Authored by Evgenia Filimianova via The Epoch Times,

House lawmakers have asked fast-fashion retailer Shein to explain how childlike sex dolls were allowed to appear on its e-commerce platform and whether any were sold to U.S. customers, escalating an international controversy that earlier this month led France to suspend the company’s online marketplace.

In a Nov. 20 letter to Shein CEO Xu Yangtian, Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), joined by 32 other members of Congress, sought clarity on the retailer’s internal controls and whether U.S. consumers were exposed to illegal content.

Founded in China and now headquartered in Singapore, Shein is known for its low-cost, rapid-turnover fashion and for hosting thousands of independent vendors on its marketplace.

The lawmakers said the request follows reports earlier this month that access to Shein’s French site was temporarily blocked after authorities found dolls resembling children offered for sale by third-party vendors.

Buchanan, who is leading the bipartisan inquiry, said in a statement, “It is incredibly disappointing that a major global retailer allowed childlike sex dolls to be sold on its platform, products that are known to fuel pedophilia and endanger children.”

He added that companies that fail to stop such items “must be held fully accountable and prevented from ever enabling this kind of behavior again.”

Wasserman Schultz said the sexual exploitation of children cannot be stopped while such products continue to be made and sold, stressing that e-commerce companies must not allow their platforms to be used to distribute items that encourage abuse.

Letter Flags Breaches

In their letter, lawmakers said French authorities discovered on Oct. 31 that Shein’s website was selling sex dolls with a childlike appearance.

One listing described a product as a “sex doll … male [expletive] toy with erotic body …” and showed an image of a doll resembling a young girl holding a teddy bear.

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) arrives for a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 13, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The lawmakers said a Shein representative confirmed that third-party vendors began selling childlike sex dolls on the platform on Oct. 16.

They noted this directly contradicts Shein’s policies, which ban illegal or restricted goods, including items that promote child abuse and exploitation.

They added that the listings raise concerns that similar items may have been available in the United States, including in states such as Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Utah, and Hawaii, where the sale of such dolls is explicitly banned.

The letter cites research warning that childlike sex dolls can have a “reinforcing effect” on pedophilic ideation.

Although the lawmakers acknowledged Shein’s later decision to ban all sex dolls and suspend its adult-product category, they said it was unacceptable that the dolls were ever allowed to be listed.

They asked the company to clarify by Dec. 20 whether the dolls were sold to U.S. customers, whether law enforcement was notified, how the company plans to recall any completed sales, and what measures it will adopt to prevent future violations.

The letter also urges Shein to commit to a permanent, global ban on childlike sex dolls, even in countries where such sales are not explicitly illegal.

The Epoch Times contacted Shein for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.

Suspension in France

France said on Nov. 5 that it was suspending access to Shein’s online platform unless the retailer proves its content complies with French law.

The government’s announcement coincided with the opening of Shein’s first physical retail location, a pop-up inside Paris’s Bazar de l’Hotel de Ville (BHV) department store.

Under French law, regulators can require online platforms to remove clearly illegal content such as child pornography within 24 hours, and failure to comply can result in orders for internet providers and search engines to block or delist the site.

Arnaud Gallais (C), president of Mouv’Enfants, a movement fighting against all forms of violence against children, gestures next to Suzanne Frugier (R), general secretary of Mouv’Enfants, holding a placard which reads as “Protect children. Not Shein,” at the Bazar de l’Hotel de Ville (BHV) department store in Paris on Nov. 5, 2025. Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP via Getty Images

A day later, on Nov. 6, France’s finance and digital ministers asked the European Commission to launch an urgent investigation, calling the listings “serious breaches” of European regulations.

Shein told The Epoch Times on Nov. 6 that it had taken note of the government’s decision and was cooperating with authorities.

“We are committed to working with the French authorities to address any concerns swiftly as we have always done,” the company said.

It added that it had temporarily suspended listings from independent third-party vendors on its French marketplace while it reviews and strengthens oversight of their activity.

US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee is under fire and in the headlines after it was revealed he met with notorious traitor and spy Jonathan Pollard at the US Embassy in July. The former American intelligence analyst was convicted of espionage for Israel and sentenced to life in prison in 1987.

Pollard’s is widely viewed as one of the single most damaging spy cases in US intelligence history, as he passed along extensive classified information, including the NSA’s ten-volume guide to US signals-intelligence collection methods. He also directly put American intelligence agents and officials in danger, as he revealed the identities of thousands of individuals who had assisted US intelligence services.

The CIA still considers Pollard a dangerous traitor to the nation. He had passed thousands of secret documents – enough to fill a large room-full, to Israeli intelligence in exchange for money and gifts. His defense after getting caught red-handed, which included video footage showing him stealing documents, was that the US government was withholding crucial information from its close Mideast ally.

Pollard had actually been arrested while trying gain asylum at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Later, in prison, he was granted Israeli citizenship, also amid an Israeli lobbying campaign to see him go free.

He was released from prison in 2015 during the Obama years, in his mid-60s and after serving 30 years of his sentence. After a strictly monitored five-year period of parole, he fully gained his freedom and immediately moved to Israel in 2020, where he received a “hero’s welcome” from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The New York Times reports this week:

The highly unusual meeting caught some U.S. officials by surprise, and appeared to be a sharp break with years of precedent for American diplomats.

The New York Times learned of the meeting from three U.S. officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. When The Times asked Mr. Pollard about the meeting, he confirmed it.

Mr. Pollard said it was the first time that a U.S. official had hosted him at an American government office since his release a decade ago.

The same report indicated this alarmed and angered the CIA, but which hasn’t issued official public comment on the matter. “The meeting with Mr. Pollard, a former naval intelligence analyst, was kept off Mr. Huckabee’s official schedule, two of the U.S. officials said. The fact that it occurred alarmed the Central Intelligence Agency’s station chief in Israel, three of the officials said,” The Times continued.

Netanyahu demanded Bill Clinton release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard after telling Clinton Israel knew of the tapes between him and Lewinsky, according to multiple reports. Clinton did not do it after George Tenet threatened to resign as CIA chief if he did so.

Obama… https://t.co/9lWf6JgHno

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) November 20, 2025

However, the White House defended the ambassador, saying simply “The White House was not aware of that meeting” and that “The president stands by Ambassador Huckabee and the work he is doing for both the United States and Israel.”

Pollard has openly described the Huckabee discussion as warm and said he used the opportunity to thank Huckabee for helping advocate for his release from prison, and for looking after his family while he was serving time in federal custody.

In the ‘80s, there was a lot of Zionist influence in the USG, but the security services were genuinely pissed after the Pollard scandal. Tenet threatened to resign as DCI if Clinton bowed to Netanyahu’s blackmail and freed him. Today Israel just does whatever it wants, no brakes. https://t.co/fOUSWqaiVl

— Martyr Made (@martyrmade) November 20, 2025

Huckabee has previously come under criticism from the MAGA movement for being ‘Israel first’ and not in truth America first. He has long maintained of Washington relations with Israel that “It’s a relationship unlike any other.”

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The U.S. economy’s recent growth has a distinctive engine: large‑scale capital expenditures (capex) tied to artificial intelligence (AI). Firms such as Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Meta Platforms, and Amazon have announced massive investments in data centers, servers, networking equipment, and AI infrastructure.

As noted by Investing.com:

“Artificial intelligence is consuming capital faster than investors can recalibrate. Bank of America now sees global hyperscale spending rising 67% in 2025 and another 31% in 2026, with total outlays climbing to $611 billion. That is a $145 billion increase in just one month’s estimates.

The surge shows how cloud giants are doubling down. Google raised its 2025 capital budget to $92 billion, Microsoft plans even faster growth into fiscal 2026, and Meta now expects spending of about $100 billion in 2026. Amazon’s data center capacity is on track to double by 2027. None show intent to slow down, even as capex intensity approaches 30% of sales, roughly triple historic norms.

That level of investment is extraordinary. At its peak, the 5G telecom buildout consumed about 70% of operating cash flow, AI infrastructure is now approaching the same strain.

While we can certainly discuss the magnitude of those investments and the risks associated with repeating another “Dot.com” overbuild, the point I want to address with you today is how those capital expenditures are masking broader economic weakness.

For example, a recent estimate places U.S. AI‑related capex for fiscal 2025 at about 1.2% of GDP. (The chart below uses the Atlanta Fed GDP Now estimate for Q3 of 4% nominal GDP growth and assumes the same in Q4.) If we subtract out the AI-related Capex spending, growth is significantly weaker than advertised.

In raw terms, the global AI investment by key players already exceeds hundreds of billions of dollars. Analysts forecast global AI spend at around US $360 billion in 2025 with growth into 2026 and beyond. For instance, data center capex is projected to grow at a 21% CAGR to reach US$1.2 trillion globally by 2029. Such figures highlight real spending momentum, and that momentum has helped the U.S. economy avoid a steeper decline in growth. But this growth is highly concentrated. Only a handful of large tech firms comprise the bulk of the capex. Therefore, the headline numbers require deeper interpretation. Investors must recognize that, while the impact on economic growth is real, spending will eventually slow down.

Still, the rise of AI-driven investment is significant for the economy and for investors alike. It signals a shift in the composition of growth from consumption and broad business investment toward heavy‑asset, tech‑centric investment. Recognizing how that shift works is critical for understanding risks and opportunities.

What the Boom Masks – Underlying Weakness in the Economy

Although the surge in AI investment is impressive, it masks several structural weaknesses in the broader U.S. economy. First, the AI‑capex boom is concentrated among a small number of firms and sectors rather than being broadly diffused across all industries or geographies. The bulk of spending is going into servers, data‑centers, and networks. While those assets are capital‑intensive, they are not labor‑intensive in the way large manufacturing or services growth might be. As noted above, while analysts estimate that AI-capex may be 1.2% of GDP in 2025 under a standard multiplier, the real economic benefits in productivity or employment outside of the tech sector remain limited so far. We observe that in the dispersion of expected 2026 earnings growth between the largest market-capitalization-weighted stocks in the S&P 500 index and the rest.

In other words, if AI capex spending reached a broad swath of the economy, the earnings expectations for the bottom 493 companies would not be negative. It is also crucial to note that forward earnings estimates are ALWAYS overly optimistic, so the results are likely to be worse in the future.

Second, much of that investment relies on imported equipment, components, and technologies, which means the domestic multiplier of the spending is weaker than the headline number suggests. Although AI-capex is large, much of it is still classified as intermediate goods, which aren’t fully captured in GDP statistics. However, while AI capex spending is robust, spending by the rest of the economy remains muted.

Third, when you look beyond the tech sector, the traditional engine blocks of growth are weaker. Residential investment is under pressure as housing affordability remains an issue. As noted above, since business investment outside the large tech players remains muted, that is weighing on employment growth, which continues to show signs of softening.

Fourth, while AI capital expenditures (capex) are high, the economic payoff has not yet been fully proven. Productivity gains, revenue gains, and sustainable earnings from this wave of infrastructure spend have not been fully realized. One Vanguard analysis notes that to move U.S. growth above trend via AI alone would require approximately US$1 trillion in AI-related spending, which lies ahead, not behind.

Thus, the underlying condition of the economy is more fragile than the capital‑spend numbers imply. The risk is that when the tech‑capex boom slows or fails to deliver a broad spill‑over, the rest of the economy will feel the weakness more sharply.

Therefore, as an investor, the risk of assuming broad-based resilience may be critical to consider when developing your investment thesis.

Implications for Investors

For investors, the mixed nature of this growth wave presents both opportunity and risk. The current opportunity for investors is to invest directly in firms closely tied to AI infrastructure, such as chip manufacturers, data center operators, and cloud services companies, all of which are likely to benefit. Their growth trajectories may outpace the broader economy because they are at the heart of the capital expenditure surge. But these opportunities come with important caveats.

One risk is concentration. If a narrow subset of companies or sectors is driving the growth story, then portfolios that lack diversification towards non‑tech may expose investors to sharper corrections. If the tech-capex wave slows, valuations tied to presumed growth may reverse quickly, especially among firms with aggressive capital expenditures and uncertain near-term returns. For example, analysts at Goldman Sachs warn that the current contributions of AI to GDP are likely understated; however, the actual economic benefit remains modest, and future risks remain high.

Secondly, as we saw during the dot-com bubble, not all companies that jumped into the internet market survived. Those failures also included some of the largest companies at the time, such as Enron, World.com, and Lucent, among others. The current AI cycle will likely be the same; there will be some big long-term winners, but there will also be quite a few companies that are mainly trading on “hope” for future results that are far from guaranteed.

Another investor implication concerns earnings quality. Heavy capital expenditures do not guarantee near-term earnings improvement or productivity gains. Some firms may carry high depreciation, amortization, and idle capacity risk. A report notes that capital spending growth now may generate returns only years down the road. This remains one of our primary concerns, as expectations for future earnings growth are incredibly elevated. This leaves an enormous amount of room for disappointment when combined with already high valuation multiples, making the downside risk not inconsequential.

(The chart shows the current deviation of earnings growth from its long-term exponential growth trend versus the trailing P/E ratio, which is inverted. When the “E” reverses, valuations will skyrocket as they did during the Dot.com bust, the Financial crisis, and the Pandemic shutdown.)

Third, investors should monitor the masking effect. The fact that AI‑capex is propping up headline growth means the rest of the economy remains vulnerable. As shown, the economically weighted ISM index (70% services/30% manufacturing) remains in expansion territory, but just barely. If consumption or non‑tech business investment falters, the broader weakness may surface suddenly. Portfolios built only around tech optimism may lack cushions from areas less tied to the boom.

Fourth, valuations need discipline. As noted above, investors are currently pricing in the most optimistic of future outcomes. That exponentially increases the risk of disappointment at some point in the future. The correction potential rises if growth disappoints, returns are delayed, or macro weakness intensifies. Investors should consider whether the current growth base is sufficiently broad to support the expected outcomes. Are earnings projections realistic? How much is the stock’s valuation already assuming perfect execution?

In short, you must not assume that because one part of the economy is booming, everything else is strong. Please recognize that the growth narrative is narrow; therefore, as investors, we should consider some practical steps to manage future risks.

The Democratic National Committee quietly took out a $15 million loan in October to replenish its depleted accounts, according to The New York Times, citing Federal Election Commission filings.

“While it is true that party committees often take out loans and lines of credit, it is relatively rare for the D.N.C. to do so at this early point in an election cycle,” the NYT noted. 

This early-cycle borrowing is unusual and underscores the party’s financial strain, and as many on X suggested:

When USAID was stopped , the GRIFT was shutdown! Bravo🙌🏼🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Z8To3ebGiW

— Trader Joe (@Manager_of_Risk) November 21, 2025

Entering November, the DNC reported $18.3 million on hand, of which $15 million came from the loan. Across party lines, the GOP reported in the FEC filings that it had $91.2 million in cash and no debt. 

DNC Chairman Ken Martin told the outlet that the move to “invest early” is to expand staff back to 250, boosting state-party funding by up to 50% and ramping up organizing efforts that trained 17,000 volunteers and made millions of voter contacts. 

Mega donors are still furious with the DNC after Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign plundered the DNC’s coffers by spending $1.5 billion in 15 weeks that only ended in an embarrassing presidential election loss. 

Meanwhile, the party is being overrun by anti-American Democratic Socialists of America, who plan to plunder the nation’s inheritance on socialist policies, with many on the radical left catering to illegal aliens rather than native born Americans. The party is rudderless with guardrails off, and some Democrats are openly embracing Marxism. 

The Democrats’ Marxist agenda for New York is Communism 101, but the disastrous consequences will be felt across our entire nation.

A government big enough to give you everything “for free,” is also big enough to take it all away! Say GOODBYE to your freedom.

As President… https://t.co/RsDFA5eDk4

— Mike Johnson (@MikeJohnson) October 28, 2025

Also, the Democratic Party’s billionaire-funded network of NGOs is under intense scrutiny after financing and supporting civil disobedience nationwide. The globalists’ ongoing color-revolution-style operation against President Trump – and to derail the America First agenda – is being carried out through the dark universe of the nonprofit world. The clock is ticking for the White House to “dismantle” these dark networks that sow chaos.

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegaph.com,

Bitcoin has taken a slide back to its April level of around $83,000, with mounting selling pressure prompting many investors to sell at a loss, reminiscent of major historic market crashes.

Realized losses on Bitcoin have surged to levels not seen since the 2022 FTX collapse, according to blockchain data platform Glassnode.

“The scale and speed of these losses reflect a meaningful washout of marginal demand as recent buyers unwind into the drawdown,” Glassnode noted in an X post on Friday.

Glassnode’s observation came minutes before Bitcoin slipped as low as $80,500 on Coinbase, marking a 36% decline from its all-time high of $126,210 recorded just weeks ago in early October.

Short-term holders driving the capitulation

According to Glassnode, a big chunk of selling in the ongoing Bitcoin crash is due to short-term holders.

Data from analytics platform CryptoQuant shares a similar perspective, noting that short-term selling “often marks a local bottom if the price quickly reclaims the cost basis.”

“Failing to do so historically indicates a deeper bearish trend or confirms a bear market,” CryptoQuant wrote on X on Thursday.

Source: CryptoQuant

Although many market observers say the current downturn could signal the end of the bull market that began in 2023, prominent industry figures such as Jan3’s Samson Mow have cast doubt on the onset of a crypto winter.

“How can we have a bear market when we haven’t even had a proper bull market?” Mow asked in a post on X on Thursday, referring to growing caution across the market.

Where is the bottom?

With Bitcoin in the red for four straight weeks and the Crypto Fear & Greed Index plunging into “Extreme Fear,” the question of how low BTC could fall has become a major concern.

“We’ve been slicing through support levels like butter lately, and nobody seems to want to try and catch the knife,” Quantum Economics CEO Mati Greenspan told Cointelegraph, adding:

“While I utterly reject the notion that we’re heading into a multi-year bear market, with the speed of the current meltdown, the bears may hit their targets much sooner than expected.”

The collapse of FTX in November 2022 came on the heels of the Terra Luna crash six months earlier, as Bitcoin dropped from around $33,000 in May to below $16,000 by November.

Some observers linked the two events, speculating that FTX’s liquidity crisis may have begun earlier than publicly disclosed.

Bitcoin price chart from January 2022 to October 2023. Source: CoinGecko

After bottoming out at around $15,700, the BTC price had remained below $20,000 for two months before starting its path to the bull market that began in 2023, according to CoinGecko data.

According to some major industry bulls, a market bottom could arrive within a similar time frame this time.

Tom Lee, co-founder of Fundstrat Global Advisors and head of Ether treasury strategy at BitMine, has predicted that Bitcoin could rebound to between $150,000 and $200,000 by the end of January 2026.

Live cattle futures are on track for their steepest monthly decline since the early months of the Covid pandemic, as expectations around President Trump’s Operation Affordability appear to be pressuring prices.

Markets are pricing in Trump’s move to expand beef imports from Latin American countries. This was the news on Thursday, when the administration rolled back tariffs on some Brazilian food imports, including the full 40% levy. 

These changes are retroactive to Nov. 13, cover key goods like beef, coffee, and orange juice, and are intended to ease sticky food inflation left over from the Biden-Harris regime years. This comes ahead of the midterm election cycle. 

Brazil, the world’s largest exporter of coffee and beef, had seen its shipments to the US shrink under the higher tariffs, exacerbating shortages and record food prices.

“What happened is the president said, look, it’s been six months. It’s time. Let’s just wipe the slate clean. If people haven’t made deals with these smaller countries, it’s okay. Let’s cut the price on all these unavailable natural resources, and let’s focus on affordability,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Fox Business on Thursday, adding, “The president’s going to focus on the small things that touch the Americans’ pocketbook, and he’s going to bring them all down.” 

Despite the pullback in live cattle futures, prices are still hovering near record highs due to a severe cattle shortage (read here). But if the recent collapse in egg prices is any indication of what happens when the administration targets affordability, a surge in foreign beef could provide a temporary ceiling on beef prices next year.

Important:

• Trump “Worked Magic” On Beef Deal – Likely With Argentina – As Cattle Futures Surge Most Since 1978

• Ground Beef Inflation Sizzles, Egg Prices Cool Off

• 12-Year Cattle Cycle Bottoms: Tyson CEO Predicts Rebuild Phase Beginning Next Year

• Got Beef? 12-Year Cycle Signals “Cyclical Low”

• Trump Targets Foreign-Owned Meatpacking Cartel To Arrest Beef Prices, Defend Small Ranchers

Bad for American ranchers, but good for consumers heading into the midterms. The administration’s affordability push is aimed at countering the spread of Marxism emanating from the Democratic Party, where the radical left continues dangling the promise of free stuff to win voters. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The overarching theme connecting the substance and timing of this agreement is therefore the US’ eagerness to resolve the Russian-US dimension of the New Cold War in order to prioritize the Sino-US dimension thereof as the next phase of its systemic competition with China over the future world order.

The New York Post, which Trump once called his “favorite newspaper”, just published what it claims to be all 28 points of Russian-Ukrainian peace deal framework that Russia and the US have reportedly been working on in secret over the past few weeks. What follows is the text of each individual point as detailed in the infographic shared in their article on this subject, which will then be concisely analyzed, with some observations about the substance of the agreement and its timing rounding out the analysis:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

This relates to Russia respecting Ukraine’s right to manage its affairs, both internal and foreign and each in accordance with the terms specified in this agreement. It’s pretty much symbolic and aimed at spinning the outcome of this conflict as a (faux) victory for Ukraine amidst the narrative that was pushed by it and the West that Russia wants to conquer all of the country. Some state-adjacent “Non-Russian Pro-Russians” (NRPR) also inadvertently lent credence to this through their sensationalist commentary.

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.

This relates to reforming the European security architecture and could thus likely be a protracted process due to the issues involved. Some of them include Russia’s access to Kaliningrad, navigation across the Baltic Sea, and its opposition to nukes in Poland, while Poland, whose lost Great Power status is being revived with US support, wants Russian tactical nukes and Oreshniks out of Belarus. The “EU Defense Line” that’s being built between NATO and Russia-Belarus will likely also become a “new Iron Curtain”.

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

This quid pro quo, which might include verification and enforcement mechanisms regarding the status of forces along the “new Iron Curtain”, is meant to alleviate their security dilemma and thus facilitate some of the aforesaid compromises. The US would also have a pretext for redeploying of some of its EU-based forces to the Asia-Pacific for more robustly containing China while Russia would have the same for refocusing its strategic attention southward in response to the expansion of Turkish influence there.

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 in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

This reinforces what was written with respect to reaching a series of mutual compromises for alleviating their security dilemma with the intent of freeing up US and Russian forces to refocus on the Asia-Pacific and the South Caucasus-Central Asia respectively for balancing China and Turkiye. There’s also the speculative chance that the US could limit the expansion of NATO member Turkiye’s influence there in exchange for Russia limiting its military-technical and possibly energy cooperation with China.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

It was assessed last March that “Ukraine Already Kinda Has Article 5 Guarantees From Some NATO Countries” due to the raft of “security guarantees” that it agreed to with the bloc’s members over the prior year, all of which are hyperlinked to in the preceding analysis. This point is therefore redundant but might also suggest an openness among those states – the US, Poland, the UK, Germany, France, and Italy – to renegotiate some of the terms to make them even more favorable for Ukraine.

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

The special operation’s demilitarization goal would be achieved in spirit through these means, though the loophole might be that Ukraine could still employ mercenaries to get around this limit. Nevertheless, with credible verification and enforcement mechanisms in place, the spirit of this point would be respected. Russia should therefore consider proposing this without delay in order to avert the scenario of Ukraine slyly undermining the peace (perhaps in collusion with the subversive and warmongering UK).

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.

Russia’s goal of restoring Ukraine’s constitutional neutrality would be achieved in spirit through these means too, though the “security guarantees” that Ukraine would receive (or rather be grandfathered into a peace deal and possibly expanded upon before it’s signed) make it a shadow member of the bloc. In any case, by not becoming a full member, Russia’s long-running concerns about Ukraine provoking World War III would be alleviated and this could then lay the basis for repairing Russian-NATO relations.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

The “career military personnel from France and the United Kingdom” that Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service reported in late September had “already arrived in Odessa” would be quietly withdrawn, but the bloc might greatly build up its capabilities in regional leader Poland as a contingency measure. The purpose would be to deter Russia, albeit within the terms of the new European security architecture that they’ll negotiate, by having NATO forces at the ready to intervene if “Round 2” ever kicks off.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

This point confirms that Poland will lead Russia’s regional containment after the Ukrainian Conflict ends, the role of which arguably evaded Russia’s attention due to it hitherto underestimating Poland as “just another US puppet”. That said, awareness of its role appears to have finally dawned on some influential folks in recent weeks as suggested by the surge in anti-Polish content by state-adjacent NRPRs, which could be meant to precondition the public for expecting a revival of the historical Russian-Polish rivalry.

10. US guarantee:

* The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;

* 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, recognition of the new territory 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 be deemed invalid.

The US will profit from its “security guarantees” to Ukraine just like it now profits from selling weapons to it via NATO; any cross-border movement of troops will provoke the US’ wrath on the side that does so; the US will presumably coerce those with whom it negotiates new trade deals (China, India) to comply with its sanctions against others per the Cambodian and Malaysian precedents as a deterrent to Russia; and Ukraine will presumably be allowed to obtain long-range missile capabilities as another deterrent.

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

The problem is that “Poland Might Impede The EU’s Push To Speedily Grant Ukraine Membership” as was assessed in early November and explained in the preceding hyperlinked analysis. In short, Poland still unilaterally refuses to allow cheap (and low-quality) Ukrainian grain into its domestic market, which would ruin its farmers’ livelihoods and subsequently crash its agricultural industry. An exception for Poland will therefore likely have to be included in this arrangement in order for it to be approved.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

a. The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence;

b. The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities;

c. Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas;

d. Infrastructure development;

e. Extraction of minerals and natural resources.

f. The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

The gist is to create global stakes in Ukrainian infrastructure as a deterrent against Russia targeting them in “Round 2” on pain of most stakeholders (likely including China and India) imposing sanctions against it. NATO stakeholders would also at the very least resume their ongoing military-strategic cooperation with Ukraine and at most intervene in the conflict from their Polish bases even if only to race to the Dnieper to de facto partition Ukraine by bringing the west under their umbrella to stop Russia’s advance.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

a. The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages on a case-by-case basis;

b. The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities;

c. Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

This point complements the preceding one by giving Russia concrete economic reasons to restrain its hardliners/hawks and aligns with the spirit of the “creative energy diplomacy” proposals that were shared here in January. The tech cooperation aspects will lead to complex interdependence between Russia and the US within the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”/“Great Reset” (4IR/GR) at the possible expense of Putin’s sovereignty plans in this sphere and Russia’s potential cooperation with China therein.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

* $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine. The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture;

* Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen;

* The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. The fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

The first part continues the trend of the US profiting from this conflict, first from selling arms to Ukraine via NATO and then receiving compensation for its security guarantees to that country, while the second aligns with the multidimensional deterrence policies suggested in the preceding two points. It’ll also further strengthen complex interdependence between Russia and the US in the spirit of what was suggested here in April with regard to how Russia’s frozen assets could fund big-ticket US deals.

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

This point partially satisfies what was earlier proposed in this analysis regarding the creation of credible verification and enforcement mechanisms but still needs to be fleshed out to be effective. Russia could also importantly employ this channel for preemptively averting joint British-Ukrainian false flag provocations of the sort that its spies have occasionally warned about by getting the US to stop them first. This working group could also help manage the status of forces along the “new Iron Curtain”.

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

This will be just as symbolic as confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty and also aimed at spinning the outcome of this conflict as a (faux) victory for Ukraine as was explained in point 1. It remains to be seen whether this will influence the public statements of Russian officials and/or the content produced by publicly financed Russian media (both domestic and international) and state-adjacent NRPRs. Another question is what consequences could follow if Europe and/or Ukraine object to any of their statements or content.

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

This aligns with Putin’s proposal for extending the New START for another year following its expiry next February, which would give Russia and the US enough time to negotiate its modernization in line with the newest security challenges. Some of the most significant include Trump’s “Golden Dome” megaproject, Russia’s latest missile advancements that were developed in response to the US’ withdrawal from other arms control pacts, drone proliferation, and the militarization of space.

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

Ukraine’s flirtation with developing nuclear weapons in the immediate run-up to the special operation was one of the reasons why Putin ultimately authorized it in order to prevent this from happening. It would therefore be a victory for Russia if Ukraine agreed with this provision, but as with many of the other points in this agreement, credible verification and enforcement mechanisms must be implemented too. These could be negotiated through the joint security working groups stipulated in point 15.

19. The Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine – 50:50.

Russia had hitherto opposed conceding any element of its sovereignty over this power plant so this point represents an indisputable compromise on its part, though it’s a reasonable one when considering the compromises that Ukraine, the EU, NATO, and the US are making as proposed in this agreement. It’ll also importantly help lay the basis for restoring Russian-Ukrainian economic ties after the conflict ends, which could serve as another mutual deterrent against the “Round 2” scenario.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

a. Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities;

b. Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education;

c. All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited;

This point would satisfy the special operation’s denazification goal and lay the legal basis for restoring Russian-Ukrainian socio-cultural ties after the conflict ends. It’s also implied that Russian officials, its publicly financed media, and state-adjacent NRPRs can no longer deny the present separateness of the Ukrainian people despite their historical unity with Russians that Putin elaborated on in his magnum opus in July 2021. He himself also importantly wrote therein that this must be treated “with respect!”

21. Territories:

a. Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized as de facto Russian, including by the United States;

b. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact;

c. Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions;

d. Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized zone.

This represents a significant compromise since Russia considers the entirety of the disputed regions to be its own. Point 2 also mandates resolving “all ambiguities of the last 30 years” so Russia couldn’t retain these claims after freezing the front, yet the constitution prohibits the cession of territory. Nevertheless, the legal workaround proposed here in August could be employed, by which the Constitutional Court could rule that there’s no “cession” since the abandoned claims wouldn’t concern land under its control.

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.

This point reinforces the deterrence policies that were already proposed thus far in the agreement by encouraging political-diplomatic means for settling any future territorial disputes. Explicitly withdrawing the “security guarantees” extended to whichever side uses force against the other, which suggests even drone attacks and shelling (thus including sub-“invasion” hostilities after “invasions” are already prohibited by point 10), is meant to get them to maximally restraint their hardliners/hawks/revisionists.

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.

State-adjacent and many casual NRPRs insisted that Russia will liberate Odessa before the conflict ends, yet that most definitely won’t happen if this agreement’s terms are agreed to, which essentially ensure that the lower Dnieper becomes the new border between Russia and Ukraine. Russia never set its sights on this goal, however, as explained here in December 2023. Formalizing Ukraine’s use of the Dnieper River and continued use of the Black Sea after the conflict ends therefore further discredits those figures.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

a. All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis;

b. All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children;

c. A family reunification programme will be implemented;

d. Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

This point complements point 20 in the sense of establishing the basis for restoring Russian-Ukrainian socio-cultural ties after the conflict ends by helping each side overcome the trauma of the last nearly four years as much as is realistically possible. No festering wounds would remain in the humanitarian sense since each would have done everything that they could to make amends in this way. This series of grand gestures would importantly help repair each society’s perceptions of the other with time.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

Russia’s unstated goal of regime change in Ukraine would likely be fulfilled through these means since Zelensky’s popularity was already plummeting even before the latest corruption scandal dealt a deathblow to it. Given the knowledge of this point in the Russian-Ukrainian peace deal that Russia and the US have reportedly been working on in secret, the timing of this latest scandal initiated by the US-backed “National Anti-Corruption Bureau” can be seen in retrospect as a de facto coup against Zelensky.

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.

Full amnesty incentivizes Zelensky, his corrupt clique, and Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi war criminals to go along with this deal and for the first two to agree to the “phased leadership transition” from the prior point. Russia would abandon its plans for a Nuremburg 2.0, but Putin would be free to travel wherever he wants in exchange since the ICC’s warrant would be rescinded. Some among their societies might be enraged that justice won’t be served as they perceive it to be but it’s arguably a pragmatic compromise.

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

It’s unclear who’ll all comprise the Peace Council and what its responsibilities will be, such as exactly how it’ll guarantee implementation of the agreement’s stipulated terms, but it’ll assumedly have a symbiotic relationship with the joint American-Russian working groups. Another uncertainty is who’ll head the Peace Council after Trump leaves the White House. These details are very important for ensuring lasting peace and will thus certainly be the subject of very intense future negotiations.

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

In other words, Russia, Ukraine, the US, NATO, the EU, and Poland (where European fighter jets are proposed to be hosted) must agree with these terms (which might be amended) as the prerequisite for a ceasefire (but Russian-Ukrainian agreement is the most important), while the “retreat” relates to Russia withdrawing from Sumy, Kharkov, and Dnipropetrovsk (possibly also the sliver of Nikoalev that it controls in the Kinburn Spit) and Ukraine from the rest of Donbass (leaving that ceded part a demilitarized zone).

———-

Some observations about the substance of this agreement and its timing are that:

* Russia achieves almost all of its goals in the special operation through Ukraine’s partial demilitarization, its denazification, the restoration of its constitutional neutrality, its abandonment of any nuclear weapons plans, reforming the European security architecture, and Zelensky’s removal (an unstated goal).

* “Round 2” is meant to be averted through “security guarantees” for Ukraine, the build-up of NATO forces in Poland for a direct intervention in that event, global investments in Ukrainian infrastructure as a tripwire for sanctions if Russia strikes them, and the US dumping Ukraine if it violates the agreement.

* Russia’s phased reintegration into the global (Western) economy and the partial use of its frozen funds for financing joint projects with the US, including those pertaining to strategic resources and the 4IR/GR, could complicate its ambitious (but far from fulfilled) plans with BRICS and economic ties with China.

* The preceding observation suggests that the US wants to prevent Russia from becoming China’s raw materials appendage for turbocharging its superpower trajectory and thenceforth more robustly competing with the US in shaping the contours of the emerging Multipolar World Order.

* Likewise, Russia’s agreement with the spirit of those associated proposals (even if their substance is amended through negotiations) would suggest that it fears becoming disproportionately dependent on China, ergo why it would radically recalibrate its geo-economic and tech ties through these means.

* The timing coincides with the US’ significant energy sanctions on Russia, which could backfire by making it more dependent on China to the US’ concern and possibly Russia’s too, and the US-facilitated expansion of NATO member Turkiye’s influence along Russia’s southern periphery via the TRIPP corridor.

* Accordingly, the US is incentivizing Russia to accept this deal by satisfying most of its goals in the conflict while also helping to avert “Round 2” through the previously mentioned means, while Russia must urgently refocus its strategic attention on the South Caucasus-Central Asia in response to Turkiye.

* Ukraine’s latest corruption scandal has also dealt a deathblow to Zelensky’s popularity and could lead to his loss of control over parliament if members of the ruling party defect in protest, thus pressuring him to accept the deal and the “phased leadership transition” therein in exchange for amnesty.

* Objectively speaking, the mutual compromises and deterrents against “Round 2” contained in the agreement are impressively pragmatic, so much so that each side could convincingly claim “victory” and thus make their respective leaders less worried about “losing face” if they were to agree to these terms.

* The successful implementation of the agreement would free up the US and Russia to each “Pivot to Asia”, the first in the sense of more robustly containing China in the Asia-Pacific and the second with regard to creatively counteracting the expansion of Turkiye’s influence along its southern periphery.

* Given that Turkiye is a NATO member under the US’ influence, a quid pro quo might be reached whereby the US limits the expansion of its ally’s influence there in exchange for Russia limiting its military-technical and possibly energy cooperation with China, thus giving the US an edge in their rivalry.

* The overarching theme connecting the substance and timing of this agreement is therefore the US’ eagerness to resolve the Russian-US dimension of the New Cold War in order to prioritize the Sino-US dimension thereof as the next phase of its systemic competition with China over the future world order.

Russia says it has yet to receive anything official from the United States regarding the new draft Trump-backed plan for ending the war in Ukraine. And already several media headlines say Ukraine and European leaders are signaling their rejection of it, as it presents too much of a compromise.

We’ve examined the widely leaked US plan for peace and its 28 points here, but one particular part of it which really stands out as objectionable from the Zelensky government’s point of view is the demand for Kiev to hold elections within 100 days of the truce being signed.

Point number 25 of the 28 stipulates as follows: Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days. This is of course something Zelensky has resisted for years, arguing that martial law under the Ukrainian constitutions allows for the indefinite suspension of national elections.

His term expired in May 2024, but earlier this year he responded to allegations of simply wanting to hold on to power by asserting, “I’m focusing on the survival of our country, and I am doing it really all my term.”

“I’m ready to speak about elections if you want,” he had said, claiming that “Ukrainians don’t want, totally don’t want, because they are afraid, because otherwise we will lose the military loan, the war loan, our soldiers will come back home, and Putin will occupy all our territory.”

However, public confidence in his government has been waning, especially as top leaders have been embroiled in an embarrassing corruption scandal, leading to the dismissal of several ministers and aides.

Last February, Zelensky actually floated the possibility of stepping down if it would lead to peace, but appeared to attach it to NATO membership. “I am ready to leave my post if it brings peace. Or exchange it for NATO,” Zelensky had said in response to journalists’ questions at security summit.

Interestingly, the draft peace document does provide ‘Article 5-style’ security guarantees for Ukraine, but also requires the country pledge to never join NATO. Below are a few of the points taken from the document which relate to no more NATO expansion – something which Moscow has long demanded as a precondition to ending the conflict:

• It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries and NATO will not expand further.
• 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.
• NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

The above points are also interesting as they represent a tacit admission that NATO expansion was indeed a key cause of the war. This is something which prior Biden officials, as well as an array of mainstream pundits, have long sought to deny, calling it a ‘pro-Russian’ talking point.

As for the call for quick elections after the document’s signing, one geopolitical analysts notes this would be in keeping with Putin’s aims in the ‘special military operation’ – and that it would constitute the “regime change” the Kremlin has been seeking in Kiev.

The analyst writes:

Russia’s unstated goal of regime change in Ukraine would likely be fulfilled through these means since Zelensky’s popularity was already plummeting even before the latest corruption scandal dealt a deathblow to it. Given the knowledge of this point in the Russian-Ukrainian peace deal that Russia and the US have reportedly been working on in secret, the timing of this latest scandal initiated by the US-backed “National Anti-Corruption Bureau” can be seen in retrospect as a de facto coup against Zelensky.

While Europe too might agree to a ‘new face’ in Kiev, especially given the embarrassing levels of graft still ongoing in Ukraine’s government, others in the EU and NATO are likely to rally behind Zelensky.

❗️Without Donbas and a strong army. The US and russia “plan” promotes Ukraine’s capitulation, — FT journalist

This plan includes:
▪️halving Ukraine’s army
▪️giving up certain weapons
▪️giving up Donbas pic.twitter.com/truGxgY2D0

— Angelica Shalagina🇺🇦 (@angelshalagina) November 19, 2025

Meanwhile Ukrainians are already chafing under the immense pressure being brought to bear on Zelensky to accept the deal, with US military leaders (unusually) in Kiev discussing the plan with the president and his top aides.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Amazon has started sending emails and paying out up to $1.5 billion in automatic refunds to Prime customers who may be impacted by a recent settlement, according to an update from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday.

In late September, the FTC secured a $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon to resolve the agency’s claims that the online retail giant had enrolled millions of customers into Prime subscriptions without their consent. The settlement also resolved charges that Amazon intentionally made it more difficult for people to cancel their Prime subscriptions.

1. When and How Much?

Amazon began providing automatic refunds to its Prime customers on Nov. 12 and will continue doing so until Dec. 24 of this year, the FTC said. People who are eligible to get an automatic refund should receive an email between those two dates.

“You can get your refund by PayPal or Venmo,” the FTC’s website also said, directing people to “please accept” the refund within 15 days of getting the email.

Eligible Prime customers will get a refund up to a maximum of $51 under the settlement for their Amazon Prime subscription fees, the FTC also said.

People who want a check are advised to ignore the Amazon email, the agency said. Once they don’t claim a Venmo or PayPal payment through the email, Amazon will send a check to their default Amazon Prime shipping address.

Customers who opt for a check are advised to “please cash it within 60 days,” according to the website.

2. Who Is Eligible?

People may get an automatic refund from the company if they meet three requirements: They are an Amazon Prime customer inside the United States; they signed up for a Prime subscription via one of its enrollment processes that were the subject of the FTC’s allegations between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025; and they used no more than three Prime benefits such as Prime Video or Prime Music in a 12-month period after they signed up for the Amazon service.

The applicable enrollment processes include “the universal Prime decision page, shipping selection page, single page checkout, or the Prime Video enrollment flow,” according to the FTC site.

3. What Happens If No Refund Is Sent?

Starting next year, Amazon will start a separate claims process for Prime customers who did not receive the automatic refund between Nov. 12 and Dec. 24 of this year. The FTC and Amazon will issue an update on the FTC enforcement page with updated details.

The FTC also suggested that customers should be wary of possible scams, noting that it won’t ask people to pay to receive their refund.

“Don’t pay anyone who promises you a refund in exchange for a fee. And don’t give personal information to anyone who contacts you promising a refund,” the site said.

The FTC website containing the message did not include a date but an Epoch Times review of page metadata shows it was last updated on Monday, Nov. 17.

4. What Did the Settlement Entail?

Amazon in September agreed to pay $2.5 billion in fines and reimbursements to Prime subscribers, while roughly 35 million Prime customers are eligible for payouts from a $1.5 billion fund, according to the FTC. Amazon will separately pay $1 billion in fines and civil penalties to the FTC.

The company did not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement.

“We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership, and to offer substantial value for our many millions of loyal Prime members around the world,” Amazon said in a statement.

As part of the settlement, Amazon also agreed to create a “clear and conspicuous” button to allow customers to decline a Prime subscription, and to make it easier to cancel a membership. Amazon has also agreed to more clearly disclose the terms of a subscription during enrollment and to pay an independent supervisor to monitor compliance.

Reuters contributed to this report.

By all estimates, this is the first ever US-proposed peace plan which actually demands major concessions from Ukraine, but it also seeks to provide assurances for Kiev’s future protection modelled on NATO article five, according to Axios.

Among President Zelensky’s top objectives has long been to obtain a robust US and European security guarantee, and this new 28-point plan appears to give just that:

President Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine includes a security guarantee modeled on NATO’s Article 5, which would commit the U.S. and European allies to treat an attack on Ukraine as an attack on the entire “transatlantic community,” – writes Axios.

Such a pledge could be recipe for future war, however, and that’s precisely how Moscow might see it, especially if other pressing issues of territory or military NATOization on Russia’s doorstep aren’t resolved. The security guarantee would be for up to a decade and could be renewed, according to the draft.

There are also reports that the US is already advancing a very ambitious timeline – that it wants to see the plan signed by Thanksgiving, or as soon as next week.

There are even lines for signatures on the document, indicating places for Ukraine, Russia the US, and even NATO and the EU. It’s unclear just which representatives would sign from each country or bloc, and its as yet unclear whether Putin himself must sign.

A senior Kremlin official cited in Axios said he was “optimistic” about the plan’s prospects, arguing that it aligns more closely with Moscow’s views than previous diplomatic efforts. This is especially as a large portion of the Donbas will be recognized as under Russia’s control, and the size and capability of the Ukrainian army will be scaled back, which a commitment to no foreign troops on Ukrainian soil as well.

And yet, as predicted by many, Ukraine and its European backers stand ready to rejected the plan – though it’s still only in its draft form and hasn’t been seriously negotiated over by the warring sides. Newsweek reports:

European leaders are preparing an emergency call to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal to end the war in Ukraine.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz cancelled a scheduled appearance to join the discussion, which will also include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron.

The 28‑point plan caught European capitals off guard. Leaders were not directly involved in the U.S. effort and learned the details only after the document was made public.

Indeed Ukraine wasn’t involved either, and the emerging complaint is that it too closely resembles earlier Russian talking points and proposals for ending the war.

EU High Representative Kaja Kallas said Thursday, “We have always supported a lasting and just peace, and we welcome any efforts to achieve it, but for any plan to work, Ukrainians and Europeans are needed.”

In response to the risk of peace breaking out with the US-Russia peace plan – Germany speaks of supplying long-range fire, Britain wants to send troops, and the EU expresses its opposition. pic.twitter.com/nSfNjTHD0x

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) November 21, 2025

She went on to indicate her view that nothing fundamental has changed. “In this war there is one aggressor and one victim,” she said. “If Russia really wanted peace, it could have agreed to an unconditional ceasefire some time ago,” she added.

So far Ukraine has only signaled a vague ‘openness’ to examining the US plan: “The President of Ukraine outlined the fundamental principles that matter to our people, and following today’s meeting, the parties agreed to work on the plan’s provisions in a way that would bring about a just end to the war,” the Ukrainian presidential office has said. 

In the meantime, European leaders are making their objections known one by one, and roadblocks are fast being erected…

All the decisions concerning Poland will be taken by Poles. Nothing about us without us. When it comes to peace, all the negotiations should include Ukraine. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

— Donald Tusk (@donaldtusk) November 21, 2025

Below is the US-Russia 28-point plan in full, as has been widely circulated in international reports:

* * *

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 neighboring 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 in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

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 U.S. guarantee:

• The U.S. will receive compensation for the guarantee;
• 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, recognition of the new territory 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 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, including but not limited to:

• The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centers, and artificial intelligence.
• The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernize, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.
• Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernization of cities and residential areas.
• Infrastructure development.
• Extraction of minerals and natural resources.
• The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

• The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.
• The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centers, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.
• Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

• $100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
• The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100 billion to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

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 IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine — 50:50.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programs in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

• Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.
• Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.
• All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:

• Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognized 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, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarized buffer zone, internationally recognized as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarized 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 outstanding issues:

• All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.
• All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.
• A family reunification program will be implemented.
• Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

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 President Donald J. 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 agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.