Discover the latest happenings and stay in the know with our up-to-date today news coverage. From breaking stories and current events to trending topics and insightful analysis, we bring you the most relevant and captivating news of the day.
Ex-Juventus and France star midfielder made his return to football, suiting up for Monaco in first game in more than two years after drug ban.
Published On 23 Nov 202523 Nov 2025
Share
Paul Pogba described his emotional Monaco debut as a moment of relief and gratitude on Saturday, after the French midfielder returned to the pitch for the first time in more than two years following a doping ban.
The former Juventus and Manchester United player, who joined the Ligue 1 side on a free transfer in June, had not played a competitive match since September 2023.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Pogba received a four-year ban in February 2024 after testing positive for the banned substance DHEA, which boosts testosterone levels. The suspension was cut to 18 months after an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
The 32-year-old, who was nearing a return last month before suffering a right ankle injury, came on in the 85th minute of Monaco’s 4-1 defeat by Rennes at Roazhon Park and was met with a standing ovation.
“Seeing the crowd rise and applaud, I never imagined that would happen,” Pogba told reporters. “I’m relieved to be playing football again, the thing I love most in the world.
“But there’s still work to do to get back to full fitness and be able to play 90 minutes… If I don’t perform well at Monaco, I can forget about the French national team.
“I believe in myself and in my qualities, and since I knew I had done nothing wrong and it was not my fault, I never lost hope.”
Pogba, who has made 91 appearances for France, played a starring role in his nation’s 2018 FIFA World Cup victory. Knee and hamstring injuries, as well as knee surgery, prevented him from playing for France at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
Pogba in action during the French Ligue 1 match between Rennes and Monaco [Lou Benoist/AFP]
Stakeholders are gathering to start negotiations based on a text that the EU believes mostly favours Russian demands.
Published On 23 Nov 202523 Nov 2025
Share
Senior Ukrainian, European Union, United Kingdom and United States officials will soon start talks in Geneva as ambiguity and deep-seated concerns hover over the fate of the 28-point plan put forward by Washington to end the war with Russia.
At the talks, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will be the top representative of the administration of President Donald Trump, who has given his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy until Thursday to take the deal.
“It is offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations,” he wrote. “It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”
The comments came in rejection of a claim made by a bipartisan group of veteran US senators, most focused on foreign policy, who told a panel discussion at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada that the plan is a Russian “wish list” and not the actual proposal offering Washington’s positions.
“This administration was not responsible for this release in its current form,” said Republican Mike Rounds from South Dakota, adding that “it looked more like it was written in Russian to begin with”.
State Department deputy spokesman Tommy Pigott called the claim “blatantly false”.
The senators earlier Saturday said the plan would only “reward aggression” by Moscow and send a message to other leaders who have threatened their neighbours.
Critics of the plan have said it heavily leans into the Kremlin’s oft-repeated demands and war narrative.
The plan would stress Ukrainian sovereignty and provide a security guarantee that it will not be attacked in the future, but also includes Ukraine ceding territory and making its army smaller.
Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the proposal late Friday, saying it “could form the basis of a final peace settlement” if Washington can get Ukraine and its European allies on board.
Ukraine has been careful with its rhetoric, with Zelenskyy saying he will “work calmly” with the US and his Western allies to get through what he called “truly one of the most difficult moments in our history”.
Ukraine’s European allies are not happy with the plan, either, saying the military limitations would leave Ukraine “vulnerable to future attack”, so more talks are necessary.
France, the UK and Germany, also known as the E3, will have national security advisers at the Geneva talks.
The troubled US-led diplomatic efforts are inching forward as intense fighting continues to rage in eastern Ukraine.
Russian forces are pushing to take control of more territory in Zaporizhia and in Donetsk, part of the eastern Donbas region that is seeing fierce fighting and that Russia wants in its entirety, while also fending off Ukrainian air attacks on their oil and fuel infrastructure.
So Clarin, Argentina’s biggest newspaper, steered straight into it instead.
In the first two lines of their preview of Sunday’s match, “history, politics, the Falklands War and England’s persistent imperialist views” were all referenced., external
The story of a teenage Federico Mendez ironing out England second row Paul Ackford with a blindside haymaker 35 years ago was retold.
On Thursday, Franco Molina threw in another piece of the Anglo-Argentine back story.
“It was a goal, the referee gave it, it was a goal!,” the Argentina second row said, recalling Diego Maradona’s contentious ‘Hand of God’ goal in the 1986 quarter-final meeting at the football World Cup.
But it was all with a smile.
If all that history is being brewed up as pep-talk kerosene, Molina, who spent last season playing for Exeter, hid it well.
For him there was too much to get excited about in the 80 minutes to come, without dredging up the past.
“It is a big game, just because of the context of the international game,” he said.
“It is really special playing at Twickenham.
“It is going to be a really physical game and every English team is tidy in what they do, all the kicks from the field, all the play with the ball in hand.
“We will need to be really connected and precise across the whole 80 minutes to beat them.”
The International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) has identified Rwanda as an aggressor towards the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). During its 9th session, held in Kinshasa, the DRC’s capital, the Congolese Minister of Regional Integration announced that the conference officially recognised Rwanda as the aggressor against the DRC.
During a press briefing in Kinshasa on Nov. 17, the Congolese minister said the member states of the ICGLR have urged Rwanda to withdraw its troops from Congolese territory immediately, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2773.
“A considerable advance towards an international recognition of the tragic reality that our populations are victims. In effect, in their final declaration, the heads of state and government meeting in Kinshasa have called, (I quote) ‘demand the withdrawal without delay from Congolese territory of the aggressor nations against the Democratic Republic of Congo in conformity with Resolution 2773 of the United Nations Security Council, as well as condemned the pursuit of hostilities by the M23 and the Allies Democratic Forces (ADF)’,” the minister said.
“This declaration does not refer to an aggressor nation, but to aggressor nations. This nation is clearly identified because it has already been cited in Resolution 2773. In point 4 of the resolution, the Security Council demands that the Rwandan defence forces stop supporting M23 and withdraw from DR Congo territory without preconditions immediately.”
For the members of the Congolese government, the recognition of Rwanda as the aggressor nation by the ICGLR constitutes one of the principal advances of the 9th summit held in Kinshasa.
“The added value of the final declaration of the 9th ordinary summit of the ICGLR consists in the precision that this country, Rwanda, to be as clear as possible, is officially and very explicitly recognised as aggressor of the DR Congo,” the minister added.
The summit was held amid persistent tension between the DR Congo and Rwanda, despite announced diplomatic advances. The contrast between the engagements outlined in the accords and the reality on the ground is preoccupying several actors, who are calling for honesty, goodwill, and the rapid implementation of engagements stemming from the various diplomatic initiatives. Considered the sponsor of the M23/AFC rebellion due to its multifaceted support, the Rwanda of Paul Kagame is actually at odds with Kinshasa and was the major absentee at the ICGLR meeting.
However, Olivier Nduhungirehe, Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, has declared the resolutions of the Kinshasa meeting null and void. The Rwanda government had denied supporting the M23 fighters, but locals and authorities in the DRC have insisted that the country has been actively backing the rebels.
Following the capture of Goma and Bukavu by the M23/AFC and the failure of the Luanda process, the Washington Accord and the Doha process have henceforth become two complementary aspects of diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the conflict between the DR Congo and Rwanda, as well as against armed groups such as M23.
The Washington Accord, signed under American mediation, fixed a bilateral framework between Kinshasa and Kigali. On the other hand, the Doha peace talks focus on the internal dimensions of the conflict, specifically the restoration of state authority and the reintegration of armed groups.
Despite these two diplomatic initiatives, several states and international organisations, including the European Union, have been pleading for increased involvement of regional organisations, and in general, African nations, in solving the conflict between the DR Congo and Rwanda, which is behind the deterioration of the security situation in the Eastern DR Congo.
The International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) recognized Rwanda as an aggressor towards the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) during its 9th session in Kinshasa.
The member states called for the immediate withdrawal of Rwandan troops from DRC territory per UN Security Council Resolution 2773. This acknowledgment includes Rwanda’s support for rebel groups like the M23, exacerbating tensions between the two nations.
Rwanda has rejected the ICGLR’s resolutions, maintaining a denial of backing M23 rebels. Meanwhile, diplomatic initiatives such as the Washington Accord and Doha process aim to resolve the conflict by establishing frameworks for bilateral cooperation and addressing internal conflict dimensions. However, calls continue for more substantial regional and African involvement to resolve the ongoing security issues in Eastern DRC.
Because of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s statements in the Diet regarding the Taiwan issue, the already fragile China–Japan relationship has deteriorated rapidly. China has issued travel and study-abroad warnings for Japan, effectively halted imports of Japanese seafood, sent coast guard vessels into the “territorial waters” of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, and had three warships transit the Osumi Strait in southern Japan.
At the same time, Beijing took the unusual step of announcing in advance that Premier Li Qiang would not meet the Japanese prime minister at the G20 summit. In just ten days, China launched a strong, multi-domain counterattack—political, diplomatic, economic, and military—with no signs of de-escalation.
If Prime Minister Takaichi does not retract her remarks, Beijing is likely to escalate even further and drag the United States into the dispute.
What actually happened? Is China overreacting? How far will Beijing take this confrontation?
Let us revisit the origin of the incident. In response to questioning in the Diet, Prime Minister Takaichi stated, “If China blockades Taiwan using warships and employing force, then no matter how you look at it, this could become a survival-threatening crisis for Japan.”
Pressed by the opposition, she added, “If China imposes a maritime blockade on Taiwan and U.S. forces intervening in that blockade come under armed attack, a crisis could arise.”
International media paid no attention to Takaichi’s clarification and focused only on the headline question: Will Japan send troops if military conflict breaks out in the Taiwan Strait? Accordingly, France’s Le Monde, Britain’s The Guardian, and the Associated Press all ran titles implying that Japan would dispatch forces if Taiwan were subjected to military action.
Japanese scholars have since written articles in U.S. media explaining that “Japanese military intervention in a Taiwan contingency” presupposes that U.S. forces have already intervened, and only then could Japan exercise the right of collective self-defense. Yet the Japanese government has not actively clarified this prerequisite on the international stage, drawing sharp criticism from well-known Japanese commentator Hiroyuki Nishimura for dereliction of duty.
Nishimura’s criticism exposes a widespread misunderstanding: even if the United States militarily intervenes in the Taiwan Strait, as long as Japanese territory is not under armed threat, Tokyo is legally barred from exercising collective self-defense. In other words, under the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, the United States is obligated to defend Japan, but Japan has no treaty obligation to send troops to support U.S. forces in a war that does not concern Japan.
Therefore, the mitigating explanations offered by Japanese scholars on Takaichi’s behalf do not hold water. The Japanese government’s failure to clarify the issue in international media is naturally out of fear of offending Washington. It remains unclear whether President Trump fully understands the “asymmetric” nature of the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, and Tokyo has no desire to remind this shrewd deal-making president that when American soldiers are dying on the battlefield, Japan actually has no treaty obligation to send troops.
Unless, of course, the reason for U.S. intervention in the Taiwan Strait is explicitly “to protect Japan.” Political rhetoric is one thing; the law is another. The fact remains that neither the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty nor Japan’s domestic legislation imposes any legal obligation on Japan to exercise collective self-defense when its ally, the United States, comes under attack.
Another fact: the Philippines is in exactly the same position as Japan. Unless U.S. forces become involved in order to protect the Philippines or Philippine territory is affected by the war, Manila has no obligation to send combat troops to assist the U.S.—it can only provide logistical and base support.
Of course, if the United States does intervene militarily in the Taiwan Strait, it will inevitably claim it is to protect Japan (and the Philippines). But the authority to make that determination lies with Tokyo and Manila, both of which retain a certain right to stay out of the fight. This is precisely why U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby earlier this year demanded that Japan and Australia state clearly what actions they would take to support the United States in the event of a Taiwan contingency. That demand makes it crystal clear that America’s mutual defense treaties do not obligate allies to unconditionally fight alongside U.S. forces.
In short: when their own security is at stake, allies will send troops; otherwise, they will at most offer logistics and bases—no allied soldiers will go to the front lines.
This explains Beijing’s fierce reaction. Even if Takaichi did not mean Japan would intervene unilaterally in the Taiwan Strait, her remarks effectively expanded the “applicability scenarios” of the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty. If such moves are not checked, they will only encourage the Philippines, Australia, and other anti-China neighbors to follow suit—using the same logic to blackmail or bleed China.
This is not an overreaction, nor is it making a mountain out of a molehill. Beyond realpolitik necessity, the Chinese people have not forgotten Japan’s history of invading China—especially in this 80th anniversary year of the victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. If Beijing were to let the matter slide, it would face intense domestic backlash.
Therefore, unless Takaichi retracts her remarks, China–Japan relations will continue to worsen, eventually leading to a situation where “Taiwan is fine, but Japan is in crisis.”
Takaichi may well have intentionally provoked Beijing in order to shore up LDP support, rally Japanese nationalism, loosen the “three non-nuclear principles,” and expand conventional military capabilities. But the backlash has likely been far greater than she anticipated. The key still lies in America’s attitude.
Although the U.S. ambassador to Japan publicly expressed support for Tokyo and criticized Beijing, Washington’s overall response has been relatively muted—Trump has zero interest in letting Japan torpedo his scheduled China trip next April.
On the other hand, Beijing may well conclude that Washington is deliberately allowing Japan to interfere in China’s internal affairs in order to gain negotiating leverage. That would only reduce China’s inhibitions about sanctioning Japan and could lead it to directly challenge the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, pushing the situation to the brink of losing control and forcing the U.S. to rein in Japan.
China has many tools to test the treaty—economic and trade measures, cultural exchanges, diplomacy, and even military options are all on the table. The disputed uninhabited Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and the Ryukyu Islands, whose sovereignty remains unresolved, are both historical issues left over from World War II. Although both fall within the scope of the U.S.–Japan Security Treaty, Washington has never recognized Japanese sovereignty over them.
Regarding the Ryukyus, Beijing can wage a protracted legal battle, continually emphasizing that the Potsdam Declaration never returned the islands to Japan. Regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu, Beijing could move directly to military control—land on the islands, demolish Japanese facilities, raise the Chinese flag, and expel foreign vessels—forcing the United States to get involved.
If Beijing is pushed to the point of letting the situation spiral, its price to Washington will be high: it may include, but is not limited to, demanding that the U.S. block Japan from abandoning the three non-nuclear principles, block Japan’s “normalization” (turning the Self-Defense Forces into a full-fledged military), force Japan to pay tangible and intangible reparations for its invasion of China, or even force Takaichi to step down.
Would Trump risk a second Chinese rare-earth embargo over an uninhabited island whose sovereignty does not belong to Japan? The answer is obvious.
Beijing’s current Taiwan strategy has shifted from “opposing independence” to “advancing unification.” Part of that strategy is to make neighboring countries acknowledge—through actual state behavior, not just words—that the Taiwan issue is China’s internal affair. Japan is the poster child for neighboring hypocrisy—talking peace while acting otherwise. It will be shown no mercy for breaking the promises of diplomatic normalization; Beijing is determined to make a chicken of Japan to scare the monkey.
From this perspective, Prime Minister Takaichi may have thought she could achieve a classic boomerang effect (using the Taiwan issue for domestic political gain by first exporting strong rhetoric abroad). Instead, Beijing has been handed a rare opportunity to use Japan as a target and demonstrate to the world how it will reduce obstacles to unification.
The United States wants to avoid direct confrontation with China and prefers to let proxies stand on the front line so it can reap the benefits while remaining in the rear. On the surface this creates trouble for Beijing, but in reality it also creates endless headaches for Washington—because China will not limit itself to dealing with the proxies; it will drag the United States into the fight.
This is the new tactical phase in U.S.–China competition following the Busan meeting, testing the one-year truce both sides agreed to. Whether proxies are an advantage or a liability for Washington depends entirely on how Beijing chooses to handle the dispute—and Tokyo makes the ideal canary in the coal mine.
Six international airlines have suspended flights to Venezuela after the United States warned major carriers about a “potentially hazardous situation” due to “heightened military activity” around the South American country.
Spain’s Iberia, Portugal’s TAP, Chile’s LATAM, Colombia’s Avianca, Brazil’s GOL and Trinidad and Tobago’s Caribbean all halted flights to the country on Saturday, the AFP news agency reported, citing Marisela de Loaiza, the president of the Venezuelan Airlines Association.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
TAP said it was cancelling its flights scheduled for Saturday and next Tuesday, while Iberia said it was suspending flights to the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, until further notice.
TAP told the Reuters news agency that its decision was linked to the US notice, which it said “indicates that safety conditions in Venezuelan airspace are not guaranteed”.
According to the AFP news agency, Panama’s Copa Airlines, Spain’s Air Europa and PlusUltra, Turkish Airlines, and Venezuela’s LASER are continuing to operate flights for now.
The flight suspensions come as tensions between the US and Venezuela soar, with Washington deploying troops as well as the world’s largest aircraft carrier to the Caribbean, as part of what it calls an anti-narcotics operation. Caracas, however, describes the operation as a bid to force Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro out of power.
The US military has also carried out at least 21 attacks on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, killing at least 83 people.
The campaign – which critics say violates both international and US domestic law – began after the administration of President Donald Trump increased its reward for information leading to the arrest or conviction of Maduro to $50m, describing him as the “global terrorist leader of the Cartel de los Soles”.
President Trump, meanwhile, has sent mixed signals about the possibility of intervention in Venezuela, saying in a CBS interview earlier this month that he doesn’t think his country was going to war against Caracas.
But when asked if Maduro’s days as president were numbered, he replied, saying, “I would say yeah.”
Then, on Sunday, he said the US may open talks with Maduro, and on Monday, when asked about the possibility of deploying US troops to the country, he replied: “I don’t rule out that. I don’t rule out anything. We just have to take care of Venezuela.”
Days later, on Friday, the US Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) urged all flights in the area to “exercise caution” due to the threats “at all altitudes, including during overflight, the arrival and departure phases of flight, and/or airports and aircraft on the ground”.
Ties between Washington and Caracas have been dominated by tensions since the rise of Maduro’s left-wing predecessor, Hugo Chavez, in the early 2000s.
The relationship deteriorated further after Maduro came to power following Chavez’s death in 2013.
Successive US administrations have rejected Maduro’s legitimacy and imposed heavy sanctions on the Venezuelan economy, accusing the president of corruption, authoritarianism and election fraud.
The Trump administration has hardened the US stance. Last week, it labelled the Venezuelan drug organisation, dubbed Cartel de los Soles (Cartel of the Suns), a “terrorist” group, and it accused Maduro of leading it, without providing evidence.
In recent weeks, conservative foreign policy hawks in the US have been increasingly calling on Trump to topple the Maduro government.
Maduro has accused the US of inventing “pretexts” for war, repeatedly expressing willingness to engage in dialogue with Washington. But he has warned that his country would push to defend itself.
“No foreign power will impose its will on our sovereign homeland,” he was quoted as saying by the Venezuelan outlet Telesur.
“But if they break peace and persist in their neocolonial intentions, they will face a huge surprise. I pray that does not occur, because – I repeat – they will receive a truly monumental surprise.”
Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who recently won a Nobel Peace Prize, suggested that overthrowing Maduro would not amount to regime change, arguing the president lost the election last year and rigged the results.
“We’re not asking for regime change. We’re asking for respect of the will of the people and the people will be the one that will take care and protect this transition so that it is orderly, peaceful and irreversible,” she told The Washington Post on Friday.
Machado, 58, has called for privatising Venezuela’s oil sector and opening the country to foreign investments.
Ben ChuPolicy and analysis correspondent, BBC Verify
Getty Images
Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ upcoming Budget is expected to justify tax increases as a vital measure to keep the UK’s national debt under control.
Some have argued keeping the national debt down protects the financial interests of younger people. That’s because if the country’s debt went up drastically, it is younger people who would have to foot the bill to pay for the interest on it. And it would be taken directly from their payslips through higher taxes.
Generation Z, or those born between 1997 and 2012, have been hit in the pocket over the past 15 years by benefit cuts and dramatic increases in university tuition fees. Meanwhile, the homeownership rate of those born since the 1990s is well below that of earlier generations, due to the relative difficulty they have faced in getting on the housing ladder.
However, most politicians, including the chancellor, are also committing to keep paying for the triple lock on the state pension, which guarantees it rises each year by the highest of average wages, inflation or 2.5%.
There’s growing concern that current tax and spending policies help pensioners but are unfair on younger generations, and that the triple lock in particular will push up public spending and the national debt in the long term.
So will this budget really help younger generations? Or could it help saddle them with higher taxes and more debt?
BBC Verify has been looking at the numbers.
Why is the national debt a concern?
The UK’s national debt currently stands at just under 100% of UK GDP, which is the value of all the goods and services produced by the economy in a year.
Some economists doubt such a steep and sustained debt surge would actually materialise, arguing it would likely trigger a bond market crisis long before then and see UK government borrowing costs pushed to extreme levels by private investors, which would instead force a change in tax policy or spending.
Yet the OBR says the purpose of its long-term projection is to highlight that the UK’s public finances are currently on what it calls an “unsustainable” trajectory.
The biggest driver of rising long-term spending, and therefore the increase in the national debt according to the OBR, is our ageing population, which means the government needs to spend more money on the NHS, social care and the state pension each year.
The number of people over 65 is projected to rise from 13 million to 22 million over the next five decades. That would push up the old age dependency ratio – the proportion of older people over the age of 65 relative to people aged 16 to 64 – from around 30% today to almost 50% by 2070.
Today the state pension age is 66, but for people born after 1990 it’s likely to be pushed higher to keep people working longer and reduce the old-age dependancy ratio.
Even so, the national debt would still likely increase significantly from today’s level because of these old age spending pressures.
Do younger people lose out on public spending decisions?
Since 2010, government policy on benefits has tended to help older generations and to take money away from younger generations.
The driving force behind this has been the value of the state pension increasing faster than average wages since 2010 because of the triple lock, alongside government cuts to working-age benefits, including housing benefits, unemployment benefits and universal credit.
If the state pension were only tied to increases in average wages then its share of GDP would only rise from 5% today to 6% in 2070, according to the OBR. But instead it projects the cost of the triple lock will push government spending on the state pension to nearly 8% over the next 45 years.
That might only be two extra percentage points, but it equates to around £60bn in today’s money, and it would be younger working age people who would have to pay for it through their taxes.
Which generations will benefit and lose from the Budget?
The impact on different age groups will depend on which taxes increase and which benefits are protected.
For instance, if high value homes were to face extra taxes, it would affect older people more as they tend to have greater property wealth.
If you look at earnings, pensioners still have to pay income tax but are no longer subject to employee National Insurance.
And younger people are deemed to have been hit harder by the increase in employer National Insurance contributions Rachel Reeves introduced in her first budget in October 2024, which appears to have slowed down job hiring rates.
All taxpayers have a shared interest in seeing the debt burden brought under control as a share of the size of the economy. Though one of the reasons the government borrows is to pay for investment in infrastructure such as roads and housing. Some economists warn that if ministers reduced that kind of spending and borrowing out of concern over the national debt it could prove counterproductive and ultimately damaging to younger people.
Nevertheless, in the context of the past 15 years, many economists argue younger people also have an interest in seeing a rebalancing of the treatment of older and younger generations through the tax and benefit system.
HumAngle Foundation officially commenced the Strengthening Community Journalism and Human Rights Advocacy (SCOJA) Fellowship with workshops in Kaduna and Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria, on Nov. 10, bringing together community journalists and human rights advocates to enhance skills in ethical storytelling and evidence-driven reporting.
The third batch of the training commenced on Monday, Nov. 17, in Maiduguri, Borno State.
Supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Nigeria, the fellowship aims to build the capacity of community journalists and advocates across northern Nigeria.
A total of 90 fellows from nine states — North West (Kaduna and Kano), North Central (Benue, Niger, Plateau, Nasarawa), and North East (Borno, Adamawa, Yobe) — have been selected.
Fellows interacting during a group task. Photo: Abubakar Muktar Abba/HumAngle
On the first day of the workshop in Maiduguri, Jos, and Kaduna, the fellows were introduced to HumAngle’s newly developed Standards of Journalism Excellence and Advocacy guide. The guide covers conflict-sensitive reporting, accountability, countering disinformation, digital safety, and solutions journalism.
According to Abdussamad Ahmad, HumAngle’s Security & Policy Analyst, the manual was designed to support journalists and advocates working in conflict-affected regions where ethical clarity and accuracy are critical.
The workshops also examined the role of community journalists, who often serve as the first witnesses to social issues and crises within their localities. Their proximity to affected populations positions them to capture realities that shape public understanding. Other sessions focused on data-driven storytelling, mapping community challenges, and identifying collaborative solutions.
Some of the SCOJA Fellows in the North East. Photo: Abubakar Muktar Abba/HumAngle
Hassana Danyerwa, Founder of the FeelNHeal Initiative, said she found the sessions valuable. “We all need emotional hygiene, not just for our bias but also for our ego,” she said.
Through her initiative, Hassana provides psychosocial support to communities and individuals, and noted that the session reinforced the importance of maintaining emotional balance when reporting sensitive issues.
Building on this, fellows also reflected on the broader difficulties of reporting in environments shaped by insecurity, misinformation, and public mistrust. Facilitators encouraged them to approach their work with precision, empathy, and a strong commitment to verification, particularly when documenting the experiences of vulnerable groups.
As the North East workshop continues, sessions for North Central and North West fellows concluded on Nov. 13, marking the completion of training for these regions.
The inaugural SCOJA Fellowship cohort features participants from a wide range of local media and advocacy organisations, including WikkiTimes, The Middle Belt Reporters, and Voice of Arewa, among others.
Over the next six months, fellows will report on issues within their communities and execute targeted community advocacy projects. They are also expected to share their learnings within their local organisations, further amplifying the impact of the fellowship.
The HumAngle Foundation has launched the Strengthening Community Journalism and Human Rights Advocacy (SCOJA) Fellowship with initial workshops in Kaduna, Jos, and Maiduguri, Nigeria. Supported by the Dutch Embassy in Nigeria, the fellowship aims to empower 90 journalists and advocates from nine northern states with skills in evidence-driven reporting and ethical storytelling. The training highlights HumAngle’s Standards of Journalism Excellence and Advocacy guide, covering topics such as conflict-sensitive reporting and digital safety.
The workshops focus on the critical role of community journalists as key witnesses to local issues. They include sessions on data storytelling and emotional hygiene, highlighting the challenges of reporting in conflict-prone regions. Participants from local media and advocacy organizations will conduct community advocacy projects for six months, sharing their skills to enhance local journalism practices.
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
The Dubai Airshow in the United Arab Emirates ended on a tragic note, with the fatal crash of an Indian-made Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Mk 1A fighter. As you can read about here, the Mk 1A version of the jet, manufactured by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), is set to be built in considerably greater numbers than the initial Mk 1 version, bringing with it a host of new features.
The Tejas Mk 1A was performing a low-altitude maneuver as part of its display at Al Maktoum International Airport. The pilot appears to perform a negative-g ‘push turn’ toward the crowd before attempting to roll out. The jet then descended rapidly and impacted the ground at around 2:00 p.m. local time, in front of onlookers. The Indian Air Force confirmed that the pilot was killed.
The Dubai Airshow has been running all week and comes to a close today. Highlights of the show have included an appearance by the Russian T-50-9 as part of the effort to win customers for the Su-57E export version, as you can read more about here.
As regards today’s crash, in a statement, an Indian Air Force spokesperson said: “A Tejas of IAF has crashed in Dubai Airshow 25. Further details are being ascertained at the moment. Will give further details in some time.”
Sometimes even the best end up buying it, trying to push the envelope for a better display. It’s a sad day for aviation, when such losses happen during pubic displays. pic.twitter.com/GZH2EdJgJF
A follow-up statement from the Indian Air Force read: “The pilot sustained fatal injuries in the accident. IAF deeply regrets the loss of life and stands firmly with the bereaved family in this time of grief. A court of inquiry is being constituted to ascertain the cause of the accident.”
An IAF Tejas aircraft met with an accident during an aerial display at Dubai Air Show, today. The pilot sustained fatal injuries in the accident.
IAF deeply regrets the loss of life and stands firmly with the bereaved family in this time of grief.
The first Tejas Mk 1A took to the air in Bengaluru, southern India, in March 2024.
Compared to the Tejas Mk 1, 40 production examples of which were built, the Mk 1A has some significant improvements that make it a much more realistic ‘generation 4.5’ fighter proposition.
The Mk 1A adds a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar (understood to be the Elta Systems EL/M-2052), updated avionics, a comprehensive electronic warfare capability, as well as more minor changes to the internal structure and outer mold line.
In 2021, India placed a contract for 73 single-seat and 10 twin-seat Tejas Mk 1A jets, with production planned to run through 2028.
Imagery of the ill-fated Tejas Mk 1A from earlier this week at the Dubai Airshow:
My thoughts and prayers to go out to the people affected. I was literally standing next to the very Tejas jet yesterday chatting with the crew. This is heartbreaking. pic.twitter.com/Qz0qXBgoF2
There has only been one previous Tejas crash, with a March 2024 incident involving a Mk 1 version of the aircraft in Jaisalmer, in the state of Rajasthan. This was blamed on an “engine seizure.” On that occasion, the pilot was able to eject.
This latest crash is a blow to the Indian aerospace industry, coming as it does on one of the world’s most prominent stages.
This is a developing story, and we will update it as more information becomes available.
The Khasi people are the indigenous people of Meghalaya and are the largest ethnic group in the state.
Seng Kut Snem is the day before Khasi New Year, which traditionally takes place on November 24th.
The Khasi calendar is based on the change of the four seasons, known indigenously as ‘Saw Samoi’ – winter, spring, summer and autumn as defined by the crops sown and harvested and influenced by climatic changes, rain and phases of the moon.
While the Khasi people were under the control of the British Empire in 1899, 16 nationalist Khasi youths formed the Seng Khasi to protect their indigenous religion, rich culture and unique language. This was just one in a series of acts of defiance against British rule by the Khasi.
Since then, the movement has gained momentum helping the Khasi people take pride in their unique and rich heritage.
Today Seng Kut Snem serves a dual purpose of marking the end of the year with a tradition thanksgiving festival and also a day when the Seng Khasi celebrate the culture, faith and history of the Khasi.
The festival is marked by speeches and also includes traditional games, folk dances, cultural festivals, and displays of handmade products.
Pakistan’s infrastructure narrative over the past few years has been painfully instructive. Investments meant to connect markets and power industry have sometimes deepened vulnerability because climate risk and ecological limits were treated as afterthoughts. The scale of recent shocks is no longer anecdote. The catastrophic 2022 floods affected roughly 33 million people and left millions homeless, and the country is again reeling from extraordinary monsoon events in 2025 that, by mid-September, had displaced millions, damaged vast tracts of farmland (2.5 million acres in Punjab alone) and killed hundreds, with some reports putting the affected population in the millions and death tolls approaching the high hundreds. These are not distant statistics but the reality behind submerged villages, broken irrigation, and shattered livelihoods across Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh.
These floods are compounded by mountain hazards: glacial-lake outburst floods (GLOFs) this summer in Gilgit-Baltistan destroyed scores of homes in several villages and briefly formed large, newly emergent lakes that severed roads and tourism circuits in fragile mountain economies. The visible loss of homes, guesthouses and the thin economic base of high-altitude communities illustrates how poorly planned transport and tourism infrastructure can multiply the harm of climate-driven glacier changes.
The thermal extremes of 2025 added a second front. Heatwaves pushed many urban centres and rural plains into temperature ranges far above seasonal norms, April 2025 was the second-hottest April in 65 years, with national mean temperature about 3.37°C above historical standard, daytime highs exceeding norms by 4.66°C, and Shaheed Benazirabad reaching 49°C. Heat stress has direct impacts on labour productivity, public health and the viability of energy systems, spiking demand at exactly the moment supply is least secure. The return of La Niña this winter poses another test of Pakistan’s resilience, as shifting temperature and rainfall patterns will once again reveal how exposed communities, ecosystems, and infrastructure remain to a changing climate. In short, Pakistan is experiencing compound hazards, heat stress, glacial instability, and unusually intense rainfall that together convert ordinary infrastructure failures into humanitarian catastrophes.
Why do these predictable collisions between people, nature and climate still happen? Why are the same infrastructure fail-points recurring? What good is growth if it washes away each year? Why villages again suffer loss, why roads wash away, why power systems falter and why communities bear the worst harm? The patterns are familiar: inadequate spatial planning that ignores biodiversity and hydrology, weak enforcement of EIAs and social safeguards, faulty compensation and resettlement processes that leave families poorer and more exposed, and infrastructure designed to historical standards rather than future climates.
Since most of the infrastructure is still built with the old climate baseline in mind, monsoon design storms, flood embankments, drainage systems calibrated for decades-old rainfall intensities. As rainfall intensifies, drainage and bridges collapse; hydraulic structures (culverts, flood bypasses) are undersized. Embankments along rivers like the Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej are overtopped or breached because they were not upgraded to accommodate altered flow regimes, upstream glacial melt, or enhanced rainfall due to La Niña cycles. Recent floods showed how urban drainage systems and river embankments, often built or altered without integrated watershed assessments, were overwhelmed. Releases from upstream reservoirs and poorly coordinated transboundary water management also amplified downstream impacts. Building dams and roads without resilience is no longer progress; it is policy myopia. Where accountability is thin and safeguards are procedural rather than substantive, projects proceed on convenience rather than resilience, and the poorest pay the price.
There is, however, a pragmatic path forward if we align tools, policy and practice. Practical screening tools, the Climate Risk Screening Tool (CRST) to assess exposure and vulnerability across sectors and regions, the Pakistan Climate Information Portal (PCIP) for localized climate projections and hazard mapping, and the Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) to track and align financial flows with climate priorities, must be institutionalized into corridor-level planning and project appraisal so that environmental risk is not an advisory footnote but a gating criterion. Infrastructure corridors must be routed to avoid ecological risk zones, embankments upgraded, drainage scaled for extreme rainfall. Finance and contracts must include enforceable safeguards and compensation for those displaced or harmed. Integrating these tools within Pakistan’s emerging climate governance framework, guided by URAAN’s Environment & Climate Change pillar, will ensure assessments translate into actionable, accountable, and climate-aligned planning.
China’s role in Pakistan’s infrastructure landscape is already shifting the technical terms of that conversation. Recent investments and technology transfers have supplied cheap solar modules, wind equipment and battery storage that are rapidly changing Pakistan’s energy mix. Solar already supplied a substantial share, 25% of Pakistan’s utility-supplied electricity, of grid electricity in early 2025. Some road and hydropower projects are now being planned with higher flood levels in mind, more robust drainage, and designs that anticipate glacial-lake outburst risks. Chinese firms are also financing and building large transmission and storage projects that, if governed with green conditionality, can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve energy resilience. The leverage here is policy: using preferential finance and partnership to insist on climate-proof designs, environmental management plans, local content for green jobs, and decommissioning/redesign clauses that prevent stranded assets under accelerating climate change. Evidence of large Chinese-backed renewables, storage pilots and green energy deals suggests opportunity, but success will depend on domestic governance and procurement rules that prioritize sustainability over short-term cost savings.
Social and regulatory failures compound the damage. If Pakistan is to move from reactive disaster response to proactive resilience, we must redesign how infrastructure is conceived: SEAs and EIAs must be strategic and enforceable, not pro forma; decision-making criteria should explicitly value ecosystem services, social equity and future climate scenarios; and corridor planning should integrate nature-based solutions, wetland restoration for flood attenuation, reforestation for slope stability, and mangrove expansions to protect coasts, alongside hard infrastructure. Equally important is finance architecture that links green bonds, concessional Chinese and multilateral finance, and private investment to verifiable environmental and social performance. These are practical reforms, not theoretical ideals: they change engineering specifications, procurement clauses and contract supervision in ways that reduce risk and cost over the asset’s life.
Divisions mark the last days of the UN climate summit in the Brazilian city of Belem.
Division marked the COP30 climate summit in Brazil as countries struggled to reach a consensus on several sticking points, including a push to phase out fossil fuels.
As the world seeks to address the climate crisis, experts say scientists, politicians, media and business all have a role to play in keeping the public engaged.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
But are they succeeding?
Presenter: Neave Barker
Guests:
Professor John Sweeney – Contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Peace Prize-winning assessment report
Professor Allam Ahmed – Leading scholar in sustainable development and the knowledge economy
Michael Shank – Climate communication expert and former director of media strategy at Climate Nexus
Postcolonial scholar Mahmood Mamdani says Palestinian rights helped motivate his son Zohran’s run for New York City mayor. He says Zohran didn’t expect to win, but entered the race “to make a point” and trounced his rivals because he refused to compromise on causes “near and dear” to him.
An Israeli ‘kamikaze’ drone blew up a vehicle on a busy street in Gaza City on Saturday, the latest test of the fragile ceasefire. It was just one of several Israeli attacks that killed at least 22 people across the enclave.
A tragic event shook a compound on Polo Road in Maiduguri, the Borno State capital in northeastern Nigeria, this weekend when 11-year-old Mahmud was found dead after reportedly taking his own life.
The incident has deeply saddened the local community and raised urgent questions about the unseen struggles young children face.
Mahmud was living with extended relatives because his mother passed away last year. His father, who works as a driver in Abuja, was away, meaning Mahmud was already dealing with the pain of loss and being separated from his immediate family.
The sad event, according to those familiar with the incident, happened right after a senior relative scolded Mahmud for not doing his laundry, a simple house chore. Moments later, younger children in the compound cried out, which drew the attention of neighbours.
Neighbours quickly rushed to the scene and found Mahmud hanging. They brought him down immediately and took him to a hospital, but tragically, he was confirmed dead.
Police Public Relations Officer, ASP Nahum Dasso-Kenneth, confirmed the incident to HumAngle, stating: “We received a report from one Muhammad Sheriff, who resides near Polo Road. At about 11:30 a.m., a boy named Mahmoud Adamu was found dead, apparently having hanged himself using an electric cable tied to a door.”
Police visited the scene, viewed the boy’s body, and subsequently took him to the State Specialists Hospital, where his death was confirmed.
”Though we are still investigating the circumstances that led to his death, the remains of the boy have been released to the family to be buried according to Islamic rites,” DSP Dasso added.
Sources familiar with the incident said Mahmud may have practicalised some of the uncensored movies kids are being exposed to these days.
“I helped bring down Mahmoud’s lifeless body,” said Usman Ali, a cap laundry attendant whose shop is adjacent to the deceased’s family home. “I found he was drenched in his own urine and faeces, which indicates he struggled in immense pain during the hanging before he died. This struggle suggests he was very much unsure of the dire consequences of the act before he committed it.”
”We must exercise extreme caution regarding the content our kids watch on TV and mobile phones, as some may venture into practising the misleading or dangerous behaviours they find online,” he said.
Ahmed Shehu, a civil society actor and chief executive of Peace Ambassador Centre for Humanitarian and Empowerment (PACHE), opined that “when children live through the violence and horror of war, their minds are deeply damaged, pushing them toward self-harm and even acts like suicide.”
He said children who witness constant fear, death, and loss deal with a crushed spirit, resulting in serious conditions like depression and PTSD.
“When this pain becomes too much to handle, they often look for ways to cope – even if those ways are harmful. Self-harm or thinking about suicide can sadly become their desperate escape from overwhelming emotional distress, or a way to feel like they have some control over their suffering.
“We have a fundamental duty to offer strong mental health help and support right now. We must help these young people heal the deep scars of trauma to prevent them from taking such tragic, self-destructive paths,” he said.
Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.
The operation begins in the subway tunnel, at Jungfernheide station, in the west of Berlin. Around 30 soldiers storm down the staircase, onto the platform, then jump onto the tracks. A machine-gunner sets up his weapon on the platform and puts his sights on the stationary subway train. The platoon leader signals his soldiers to approach the train. There are screams from the rear compartment, and suddenly the tunnel is filled with smoke. The sound of automatic gunfire rings out from inside the train.
Residents of the German capital making their way home using the subway network this week may have had a surprise. For three nights, Berlin-based soldiers from the German Army were conducting drills in the tunnels, practicing how to fight saboteurs and other urban warfare contingencies. These included training for urban and house-to-house fighting, as well as the protection of critical infrastructure.
On the one hand, the maneuvers were a throwback to the Cold War days of the then-divided city, when NATO special operations forces regularly prepared to face off a Warsaw Pact invasion. On the other hand, they reflect changing priorities for the German military, which is increasingly orienting itself toward a potential future conflict with Russia.
19 November 2025, Berlin: During the exercise Bollwerk Bärlin, German Army soldiers come down a flight of stairs at Jungfernheide subway station. Photo by Christophe Gateau/picture alliance via Getty Images picture alliance
For three nights this week, between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., around 250 soldiers from the 2nd and 3rd Companies of the German Army’s Wachbataillon (Guard Battalion), trained to fight in the city. As well as at Jungfernheide subway station, maneuvers took place at a decommissioned chemical plant in Rüdersdorf, and at Ruhleben “Fighting City,” which was a NATO training area in the Cold War, but is now used by the German police.
The scenarios involved in the Bollwerk Bärlin III exercise focused on combating saboteurs in the German capital. As well as eliminating hostile elements, the soldiers practiced securing and evacuating the wounded, which would include members of the city’s population of roughly 3.9 million.
Photo by Christophe Gateau/picture alliance via Getty Images
While the Guard Battalion is best known for its ceremonial duties, including providing an honor guard for the visits of foreign dignitaries, it’s part of the German Armed Forces’ Joint Service Support Command and has an infantry combat role. For this mission, the soldiers swap out their 1930s-era Karabiner 98k bolt-action rifles for Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifles.
Members of the Guard Battalion fulfill their more familiar duty. Bundeswehr/Steve Eibe
“We are training here because Berlin is our area of operation,” Lt. Col. Maik Teichgräber, commander of the Guard Battalion, told Die Welt newspaper. “In the event of tension or conflict, we protect the facilities of the federal government. And this is where they are located.”
“Ultimately, we have to think from the worst-case scenario,” Teichgräber continued. “It’s about being ready for whatever could happen in the worst-case scenario. Nothing is simulated down here. The terrain is as it is.”
German Army soldiers representing injured soldiers are placed on a trolley in a subway tunnel at Jungfernheide subway station. Photo by Christophe Gateau/picture alliance via Getty Images picture alliance
By closing down part of the subway for the exercise, the Guard Battalion was able to practice in an entirely realistic environment, with confined spaces, poor visibility, and changing light.
In the scenario outlined at the start of this story, the battalion’s rapid response unit was called in once it was clear that enemy forces were on the subway train. The unit stormed the train, the carriages were secured, the enemy neutralized, and casualties among the friendly forces were evacuated. Throughout, the station was protected by additional forces positioned outside, including snipers.
Members of the Guard Battalion train for house-to-house combat during an urban warfare exercise. Bundeswehr/Anne Weinrich
Preparing to fight in the confines of subway stations and tunnels is a new development for the German Guard Battalion, but other nations are increasingly conducting similar maneuvers.
Earlier this year, TWZreported on how Taiwanese forces use the Taipei subway to maneuver around the city of Taipei as part of a major annual exercise, named Han Kuang. In that particular case, the Taipei Metro could provide an inherently hardened means of moving troops and supplies around in the event of an invasion from the mainland, wherein key facilities above ground would be heavily targeted. Taiwan’s military already regularly trains for urban warfare, which would be a central feature of any future conflict with the People’s Republic of China, especially in Taipei.
Taiwanese personnel get off a subway car in Taipei carrying a Stinger missile during this year’s Han Kuang exercise. Military News Agency/Taiwan Ministry of National Defense capture via Focus Taiwan
Like in Germany, Taiwan’s military is putting a new emphasis on whole-of-society defense readiness, rather than just that of the armed forces.
Elsewhere, too, the challenges of fighting underground are becoming a more relevant topic.
At the same time, the advent of large numbers of drones on the battlefield, and especially the introduction of autonomy, are further factors that will likely push conventional forces to move underground, if possible, on future battlefields.
During the Cold War, the NATO forces in West Berlin — American, British, and French — regularly trained in urban warfare, to be ready to try and slow down any Warsaw Pact move against the city, isolated 200 miles deep in East German territory. During this time, there was no West German military presence permitted in the city. Given the difficulty of reinforcing West Berlin and the overwhelming numbers of Warsaw Pact forces surrounding it, holding the city for any length of time was never a realistic proposition.
Instead, NATO would have relied primarily on special forces units, like the U.S. Army’s secretive Detachment “A,” the existence of which wasn’t formally disclosed until 2014. Trained in unconventional warfare, clandestine operations, sabotage, and more, it would have sent small teams across the city and deeper into Warsaw Pact-held territory to cause havoc should hostilities break out. It ceased operations in 1984.
Starting with the Battle of Berlin in 1945, during which the Soviets took the German capital from the Nazis, including via house-to-house fighting, the city was characterized by its military presence and strategic status. Flashpoints during the Cold War included the Berlin Airlift, when Stalin attempted to force the Western allies to give up their portions of the city, and the 1961 Berlin Crisis, when Soviet and U.S. tanks stood off at Checkpoint Charlie, leading to the partition of the city and the construction of the Berlin Wall.
On October 27, 1961, combat-ready American and Soviet tanks faced off in Berlin at Checkpoint Charlie. Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union over access to the outpost city of Berlin and its Soviet-controlled eastern sector had increased to the point of direct military confrontation. U.S. Army
It’s worth noting, too, that during the Cold War, certain stations within the West Berlin subway network were constructed specifically with civil defense in mind. The stations at Pankstraße and Siemensdamm (on the same U7 line as Jungfernheide) were prepared as so-called Multi-Purpose Facilities, with blast doors, a filtered ventilation system, and emergency supplies. In case of nuclear attack, each could serve as a fallout shelter for more than 3,000 people over a two-week period. Today, the Pankstraße facility is protected as a historic monument, but Germany, overall, is increasingly looking at reactivating Cold War-era civil defense infrastructure.
A corridor in the Pankstraße nuclear fallout shelter in Berlin on May 10, 2022. Built in 1977 during the Cold War, it was intended to protect the citizens of West Berlin in case of a nuclear conflict. Photo by JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP via Getty Images JOHN MACDOUGALL
By 1994, however, the Cold War was over, and the last military occupying forces had left the city.
The fact that the German military is once again training to fight in the city is a measure of how much the security situation has changed.
By 2029, Germany is expected to spend €153 billion (around $176 billion) a year on defense, equivalent to around 3.5 percent of GDP. This amounts to the biggest military expansion since reunification, putting it ahead of France in terms of defense spending.
The first of 123 Leopard 2A8 tanks for the German Army, unveiled to the public in Munich this week. These are the first new-build main battle tanks for the German military in around 30 years. Photo by Alexandra Beier/Getty Images Alexandra BEIER
Speaking at a Berlin security conference earlier this week, U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said it was America’s “aspirational goal” that Germany take over command of NATO forces in Europe, given the country’s defense spending plans. That would be an unprecedented move, since the role of Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) has always been held by a U.S. four-star general.
By most measures, Germany is probably far from being ready to assume command of the alliance, but, in the meantime, it is starting to prepare its military for new kinds of contingencies.
“What is happening 900 kilometers [560 miles] east of us is reality,” said Teichgräber, speaking at the Bollwerk Bärlin III exercise, and reflecting on Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “No one can say whether this will eventually affect Germany. But we must be prepared.”
Matt and Ross Duffer, the twin directors known as The Duffer Brothers, have focused on raising the stakes in “Stranger Things” as the series moves to its fifth and final season, which premieres on November 26 on Netflix. They modeled the series after “Game of Thrones” to enhance its scale and impact. The Duffer Brothers aim to feature bigger visual effects while prioritizing story and character connections that engage audiences. Ross highlighted that viewers have formed strong attachments to the characters over the past 10 years and will want to witness the series’ conclusion.
Season 5 stars Millie Bobby Brown as Eleven, along with Winona Ryder, David Harbour, and others reprising their roles. The series finale will be shown in theaters on December 31 across over 350 locations in the U. S. and Canada, providing fans with a unique way to say goodbye. For Millie Bobby Brown, the final season was both emotional and nostalgic, marking a significant moment after playing the lead since she was 12. Despite this ending, she remains open to future science fiction roles. The Duffer Brothers also launched Upside Down Pictures in 2022, planning a live-action spin-off series alongside other franchise projects. The final season faced delays due to Hollywood strikes in 2023.
Leaders welcome deal reached at UN climate summit as step forward but say ‘more ambition’ needed to tackle the crisis.
World leaders have put forward a draft text at the United Nations climate conference in Brazil that seeks to address the crisis, but the agreement does not include any mention of phasing out the fossil fuels driving climate change.
The text was published on Saturday after negotiations stretched through the night, well beyond the expected close of the two-week COP30 summit in the Brazilian city of Belem, amid deep divisions over the fossil fuel phase-out.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The draft, which must be approved by consensus by nearly 200 nations, pledges to review climate-related trade barriers and calls on developed nations to “at least triple” the money given to developing countries to help them withstand extreme weather events.
It also urges “all actors to work together to significantly accelerate and scale up climate action worldwide” with the aim of keeping the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) mark for global warming – an internationally agreed-upon target set under the Paris Agreement – “within reach”.
Wopke Hoekstra, the European Union’s climate commissioner, said the outcome was a step in the right direction, but the bloc would have liked more.
“We’re not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything,” Hoekstra told reporters. “We should support it because at least it is going in the right direction,” he said.
France’s ecological transition minister, Monique Barbut, also said it was a “rather flat text” but Europeans would not oppose it because “there is nothing extraordinarily bad in it”.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla also said in a social media post that while the outcome “fell short of expectations”, COP30 demonstrated the importance of multilateralism to tackle global challenges such as climate change.
‘Needed a giant leap’
Countries had been divided on a number of issues in Belem, including a push to phase out fossil fuels – the largest drivers of the climate crisis – that drew opposition from oil-producing countries and nations that depend on oil, gas and coal.
Questions of climate finance also sparked heated debates, with developing nations demanding that richer countries bear a greater share of the financial burden.
But COP30 host Brazil had pushed for a show of unity, as the annual conference is largely viewed as a test of the world’s resolve to address a deepening crisis.
“We need to show society that we want this without imposing anything on anyone, without setting deadlines for each country to decide what it can do within its own time, within its own possibilities,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said earlier this week.
Earlier on Saturday, COP30 President Andre Aranha Correa do Lago said the presidency would publish “roadmaps” on fossil fuels and forests as there had been no consensus on those issues at the talks.
Speaking to Al Jazeera before the draft text was released, Asad Rehman, chief executive director of Friends of the Earth, said richer countries “had to be dragged – really kicking and screaming – to the table” at COP30.
“They have tried to bully developing countries and have weakened the text … But I would say that, overall, from what we’re hearing, we will have taken a step forward,” Rehman said in an interview from Belem.
“This will be welcomed by the millions of people for whom these talks are a matter of life and death. However, in the scale of the crisis that we face, we of course needed a giant leap forward.”
Russian forces continue to report advances in eastern Ukraine while the United States ramps up intensive diplomatic pressure on Kyiv and its European allies to accede to its proposed 28-point plan, which heavily leans towards the Kremlin’s demands, by Thursday.
The Russian Ministry of Defence announced on Saturday that its soldiers “liberated” the settlement of Zvanivka in Donetsk region’s Bakhmut, allegedly inflicting “significant losses” on Ukrainian forces.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
It also released footage of air attacks and FPV drone attacks on Ukrainian positions in the Zaporizhia region, where Russian forces have been getting closer to the strategic town of Huliaipole using glide bombs and tactical ground incursions.
The Defence Ministry claimed that the Novoe Zaporozhye area was taken under Russian control, including a “major enemy defence node” covering an area of more than 14sq km (5sq miles).
This would add to a growing number of villages in the southeastern Ukrainian region that have been captured by Russian troops since September as they try to push back the Ukrainian military and strike energy infrastructure with another punishing winter of war approaching.
Ukrainian soldiers are also under intense attacks in the Pokrovsk area, where the fighting is believed to be fierce as the Russian military command redeploys forces to strengthen its offensive.
Regional Ukrainian authorities have reported at least one civilian death and 13 injuries over the past day as a result of Russian air attacks. The fatal strike took place in Donetsk, Governor Vadym Filashkin said.
Ukraine’s air force said Russian troops launched one Iskander-M ballistic missile from annexed Crimea and 104 drones from several areas towards multiple Ukrainian regions overnight into Saturday, of which 89 drones were downed. Most of the drones were of Iranian design, it added.
Ukrainian media said the Yany Kapu electric substation in northern Crimea was targeted by drones overnight, with footage circulating on social media showing explosions and strikes. The Russian Defence Ministry said its air force shot down six fixed-wing Ukrainian drones over Crimea early on Saturday, without confirming any hits on the ground.
EU pushes back against US plan
Ukraine’s allies have not been cheering the plan put forward by the administration of US President Donald Trump without consulting them, despite an ominous Thursday deadline set by Washington approaching.
The unilateral US plan to end the war in Ukraine “is a basis which will require additional work”, Western leaders gathered in South Africa for a G20 summit said on Saturday.
“We are clear on the principle that borders must not be changed by force,” said the leaders of key European countries, as well as Canada and Japan, in a joint statement.
“We are also concerned by the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces, which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to future attack,” they said, adding that any implementing elements of the plan linked with the 27-member bloc and NATO would have to be undertaken with the consent of member states.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Russia’s war could only be ended with Ukraine’s “unconditional consent”.
“Wars cannot be ended by major powers over the heads of the countries affected,” he said on the sidelines of the summit.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, First Lady Olena Zelenska, top officials and service members visit a monument to Holodomor victims during a commemoration ceremony of the famine of 1932-33, in Kyiv, Ukraine, November 22, 2025 [Handout/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service via Reuters]
Ukraine and its allies continue to emphasise the need for a “just and lasting peace”, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying on Saturday that real peace is based on guaranteed security and justice that secures sovereignty and territorial integrity.
But Zelenskyy approved a Ukrainian delegation to launch talks with US counterparts in Switzerland on ways of ending the war, and appointed his top aide Andriy Yermak to lead it.
Ukraine’s Security Council secretary, Rustem Umerov, who is on the negotiating team, confirmed in a post on Telegram that consultations will begin over “possible parameters” of a future deal.
“Ukraine approaches this process with a clear understanding of its interests,” he said, thanking the Trump administration for its mediation.
Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said in an interview with the state-owned International Affairs magazine, published on Saturday, that he would not rule out the possibility of another meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has backed the US proposal.
“The search for a way forward continues,” he said, adding that Moscow and Washington continue to keep channels for dialogue open despite the lack of an agreement during a Trump-Putin meeting in August, and the indefinite suspension of another planned round in Budapest.
Putin has refused to engage in a summit that includes Zelenskyy and will be even less likely to now, given he believes Russia has the upper hand on the battlefield and the ear of the US on the diplomatic front.
In a wild — but friendly — exchange between US President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, Trump said he didn’t “mind” Mamdani previously calling him a “fascist.” Trump, who once called Mamdani a “communist,” heaped praise on him at their Friday Oval Office meeting.
