The Netherlands has announced that it will return , control of chipmaker Nexperia to its Chinese parent company, a step towards resolving a standoff between The , Hague and Beijing that upended automotive supply chains.
Dutch Economic Affairs Minister Vincent Karremans said on Wednesday that he , had suspended an order to effectively seize control of the chipmaker following “constructive” talks with Chinese officials and consultations with European and international partners.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“We are positive about the measures already taken by the Chinese authorities to ensure the supply of chips to Europe and the rest of the world”, Karremans said in a statement.
“We see this as a show of goodwill. We will continue to engage in constructive dialogue with the Chinese authorities in the period ahead”.
China’s Ministry of Commerce welcomed the announcement as a “first step”, but called for the full revocation of the order, describing it as the “root cause” of the supply chain disruptions.
It also criticised a Dutch court’s “erroneous ruling” last month that forced out Nexperia’s Chinese CEO, Zhang Xuezheng, over alleged mismanagement.
Jo Van Biesebroeck, an economics professor at KU Leuven, said Europe’s efforts to craft a strategy for managing China’s involvement in critical supply chains were a “work in progress”.
“The Nexperia action was triggered by specific actions, and the main worry now seems to be diminished with the personnel change at Nexperia”, Biesebroeck told Al Jazeera.
“The Dutch government made clear how far it is willing to go, and it seems like China has met them halfway”.
The Dutch government took effective control of Nexperia, owned by Jiaxing-based Wingtech, in late September, citing the need to ensure chip supplies amid concerns Zhang could move manufacturing operations and intellectual property to China.
The move came after the United States had warned the Netherlands that the company would likely be placed on its list of sanctioned firms unless it replaced Zhang, though Dutch officials have denied acting due to pressure from Washington.
Beijing condemned the Dutch government’s intervention, invoked under the Cold War-era Goods Availability Act, as an act of “improper interference” in a company’s affairs and blocked exports of some Nexperia products manufactured in China in response.
Japanese carmakers Honda and Nissan were forced to cut back production amid the resulting disruption to supply chains, while Germany’s Mercedes-Benz announced that it had taken steps to secure chip supplies in the short term.
Numerous international news outlets claim that the US and Russia have come up with a new strategy to end the Russian-Ukraine conflict.
Under the plan, which covers 28 points, Kyiv would be required to concede weapons and territory.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The news comes one day before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is due to meet US army officials in Kyiv on Thursday.
What we currently know about the plan and what concessions Kyiv would have to make.
Is this a formal proposal, or not?
No. Russia has even refuted the existence of such a peace plan, and the US has not yet made an official announcement about it.
However, unnamed sources have been cited in reports from a number of news outlets. US digital news outlet Axios and the United Kingdom’s Financial Times newspaper were the first to report details of the plan on Wednesday.
The US has “signalled” to Zelenskyy, according to two unnamed sources with knowledge of the situation who later obtained a Reuters quote from a source close to the investigation. According to other reports, this would be exchanged for US security guarantees.
The Financial Times quoted an unnamed official saying the proposal is “heavily tilted towards Russia” and “very comfortable for]Russian President Vladimir] Putin”. The official’s name is not specified. According to the Financial Times, the plan’s authors claimed that only Russian and US officials had been involved in the process.
The newspaper added that the US had informed Ukraine of the plan via Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, this week.
According to an unnamed US official with “direct knowledge,” Axios reported that the plan would grant Russia access to areas of eastern Ukraine that Moscow does not currently control in exchange for a security guarantee for Ukraine and Europe against upcoming Russian aggression.
However, according to Keir Giles, a Russian military expert at Chatham House in London, the idea may not even be from the US. He described the way news of the plan had emerged as a “Russian information operation rather than the basis of reality, which Western media has willingly bought into yet again” in an interview with Al Jazeera.
Witkoff said on Wednesday in response to a post on X with a link to the Axios story: “He must have got this from K.” The 28-point plan’s existence was not explicitly confirmed or refuted by him.
The post, which Witkoff may have “thought was a direct message” to someone else, Giles said, has since been deleted.
According to Giles, “K” could refer to Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), or Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Dmitriev is listed as one of the “architects” of the new proposal in a report from the Financial Times.
Students preparing to be firefighters gather in front of an apartment building that was hit on Wednesday by a Russian missile in Ternopil, Ukraine, November 20, 2025]Thomas Peter/Reuters]
What have Ukrainian and US officials said?
The White House has not made any comment on the situation.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X that the US “will continue to develop a list of potential ideas for ending this war based on input from both sides of this conflict”.
Rubio continued, “Ending a complex and deadly war like the one in Ukraine calls for a lot of serious and realistic ideas exchange. And both parties will need to consent to difficult but necessary concessions in order to reach a lasting peace.
Zelenskyy, who was holding talks in Turkiye with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday, has also not commented on the alleged proposal.
After meeting with Erdogan in Ankara, Zelenskyy said on Telegram that the key to stopping the bloodshed and achieving lasting peace is that we work together with all of our partners and that the American leadership stays strong and effective.
Only the US and Trump “have sufficient strength to finally put an end to the war,” Zelenskyy claimed.
What has been reported about the terms of the plan?
The plan includes 28 specific, unidentified points, according to Axios. Overall, it would give Russia complete control of the Donbass region, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, and Crimea in the south, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014 but which is still litigious.
In Donbas, Russia currently controls all of Luhansk and most of Donetsk. Overall, Ukraine still has control over 14.5 percent of the Donbass region, including parts of Donetsk around the cities of Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, according to the Institute for the Study of War.
Russia would also be unable to station its troops there, making Ukraine have to completely withdraw its forces from the Donbass. This would also make the area a demilitarized zone.
Axios quoted an unnamed Ukrainian official saying the plan also imposes longer-term limits on the size of Ukraine’s military and its possession of long‑range missiles.
Russia now controls 75% of Zaporizhia and Kherson in southern Ukraine, which border the Black Sea, along with Crimea and the majority of the Donbass region. The existing battle lines in these two regions would be permanently frozen, according to the plan. The return of any of this territory to Ukraine would be subject to later negotiations.
Would Ukraine benefit from this strategy?
On the surface, analysts claimed that this strategy does not at all benefit Ukraine. “If the plan, as has been suggested to media were implemented, this would leave Ukraine defenceless against the next Russian attack”, Giles said.
He added that Ukraine would become too vulnerable if its army size was reduced and its long-range weapons were restricted. He called the strategy “catastrophic to European security.”
“It seems that Ukrainian armed forces will have to be reduced by 2.5 times]reduced by 60 percent] of its size – that means Ukraine cannot have more than 400, 000 personnel”, Marina Miron, a postdoctoral researcher at the defence studies department at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera, based on what she has read about the plan. Additionally, it states that Ukraine shouldn’t possess long-range missile capabilities capable of attacking Russia. Then Crimea and the regions under Russian control would both be officially recognized.
“This plan seems to obviously favour Russia, and it is interesting to see whether the United States can exert enough leverage on Ukraine and on Zelenskyy to accept this plan”, Miron said.
(Al Jazeera)(Al Jazeera)
How has Trump’s position evolved over time?
Trump has flip-flopped on the issue of Ukraine ceding land to Russia several times this year.
Trump suggested late last month that Ukraine’s current battle lines be frozen, and what not.
You let it continue as it is now. They can … negotiate something later on down the line”, Trump told reporters on Air Force One in October. Russia, which has made it clear that it is determined to achieve its war goal of removing Ukraine’s military from Moscow’s eastern regions, rejected this strategy.
This plan was initially supported by Ukraine and its allies in Europe. “The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations”, they said in a joint statement. Ukraine, which had previously urged reclaiming all of its land, saw a change in this regard.
Trump’s position on the matter also changed, and on September 23 he asserted that the European Union and NATO could assist in bringing back all of its territory, which Russia had seized since the start of the war.
“With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option”, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform back then.
Trump stated on August 11 that the two countries would have to renounce their respective territories in order for the war to end. He stated to reporters that Russia had taken some of Ukraine’s “very prime territory” and that it would “try to get some of that territory back.” At this point, Zelenskyy rejected the idea of conceding any land.
Trump and Zelenskyy met in the Oval Office in February of this year. Zelenskyy was berated by Trump and his vice president, JD Vance, at this meeting for not showing up enough to win the American war so far.
Trump indicated that ending the war would require Ukraine to give up some territory, telling Zelenskyy: “You should be grateful. You are trapped there, your people are dying, and you have a shortage of soldiers.
Trump vowed to end the Ukraine war in his first 24 hours of presidency, in preparation for the US election last year. Trump was inaugurated in late January this year, and about 11 months later, all his attempts at peace talks have been unsuccessful.
Since February 2022, the conflict in Ukraine has been dragging on. At least 26 people were killed and several others were hurt in a Russian aerial attack on Ternopil in western Ukraine on Wednesday, according to Ukrainian Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.
What will happen next?
Miron said that because of its significant favoring of Russia, Ukraine and Europe will reject this plan if it is presented.
“Ukraine and Europe will have their own demands as we go through a second cycle of rewriting the plan.” Allegedly, Zelenskyy had a plan of his own in Turkiye which was put together with his European allies”, Miron said.
The plan will likely start a “diplomatic game,” she continued if the reports about the plan are accurate.
Trump can always say, “Well, we came with a plan to you and you rejected it,” if Ukrainians and Europeans reject the plan. And so you are in the way to achieve a lasting peace'”.
More than 170 climbers were safely evacuated as a result of Mount Semeru’s sudden eruption, according to Indonesian authorities.
The Center for Volcanology and Geological Disaster Mitigation’s head, Priatin Hadi Wijaya, stated in a video news conference on Thursday that “they are safe and are now being helped to return.”
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
On Wednesday, at least 178 people climbed the 3, 676-meter (12, 060-foot) mountain in the Lumajang district of East Java province, including climbers, porters, guides, and tourism officials, and left stranded at the camping area Ranu Kumbolo.
Hetty Triastuty, a representative at the center, added that Ranu Kumbolo is a safe haven away from the crater’s main danger zone, 8 kilometers (5 miles).
A pyroclastic flow appears on an aerial photograph of the Mount Semeru’s eruption in Lumajang, East Java, on November 19, 2025.
The camping area is located on the mountain’s northern slope, which is not in the way of the observed south-southeast moving hot cloud flow.
The climbers may have been exposed to volcanic ash, though.
On Wednesday afternoon, the eruption of Mount Semeru in eastern Java caused officials to raise the alert status to its highest level by dumping ash and gas more than 13 kilometers (8 miles) away.
Semeru is Indonesia’s highest peak, and it is located on the “Ring of Fire,” a seismically active arc where earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are common.
Still being traumatized
According to Sultan Syafaat, a representative for the disaster management agency, nearly 900 people were sheltered after the eruption in schools, mosques, and village halls.
They spend the night [in shelters], he said, likely because they are still traumatized.
Faiz Ramadhani, a resident, claimed the eruption had been “very horrible”.
It was like midnight at that time, four in the afternoon, four. The 20-year-old described the situation as “very dark.”
Some of the homes close to the volcano had rock fragments and volcanic ash buried in places.
The village leader of Supiturang, Nurul Yakin Pribadi, described how shocked he was to discover that his home had been damaged.
He told AFP that his house had a metre-high spill of [volcanic] materials. “Many people’s homes were ruined,” the statement read.
In the past 200 years, Semeru, also known as Mahameru, has erupted numerous times, most recently in the deadly 2021 episode that left 62 people dead and encircling villages in hot ash.
Indonesia has nearly 130 active volcanoes, more than any other nation, and Semeru’s frequent activity is closely monitored due to the dangers it poses to nearby towns, transportation routes, and aviation.
In Supiturang village in Lumajang, East Java province, Indonesia, on November 20, 2025, locals ride motorcycles as Mount Semeru spews volcanic ash in the background [Dipta Wahyu/Reuters]
Following a request from the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, US President Donald Trump says he will support efforts for peace in Sudan. His pledge comes as the UN calls for justice for the victims of the “horror show” and “crime scene” in El-Fasher, which the UN has referred to as “a crime show.”
Eusebio became the first Black player to receive the highest individual award in history 60 years after taking the Ballon d’Or. Beyond the brilliance, colonial forces had a significant impact on his travels beyond football. Many people may have missed out on Eusebio’s legacy because of Samanta Johnson’s exploration of it.
There is hope that countries will finally come to an agreement on a roadmap to eliminate fossil fuels as the COP30 negotiations in Belem progress toward their goal of keeping 1.5C alive. One significant roadblock to that roadmap, which could undermine Brazil’s progress, is still missing, and that is the military’s carbon emissions.
Governments are obligated to report their militaries’ emissions under the Paris Agreement, but the majority of the time don’t. The Military Emissions Gap project’s most recent analysis revealed that the available data is inconsistent, inconsistent, or completely missing. The “military emissions gap” is a gap between what is widely known about military pollution and what is actually happening. The outcome is shocking: militaries remain largely unaffected in the Belem negotiations, leading to a perilous blind spot for global climate change.
That blind spot’s size is astounding. An estimated 5.5% of all global emissions is made up of soldiers. As defense spending rises while the rest of society decarbonizes, this share is projected to increase even further. Armees would be the fifth-largest emitter on Earth, ahead of Russia by 5 percent, if they were a nation. Only five nations adhere to the UNFCCC’s voluntary reporting requirements for military emissions, which only apply to fuel use. The reality is much wider: there are no mention of fugitive emissions from refrigeration, air conditioning, radar, and other equipment, but there are still munitions production and disposal, waste management, and other issues. Additionally, there are significant gaps in both climate accountability and action because operations in international waters and airspace are not even remotely reported.
When we consider the effects of armed conflicts on the environment, the military’s emissions gap expands even further. As if fighting wars alone did not end ecosystems, leave toxic soils for decades to come, and cause significant CO2 emissions, including from rebuilding efforts that included the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, as if the horror and suffering from fighting wars were not enough. These additional emissions run the risk of going unreported because there is no internationally recognized framework to measure conflict emissions, which would mean that we don’t know how many wars are halting global warming.
Despite this, accountability momentum is finally gaining. Before COP30, protesters and civil society organizations in Belem are urging the UNFCCC to address this long-ignored source of pollution. Nearly 100 organizations have signed the pledges. Politicians are also beginning to change. Although rapid rearmament is currently putting pressure on the European Union, the defense sector has made progress toward more transparent reporting and decarbonization. These pledges, combined with NATO’s new goal to spend 5% of GDP on militaries, could result in up to 200 million tonnes of CO2 and cause up to $ 2998 billion in climate damage annually, putting Europe’s own climate goals in jeopardy.
The need for accountability is reinforced by international law. According to the recent landmark advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, states are required to assess, report, and mitigate harms, including those brought on by armed conflict and military action, under the terms of international agreements. Global warming is understated by these emissions, but doing so also undermines the scale of the crisis and weakens global ability to address its root causes.
The current emissions-reduction plans are in such a disarray that they do not meet the 1.5C limit. What will happen next if the COP30 negotiators reach an agreement on a plan to phase out fossil fuels, and whether it will lead to real progress or just symbolic change? Military emissions cannot continue to be hidden, and no industry can be exempt from climate change.
It is necessary to report all military emissions to the UNFCCC, starting with combat and training, and ending any long-lasting climate damage that communities may experience. That information must serve as the foundation for national climate plans that are urgent, science-aligned, and in line with the 1.5C limit.
The climate cannot be compromised by security. Our collective safety and the survival of our planet are now a top priority.
