trying to stop Ukraine from moving grain across the Black Sea using the Dnipro River.

However, in line with the discussion of territorial concessions at point 21, it was suggested that parts of eastern Ukraine, including the fertile Donbass, Luhansk and Donetsk regions, as well as Kherson and Zaporizhia, be ceded to Russia. The proposal further restricted Ukraine to no more than 600, 000 military personnel and required Kyiv to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO.

What was the response?

In Ukraine, angry citizens criticized the plan, calling it favoring Russia, while American negotiators quickly sought help from American negotiators.

Ukraine’s European allies, too, who have been largely sidelined in the negotiation attempt, spoke out against the deal. Over the weekend, a alternative peace agreement between Britain, France, and Germany, known as Europe’s E3, was released that would allow Ukraine to join NATO on the basis of agreements already in place. Additionally, the European partners recommended that the military of Ukraine’s population be limited to 800 000.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, in a Sunday statement on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in South Africa, warned that the US-led plan would leave Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian aggression. She claimed that the European Union would not support forceful territorial concessions and would not accept a deal that did not “represent the centrality of the European Union” in bringing about peace in Kyiv, despite the peace plan’s own restriction preventing Ukraine from joining NATO, not the EU.

The Commission President said that any credible and long-term peace plan should first and foremost stop the killing and put an end to the conflict without causing a future conflict.

Addressing the European parliament on Wednesday, von der Leyen reiterated: Any peace agreement must ensure European security without leaving open the possibility of “carving up” European countries or changing borders “by force”.

Russia’s persistent demands on its territory are not permitted by law, and Ukraine has long pushed back against them, calling for a referendum. Many Ukrainians reject the idea of what seems like a surrender after nearly four years of devastating war as the battered nation continues to suffer significant losses as a result of Russian bombardment.

What new proposals are there?

Following two days of talks between US and Ukrainian officials in Geneva that ended on Sunday, a new 19-point peace plan was released this week. The talks were led on Ukraine’s side by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak and diplomat Umerov, while US officials present included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Driscoll, Kushner and Witkoff.

The presidents of Ukraine and the US would make final decisions regarding the refined deal, according to a statement from Ukraine’s presidency office, who did not provide any details. However, the talks were “constructive” and did not go into specifics.

At the Geneva talks, First Deputy Foreign Minister Sergiy Kyslytsya, who was present, claimed the meeting was “intense” and nearly ended before it even started. However, the resulting draft had left both sides feeling “positive”, he said, adding that the most sensitive topics – territorial issues and the question of Ukraine’s future in NATO – were left for Trump and Zelenskyy to decide on.

According to Kyslytsya, “We have a solid body of convergence and a few things that we can accept.” There are “very few things left in the original version,” he claimed.

• The US appeared willing to remove the 600, 000-member cap on Ukraine’s army, the official said. According to Kyslytsya, “they both agreed that the Ukrainian army number in the leaked version was no longer on the table,” according to Kyslytsya.
• He added that “the grievances of those who suffered in the war” were rewritten as proposals for blanket amnesty for potential war crimes.
• Separately, an unnamed White House official said changes were also made to the earlier peace deal’s restrictions on NATO troops positioned in Ukraine, according to The New York Times. Russia has asserted in a previous statement that Ukraine’s NATO troops are fighting without any proof.

Russia might want what?

Kyslytsya stressed to The FT how willing the US delegation was to listen to the Ukrainian side and to review all the issues raised point by point. There are no guarantees that President Vladimir Putin will accept the deal, despite Russia’s absence from the table.

Rubio acknowledged the difficulty of getting a yes from Moscow during the Geneva talks on Sunday, saying, “Of course, the Russians get a vote here as well.”

Potential contentious points remain the issue of ceding territory. After annexing the fertile, mineral-rich Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhia provinces, Russia unilaterally proclaimed its annexation, and it has remained in control of significant portions of the region ever since. Russia had previously vehemently annexed Crimea in 2014.

Putin has pushed for maximalist goals through the war and has stuck to his demands since 2022, including to fully claim all five territories. Despite Trump’s efforts to negotiate, which included a summit in Alaska that ended in no agreements earlier in August, the Kremlin’s stance has largely remained unchanged.

Moscow has vehemently opposed NATO membership for Ukraine, as well.

Regarding the uncapping of Ukraine’s military membership, it’s not clear yet if Russia will agree to a higher number. Russia suggested that Ukraine should have as few as 100 000 troops as it did the 600 000 troops mentioned in the first US peace plan during initial peace discussions in 2022.

What comes next?

Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy will now have to meet to decide the final aspects of the new deal. Trump initially set a Thursday deadline for Ukraine’s formal ratification of the pact, but Trump later claimed there were no longer any more stringent deadlines.

As the US settles in for the Thanksgiving holiday on Thursday, it’s not known when a meeting will take place. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday that “there are no plans at this moment” for a meeting.

President Zelenskyy addressed “sensitive points” at a video conference of the so-called coalition of the willing, a group of 30 countries supporting Ukraine, on Tuesday.

Importantly, Washington will now have to support the revised draft in addition to Moscow.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, commenting on the plan on Tuesday, said Moscow had not seen it, but warned that it should reflect “the spirit and letter” of the talks between Trump and Putin in Alaska, adding that if key terms are erased, “it will be a fundamentally different situation (for Russia). Putin reiterated Russia’s stated objectives during those discussions.

Trump stated in a statement on his Truth Social Media account that he was optimistic about the achievement of peace.

” In the hopes of finalizing this Peace Plan, I have directed my Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to meet with President Putin in Moscow and, at the same time, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll will be meeting with the Ukrainians, “Trump wrote.

I’m hoping to meet with President Zelenskyy and President Putin soon, but ONLY when the deal is final or in its final stages. We appreciate your interest in this crucial issue, and we all wish for the achievement of PEACE as soon as possible.

US Army Secretary Driscoll, meanwhile, met with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi on Tuesday in what appeared like an attempt to convey the new agreement to Moscow ahead of Witkoff’s visit next week. Although it’s unclear what was being discussed, Driscoll’s spokesperson assured reporters that “the talks are going well and we remain optimistic.”

The peace plan was not discussed during meetings with US officials in Abu Dhabi, according to Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin aide.

Authorities report that at least 13 people have died in a fire that has stricken a number of Hong Kong high-rise apartment buildings and left some residents trapped inside.

On Wednesday afternoon, flames engulfed other parts of the Wang Fuk Court estate in Tai Po, a district in the city’s northern part, before sweeping over several apartment blocks.

The 31-story towers’ thick, black smoke poured out from the fire into the night sky, and firefighters battled it until midnight.

The Fire Services Department raised the fire to a level five alarm, the highest level, after nightfall, adding that nine people were later confirmed dead at the scene and four were later confirmed dead.

Local media reported that some residents were reportedly trapped inside the buildings, injuring at least 15 others.

The fire quickly spread, according to Chan Derek Armstrong, deputy director of Hong Kong’s Fire Services Department, and residents frequently called for assistance.

He claimed that the affected buildings’ debris and scaffolding were falling, adding that the building’s temperature remained extremely high.

He claimed that it’s quite challenging for us to enter the buildings and go upstairs to carry out firefighting and rescue operations.

“People are ensnared inside.”

Nothing can be done with the property, according to the statement. A Tai Po resident by the surname So, 57, told the AFP news agency right near the fire’s location, “We can only hope that everyone, no matter how old or young, can return safely.”

It’s heartbreaking,” she said. We’re concerned that there might be trapped inside.

Reporter Laura Westbrook told Al Jazeera from the scene of the fire that when it first started, it spread to other housing estate blocks as bamboo scaffolding was being reported.

As I’ve been standing here, Westbrook said, “I can smell the smoke and occasionally hear these pops as some of the debris falls to the ground,” she said.

One of Hong Kong’s most densely populated cities, Wang Fuk Court, is one of many high-rise housing complexes.

Harry Cheung, 66, a resident of Block Two in one of the complexes for more than 40 years, reported hearing a “very loud noise” at around 2:45 pm local time (06:45 GMT) and seeing a fire erupt in a nearby block.

He told the Reuters news agency, “I immediately went back and packed my things.” “I’m not even aware of my current state of mind. Because I’m likely to not be able to return home tonight, I’m just thinking about where I’m going to sleep.

Bamboo scaffolding

As smoke emitted from the buildings, people gathered on a nearby overhead walkway to watch in shock and pose for photos.

Residents posted photos on social media claiming the buildings had been receiving renovations for about a year, with some of the structures covered in bamboo scaffolding.

Witnesses reported seeing hundreds of fire engines and ambulances line the road below the development while firefighters battled the blaze, with frames of scaffolding falling to the ground.

128 fire trucks and 57 ambulances were sent to the scene by firefighters.

Authorities established a casualty hotline and established two temporary housing options for newly evacuated residents in nearby community centers. The firefighting operation also closed portions of a nearby highway.

The Fire Services Department advises residents nearby to remain inside, shut their doors and windows, and remain calm. The public is also advised to stay away from the fire’s affected areas.

After a month of restraint in their relationship, the Indian government and China are at odds with one another over alleged harassment of a woman in Arunachal Pradesh, an eastern state of India.

China claims the territory of Arunachal Pradesh and calls the region southern Tibet, or Zangnan.

What transpired, why the tensions between the world’s two most populous countries are significant, and what are the causes of the tensions.

What happened?

On Friday, Prema Wangjom Thongdok traveled from the United Kingdom to Japan using her Indian passport. She stopped at Shanghai Pudong International Airport in China for what was supposed to be a three-hour layover.

Thongdok claimed that Shanghai airport authorities unlawfully held her and harassed her for 18 hours because her passport listed Arunachal Pradesh as her birthplace.

She added that the Chinese authorities at the airport said her Indian passport was “invalid”, claiming that Arunachal Pradesh was actually part of China.

I actually crossed the immigration gate. It was e-gate, so I put my passport through and went to the security gates”, Thongdok told the India Today news magazine over videolink from Thailand’s capital, Bangkok.

“India! One of the officials screamed as he arrived and screamed. India! ‘ with my name in her blatant rant,” she continued.

When Thongdok asked the official why she was being taken out, she said the official told Thongdok that her Indian passport is not valid because she was born in Arunachal Pradesh. The official continued, “Arunachal is a part of China,” according to Thongdok. Your passport is invalid”.

Thongdok responded, “Arunachal is an Indian state. I’ve never heard of it being part of China”.

Without knowing when the authorities would let her leave the airport, she continued, adding that she was kept there.

Other Indian media outlets reported that Thongdok said she was pressured by airport authorities to buy a new ticket on China Eastern Airline and hinted that her passport would be returned only when she complied. She lost money on hotel reservations and flight cancellations as a result.

She added that with help from a friend in the UK, she eventually got in touch with the Indian consulate in Shanghai. Later, Indian authorities led her to a late-night flight out of the city.

The Indian Express newspaper reported that Thongdok had passed through Shanghai Pudong International Airport in October without any issues. What changed this time is unclear.

Have similar incidents happened before?

People from Arunachal Pradesh who arrived in China were issued stapled visas in Beijing in 2005. Other Indian residents receive a stamped Chinese visa on their passports.

China’s argument: If someone from Arunachal Pradesh is first-class citizens, they cannot issue regular visas.

But India has never accepted stapled Chinese visas on its passports. According to the report, doing so would mean accepting that Arunachal Pradesh residents are not Indians.

In 2013, two archers from Arunachal Pradesh were issued stapled visas&nbsp, to travel to Wuxi in eastern China for the Youth World Archery Championship. They were prohibited from visiting China by India.

In July 2023, three martial arts athletes from Arunachal Pradesh were issued stapled visas for the World University Games, which took place in China’s Chengdu. In the end, the entire Indian Wushu team did not participate in Chengdu’s games.

In September 2023, the same three wushu athletes from Arunachal Pradesh were unable to compete in the Hangzhou Asian Games because they were unable to download their accreditation cards, which were to serve as visas to visit China.

Anurag Thakur, the Indian sports minister, protested by canceling his trip to Hangzhou to inaugurate the games.

What is the Arunachal Pradesh dispute about?

According to Raj Verma, a nonresident scholar at George Washington University’s Sigur Center for Asian Studies, the India-China border dispute over Arunachal Pradesh is a legacy of the British Empire.

In March 1914, the McMahon Line was established during the Simla Convention in India, which involved negotiations between Tibet, China and the British Empire. Henry McMahon, the country’s top negotiator, is the line’s name. While Chinese delegates attended the convention, they did not sign the main agreement and did not recognise the McMahon Line.

McMahon, however, chose to follow Tibet’s path. China has held that Tibet did not have the authority to unilaterally decide on the border with India, especially after China sent troops into Tibet and annexed it in 1951. Beijing has also relied on outdated maps, including those from the British, that depicted China as a sovereign state along the McMahon Line.

Since gaining independence from Britain in 1947, India has treated the McMahon Line as the border with China.

Instead of relying on the McMahon Line, Beijing has argued that India and China should negotiate and draw their borders.

For decades, China claimed only a part of Arunachal Pradesh known as Tawang. However, its claim has expanded to the entire state of northeast India in recent years.

Verma said tensions have intensified since Chinese President Xi Jinping came to power in 2012 and adopted a much more muscular approach to Beijing’s territorial demands.

“We take a firm and unwavering position on China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. … We cannot lose one inch of territory passed down by our ancestors. We also want nothing from other people,” Xi said in 2018.

China’s relations with many of its other neighbours have also soured over the past decade due to territorial disputes, including Beijing’s claims over all of the South China Sea.

Verma said, “That’s why it’s becoming increasingly difficult for the dispute to be resolved, and it’s going to be very difficult for this issue to be resolved in the future,” citing China’s position.

In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in power since 2014, has also adopted a more assertive foreign policy, including on border disputes. He once promised to show China “red eyes,” a Hindi metaphor for firmness and strength.

How has the Arunachal Pradesh dispute played out historically?

The least-populated state in India, Arunachal Pradesh, has long been a source of tension between New Delhi and Beijing.

In October 1962, present-day Arunachal Pradesh became one of the two theatres of the Indo-China War, and Beijing’s troops attacked Indian positions on both sides of the Namka Chu river. Even though the Chinese People’s Liberation Army won the war, Indian soldiers escaped from Tawang.

In October 1975, another skirmish broke out at the Tulung La pass, which connects Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh. Each side alleged that another was attacking its soldiers. Four Indian soldiers were killed in what was the last deadly border clash between the neighbours until the 2020 crisis in Ladakh, in which at least 20 Indian soldiers and four Chinese service members were killed after hand-to-hand combat.

The conflicting claims made by India and China over the region have had other effects, despite the region’s largely peaceful past 50 years.

In 2012, China objected to the Dalai Lama’s scheduled visit to Arunachal Pradesh. Jiang Yu, the spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time, “we firmly oppose Dalai visiting the so-called “Arunachal Pradesh.” The Dalai Lama did not visit the state in 2012.

Tawang experienced a few minor border scuffles in December 2022. Both sides blamed each other. China claimed that Chinese soldiers had spied on Indian territory and attempted to “change the status quo” while India accused Indian forces of obstructing a routine patrol.

In January, China approved the construction of a dam in Medog County, Tibet, near the Indian border. In response, India reacted by approving the Arunachal Pradesh’s Siang Upper Multipurpose Project to stop flooding and reduce the effects of the Chinese dam. However, the Indian reservoir project risks submerging dozens of Indigenous villages in India and Bangladesh.

What makes Arunachal Pradesh significant?

The state is strategically important to India because it links the country with Southeast Asia and is also a military district, Verma said. The state is close to Bhutan in the west and shares international borders with Myanmar in the southeast. Myanmar, in turn, connects India to Thailand, Laos and beyond via the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway project.

Verma claimed that China also holds religious significance for the state. In 1683, the sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso, was born near Tawang.

China maintains that Arunachal Pradesh is an extension of Tibet, which is a source of tension between the neighbors. Beijing has long viewed India’s decision to grant the current Dalai Lama sanctuary after he fled Lhasa during a Chinese crackdown as a provocation.

In September 2024, India named a previously unnamed mountain peak in Arunachal Pradesh after the sixth Dalai Lama.

China’s concern about this choice was expressed. “Let me say more broadly that the area of Zangnan is Chinese territory, and it’s illegal and null and void for India to set up the so-called Arunachal Pradesh in Chinese territory. This is China’s consistent position, according to Lin Jian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry at the time.

“Beijing would be extremely reluctant to give up Arunachal Pradesh and the Tawang issue”, Verma said.

What has the Chinese and Indian government done?

In response to a reporter’s question about Thongdok’s experience at the Shanghai airport, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said on Tuesday: “Zangnan is China’s territory. The so-called Arunachal Pradesh, which India has illegally established, has never been recognized by the Chinese side.

She insisted that Chinese officials had dealt with Thongdok “in accordance with laws and regulations”.

“The law enforcement was fair and unaccountable,” the statement read. The lawful rights and interests of the person concerned were fully protected. No allegedly detained or harassed woman was taken, and no other measures were taken against her. The airline provided her with resting facilities and meals”, Mao said.

In response to his Chinese counterpart’s statements, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal, stated on Tuesday: “Arunachal Pradesh is an integral and inalienable part of India, and this is a self-evident fact. No amount of denial by the Chinese side is going to change this indisputable reality”.

Jaiswal continued, “The Chinese side has been very interested in the detention issue. Chinese authorities have still not been able to explain their actions, which are in violation of several conventions governing international air travel. The Chinese government’s actions also go against their own rules, which forbid nationals from all nations from getting a visa-free transit for up to 24 hours.

What does this mean for India-China relations?

Verma described the most recent conflict as “a minor blip in the bilateral relationship” between China and India. “It should not be an issue when it comes to improving India-China relations”.

Over the past year, New Delhi and Beijing’s relationship has thawed, especially as of 2020-2024. Both have been battered by heavy tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump, which analysts said have forced them to cooperate.

Following the clash in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley in 2020, India-China relations began to deteriorate. This marked the first deadly border incident in 40 years and resulted in India banning 200 Chinese apps, including TikTok. The “most challenging phase” in recent years was described as the “most challenging phase” for India’s foreign minister.

Since late 2024, both nations have sought to reset ties. During a troop withdrawal along the Line of Actual Control, Modi and Xi met in Kazan, Russia.

In August, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited India, leading Modi to praise their “respect for each other’s interests” and “steady progress” in relations. Modi and Xi met for talks later that month in China for the first time in more than seven years.

Still, Verma pointed out, despite the thaw in ties, “the overall strategy of both countries towards each other has not changed”.