TODAY

As the U.S. continues to raise the heat on Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, online flight trackers tonight have noticed several F/A-18 Super Hornets and a U.S. Air Force RC-135V Rivet Joint electronic surveillance plane flying close to the South American nation’s coastline. A U.S. official told us these flights are part of the pressure campaign ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump against Maduro and specifically to test Venezuela’s air defense capabilities and response times. This is a staple tactic that is critical to assessing the status, locations, operating procedures, and sensitivity of an enemy’s defenses. The data garnered is especially critical for planning offensive operations.

You can catch up with our most recent coverage about what has been dubbed Operation Southern Spear in our story here.

“They are normal operational training flights from the aircraft carrier USS Ford and platforms performing training exercises,” the official told us. “They are also testing Venezuelan sensors and responses, and it is part of the pressure campaign to show U.S. capabilities in the Caribbean.”

In addition to the Super Hornets and Rivet Joint, spotters also tracked B-52H Superfortress bombers in the region as well. The flight is the latest in a series of bomber sorties that have been flying near Venezuela since October 15.

“For operational security reasons, we do not comment on the movement of aircraft supporting ongoing operations,” an Air Force Southern Command spokesperson told us earlier today when we asked about the flights. “We refer you to the…press release for information about Operation Southern Spear and the Joint Task Force established to conduct the operation.”

The flights are part of a massive U.S. presence in the Caribbean for an operation that was ostensibly launched to counter the flow of narcotics into the U.S. but has morphed into a huge show of force aimed at Maduro. In addition to the Ford, there are at least seven surface combatants, a special operations mothership, and several support vessels. There are also F-35B stealth fighters, MQ-9 Reaper drones, P-8 wartime patrol aircraft, AC-130 Ghostrider gunships, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, among other assets, and about 15,000 U.S. personnel deployed to the region.

Thursday evening, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told OAN news that the looming designation of Cartel de los Soles as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, alleged to be headed by Maduro, “brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States.” That designation goes into effect on Nov. 24 unless challenged by Congress.

OAN to Air Exclusive Sit-Down Interview with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in Prime Time — Watch tonight at 5 pm EST, 7 pm EST, and 11 pm ESThttps://t.co/tdOmMHEBFZ

— One America News (@OANN) November 20, 2025

RC-135 Rivet Joints are no strangers to this part of the world, as we have written about in-depth before. But the aircraft’s arrival at this time, along with tactical fighters and bombers, and many other aircraft that do not show up on tracking systems, is of great interest. The fact that some of these aircraft are showing up on tracking sites at all is clearly a conscious choice in messaging. Even more so, the fact that a U.S. official confirmed the aircraft were stimulating Venezuelan defenses in order to gather critical intelligence is also a very rare admission. Such activities go back many years and happen around the globe regularly to this day to varying degrees of sophistication. But this appears to be a more complex operation, especially considering Venezuela is on high alert for an impending military operation. It’s worth noting that the RC-135 would also have had fighter cover for its collection mission, which could have been provided by USS Gerald R. Ford’s Super Hornets.

By gathering this type of intelligence, and the RC-135 is arguably the best asset on earth to do it, commanders have an up-to-date assessment of the enemy’s electronic order of battle. Once again, this includes the status, types, geolocations, tactics, and readiness of these systems. That intelligence is critical for planning strikes as it informs what air defenses need to be suppressed or destroyed in order for missiles and/or aircraft to best make it to their targets. It also directly dictates what routes those missiles and/or aircraft would take.

At this time, we have no indication that this is all prelude to an actual offensive military operation that strikes into Venezuela, but it is certainly one indicator. And that may very well be the point, as it puts extreme pressure on Maduro, signaling that his reality could shift dramatically in the coming days.

For both tactical and psychological operations reasons, it won’t be surprising if the RC-135 and its fighter escorts and ‘stimulators’ don’t become a relatively common sight off the Venezuelan coast over the coming days.

Contact the author: [email protected]

They call it a new chapter. For Timor-Leste — a nation born from fire, driven by a stubborn tenderness for its own future — that chapter begins with a long-cherished dream finally realised: accession to ASEAN. The ceremony in Kuala Lumpur was more than a ceremonial hoisting of a flag. It was a national exhale; a small, mountainous country of 1.4 million now stepping into a $3.8 trillion regional economy, with access to markets, labour mobility and political networks that a generation of Timorese leaders have chased since the end of occupation.

But dreams do not automatically translate into livelihoods. Behind the spectacle lies a harsh reality. Timor-Leste’s public funds have long been supported by oil and gas; a Petroleum Fund that once seemed like an unstoppable safety net now stands at about US$18 billion, roughly ten times the size of the non-oil economy. That reserve has funded unhealthy comforts: public spending that hides a weak private sector and limited job creation. International agencies have plainly warned that without decisive structural change, withdrawals will deplete the fund, and fiscal consolidation will be unavoidable by the late 2030s. The diplomatic victory of ASEAN membership gives Timor-Leste some breathing space — not an open cheque.

If there is a single, combustible source of hope it is Timor-Leste’s people. More than half the population is under 25, a demographic shape that could be blessing or burden. Invest in them and the dividend could be immense; ignore them and the social consequences will be stark. The World Bank and UN partners have reiterated the message: the nation must rapidly transform its petroleum wealth into human capital.

Education is not a sentimental policy box. It is Timor-Leste’s lifeline. In the years after independence the country achieved near-universal primary enrolment — a testament to determination and a vital base to build from. Yet quality lags, secondary and vocational pathways are thin, literacy remains stubbornly low in parts, and rural classrooms are starved of materials and trained teachers. If Timor-Leste is to avoid the ‘resource mirage’ and build diversified industry; tourism, agro-processing, fisheries, light manufacturing, it must scale teacher training, technical education and secondary access now.

There is rich irony here. Timor-Leste’s inheritance is not only oil; it is a deep well of local knowledge, language and culture. Tetum, ancestral farming techniques and community stewardship of marine coasts. Education that respects and builds on that knowledge will do more than teach arithmetic: it will anchor citizens to livelihoods that are sustainable and uniquely Timorese. Pilot studies already show promise: teaching science through local agriculture and marine ecology makes learning relevant and sticky. This is a policy sweet spot where identity and development reinforce one another.

The foreign-policy playbook Timor-Leste is writing is strikingly pragmatic. It seeks friends everywhere: Australia and Japan on governance and renewable energy; China and India for infrastructure and scholarships; the EU and multilateral banks for budget support and norms; and the Global South (CPLP, G7+) for political solidarity. This is small-state diplomacy at its finest — networked, nimble, and honest about capacity limits. The Tibar Bay Port public-private partnership, championed with Chinese and private partners, is an early testament to the practical payoff of such outreach: ports, connectors and trade corridors that can anchor an export economy.

And yet, for all its global friends, Timor-Leste’s credibility rests on its domestic reform. Corruption, weak public financial management and the slow pace of accountability erode trust and scare off the long-term investors Timor-Leste needs. The answer is painfully ordinary: transparent budgets, active audits, prosecutions where evidence exists, and devolution of decision-making so rural communities can see value return to their villages. Only then will foreign capital stay beyond short-term infrastructure projects and fund genuine, job-creating enterprises.

Climate change is no footnote. Timor-Leste’s mountains and coasts are exposed to storms, floods and erosion; nearly 15 per cent of the population stands to gain from GCF-backed rural resilience projects that repair roads, irrigation and water supplies. These are not charity: they are investments that protect productivity, reduce disaster costs and safeguard food security. Marrying green infrastructure with grassroots knowledge is both practical and moral.

Unlike Singapore — a compact, highly urbanised entrepôt that inherited British administrative systems and English-language institutions and could pursue rapid, technocratic, top-down development — Timor-Leste emerged from decades of violent occupation with Portuguese colonial legacies, a dispersed rural population, nascent public institutions and a heavy, finite dependence on petroleum revenues; consequently, where Singapore could quickly attract multinational capital and build bureaucratic capacity, Timor-Leste must first prioritise rebuilding local administrative capability, craft multilingual education policies rooted in Tetum and local wisdom, and pursue community-centred diversification strategies suited to a post-conflict, resource-dependent society.

Timor-Leste’s reform strategy must address political-economic realities such as vested interests, elite capture, and inadequate administrative ability, which will hinder progress unless reformers establish wide coalitions and achieve visible short-term gains. Immediate efforts should prioritise public audits and targeted scholarships to increase confidence and swiftly offer benefits to communities. Over the medium term, pass and execute a stronger Public Financial Management Act to enhance budget regulations, procurement, and oversight. Long-term work should explore decentralisation in selected districts, combining fiscal devolution with capacity-building to ensure local governments handle funds openly and provide visible results to rural voters.

What should Canberra and others in the region do? Support Timor-Leste’s human-capital pivot, yes; but do it through long-term technical cooperation, scholarships tied to return-home conditions, and public-sector mentoring that helps rebuild procurement and auditing systems. Encourage ASEAN to fast-track trade and mobility measures that fit Timor-Leste’s capacity, not only its potential. And when investment arrives, insist it rides on the rails of transparency and community benefit.

Timor-Leste has endured colonisation, occupation, and the trauma of state-building. It now stands at a rare crossroads: a diplomatic win that could be the first chapter of a story about inclusive prosperity — or a beautiful opening to a chapter that closes too soon. The decision will not be made in Kuala Lumpur’s ceremonial halls; it will be determined in classrooms, provincial council chambers, and the small harbours where fisherfolk mend nets. If ASEAN membership teaches us anything, it is this: belonging to a community of nations only counts if that belonging creates more opportunities for ordinary people. For Timor-Leste, the task is urgent, the tools are known, and the country’s people — fierce, young, and proud — are waiting.

The battle over the files in the investigation of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has reached a new turn with the United States Congress voting for the Department of Justice to release its information on the case. As the world waits for what the full files may reveal, what do we know about the rich and elite who surrounded Epstein?

Officials at the climate conference say the fire was contained within six minutes, and 13 attendees were treated for smoke inhalation.

Sao Paulo, Brazil – Attendees have been forced to evacuate the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP30, after a fire broke out at the venue in Belem, Brazil.

There were no injuries in Thursday’s blaze, according to Brazil’s Tourism Minister Celso Sabino. In a news conference afterwards, he downplayed the seriousness of the fire.

“There was a small fire here, which is possible at any large event,” he told journalists. “This small fire could happen anywhere on planet Earth.”

Organisers reported that the evacuation was “fast” and the fire was controlled within six minutes, leaving only minor damage.

Thirteen people were treated for smoke inhalation, according to a joint statement from the UN and COP30 leaders.

The affected area, known as the Blue Zone, is expected to remain closed until 8pm local time (23:00 GMT).

The cause of the fire remains unclear. But Helder Barbalho — the governor of the state of Para, where the summit is taking place — told the Brazilian channel GloboNews that authorities believe a generator failure or short circuit might have sparked the incident.

On social media, Barbalho assured the public that other parts of the COP30 conference zone continued to be in operation.

“We will find out what caused it, whether we can restart work here in the Blue Zone today or not,” he wrote. “The Green Zone is operating normally.”

Reports emerged about 2pm local time (17:00 GMT) of flames in the Blue Zone pavilion, a restricted area for negotiators and accredited media.

Videos on social media showed scenes of panic and security officials ordering attendees to exit the venue.

caralho, fogo na zona azul aqui da COP 30. uma loucura de gente correndo. meu deus! pic.twitter.com/ebXubnHwiR

— ralfer (@ralferr) November 20, 2025

Al Jazeera spoke to Fernando Ralfer Oliveira, an independent journalist who was in the Blue Zone when the fire broke out and shared footage of the flames.

“I was in the big corridor that leads to the meeting rooms when a commotion of people started running. I had my phone in my hand and immediately started recording,” said Ralfer.

“When I got close to the pavilion, someone ran past me shouting, ‘Fire, fire, fire!’ So I ran a little and managed to record that bit of the fire. But at that moment, security was already coming towards us in force, saying ‘Evacuate, evacuate, evacuate.’”

Ralfer and other evacuees were then directed to the COP30’s food court area, located outside the pavilion.

Roughly an hour after the fire broke out, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which organises the conference, sent an email to attendees saying that the local fire service would conduct “full safety checks” at the venue.

They then announced the Blue Zone’s continued closure: “Please note that the premises are now under the authority of the Host Country and are no longer considered a Blue Zone.”

The Blue Zone fire happened a week after Brazil responded to the UN’s concerns around safety at COP30.

On November 13, Simon Stiell, the executive secretary with the UNFCCC, sent a letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his government, raising issues ranging from faulty doors to water leaks near light fixtures.

That same day, the Brazilian government published a statement saying that “all UN requests have been met”, including the repositioning and expansion of police forces between the Blue and Green Zones.

Annual military spending is rising globally at its steepest level since the Cold War.

And after a break of more than 30 years, the United States says it might restart testing nuclear weapons.

So if the global arms race is back on, who’s winning, how is war changing, and what’s the true cost of escalation?

Presenter: Neave Barker

Guests:

Michael Boyle – Professor of political science at Rutgers University–Camden

Elijah Magnier – Senior political risk analyst and a regional military expert

Fabrice Pothier – Former head of policy planning at NATO and a senior defence and strategy analyst

The Yantar, a notorious Russian spy ship, directed lasers at the crews of U.K. Royal Air Force aircraft in waters off the north of Scotland, the British government said today. While the Yantar has been a worrying presence around critical undersea infrastructure for years now, this development represents a concerning new trend, and one that could be very hazardous.

The alleged incident took place after a U.K. Royal Navy Type 23 frigate and Royal Air Force aircraft, including P-8A Poseidon MRA1 maritime patrol aircraft, were sent to monitor and track the vessel. Publicly available flight-tracking data suggests that Royal Air Force Typhoon fighters, supported by Voyager tankers, may also have been involved.

It’s not clear what kind of laser was used by the Yantar, but these encompass a wide range of systems, some of which can have significant power, at least enough to be a major concern. Depending on their output, lasers have the potential to temporarily obscure optics and the vision of personnel or cause permanent damage to both. More powerful laser weapons can burn holes in craft, damaging or destroying them, but are highly unlikely to have been installed on this vessel.

It is worth noting that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has regularly been accused of using shipborne lasers to harass military aircraft, as you can read about here.

As for the Yantar, this vessel has been active off the coast of the United Kingdom for the last few weeks, according to the U.K. defense secretary, John Healey, who disclosed details of its activities today.

“This is a vessel designed for gathering intelligence and mapping our undersea cables,” Healey said.

Referring to the laser incident, the defense secretary described the Russian ship’s action as “deeply dangerous,” noting that this is the second time this year that the Yantar has deployed to British waters.

Healey continued: “My message to Russia and to Putin is this: we see you, we know what you’re doing, and if the Yantar travels south this week, we are ready.”

The Yantar is part of the Russian Defense Ministry fleet, being operated by the Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, a secretive branch that works on behalf of the Russian Navy and other agencies. The ship is around 112 feet long and, among other duties, operates as a mothership for uncrewed underwater vessels (UUVs), which can be used to investigate the seabed and potentially undertake sabotage and other activities, including manipulating objects on the seafloor.

As we have discussed in the past, the Yantar is officially classified as a Project 22010 “oceanographic research vessel,” but its specialized equipment can reportedly tap or cut submarine cables and investigate and retrieve objects from depths of up to 18,000 feet. The vessel is also likely to be able to place devices on the seabed that could cut cables long after the ship has moved on.

Russia has repeatedly claimed that the vessel is used for legitimate maritime “research” or “survey,” but it has an established pattern of operating around critical undersea infrastructure. In particular, it is assessed that the Yantar is used for surveilling the U.K.’s crucial network of undersea cables, around 60 of which branch out into the sea from the British Isles.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense has long considered the Yantar a spy ship and tracks it closely, leading to several run-ins with the vessel in the past.

In September, the U.K.’s National Security Strategy Committee stated that the government was being “too timid” in its approach to protecting British undersea cables, some of which also have a military role.

Meanwhile, another British government oversight body, the Defense Select Committee, recently concluded more broadly that the United Kingdom “must be willing to grasp the nettle and prioritize homeland defense and resilience.”

At the beginning of this year, the United Kingdom confirmed that one of its Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines surfaced close to the Yantar, to make it clear it was being observed. The Yantar was sailing in British waters in November last year, when that incident occurred. Specifically, the Russian ship was said to be “detected loitering over U.K. critical undersea infrastructure.”

At one point, one of the Royal Navy’s Astute class attack submarines surfaced close to the Yantar “to make clear that we had been covertly monitoring its every move,” Healey said.

Tracking the Yantar is not necessarily a difficult job, since its position is typically broadcast at regular intervals using the automatic identification system (AIS), an automatic tracking system that uses transceivers on ships. This data is then also published by online ship tracking services. However, commercial tracking can be manipulated and spoofed, or it can just go dark, making the vessel harder to pinpoint.

At the same time, it should be noted that the vessel has been operating within the U.K.’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) but in international waters, which is entirely legal.

Earlier this year, the Yantar was reported in the Mediterranean. On this occasion, it was assumed to be involved in searching and potentially salvaging the wreck of the Russian cargo vessel MV Ursa Major, which sank after an apparent explosion in its engine room in late December.

🚨📸 Overview in the 🌊Alboran Sea on 16 January: the 🇷🇺Russian research vessel Yantar with the 🇺🇸American DDGH Paul Ignatius, then the 🇺🇸Ignatius with the 🇪🇸Spanish PSO Tornado.
With #NATO forces in the 🌊Mediterranean, the 🇷🇺Yantar passing Gibraltar illustrates that the… pic.twitter.com/h6fC64rKkB

— Russian Forces Spotter (@TiaFarris10) January 20, 2025

Back in 2018, the U.K. Royal Navy also escorted the Yantar through the English Channel as it headed into the North Sea. At this time, it was carrying a Saab SeaEye Tiger deep-sea robot on its deck. Russia acquired this underwater drone after the Kursk submarine disaster. It can reach depths of 3,280 feet.

A year before that, the Yantar was involved in a high-profile operation in 2017 when it sailed off the coast of Syria to recover the wreckage of two fighter jets, a Su-33 and a MiG-29KR, that crashed into the Mediterranean Sea during operations from Russia’s aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.

While the reported use of a laser in a hostile capacity by the crew of the Yantar is a new development, its activity comes as NATO becomes increasingly concerned about apparent sabotage to undersea infrastructure carrying oil, gas, electricity, and the internet. More generally, the threat to undersea infrastructure, specifically data cables, is of growing concern internationally.

In the Baltic Sea alone, cables have been damaged on several occasions, with all of them carrying at least some of the hallmarks of sabotage. In the most notable event, on December 25 last year, an oil tanker dragging its anchor damaged a power cable running between Finland and Estonia.

The vessel responsible for that incident in the Baltic was the Russia-connected Eagle S. The oil tanker was reportedly found to be brimming with spy equipment after it was seized by authorities. Finnish authorities filed charges of aggravated sabotage and aggravated interference with telecommunications against members of its crew.

Incidents like this led to NATO launching Baltic Sentry, a mission intended to ensure the security of critical undersea infrastructure in the region. As you can read about here, the mission also involves crewed surface vessels, UUVs, and various aircraft.

The scale of the threat was apparent even before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, after which tensions between the Kremlin and the West heightened significantly.

“We are now seeing Russian underwater activity in the vicinity of undersea cables that I don’t believe we have ever seen,” U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Andrew Lennon, then serving as NATO’s top submarine officer, told The Washington Post back in December 2017. “Russia is clearly taking an interest in NATO and NATO nations’ undersea infrastructure.”

As Russia ramps up its hybrid warfare activities, which you can read more about here, the potential risk to undersea infrastructure is put into a much sharper focus. In many cases, such activities are deniable.

While NATO has long been aware of how difficult it can be to defend this kind of infrastructure against hostile actors, the apparent use of lasers by part of Russia’s spy fleet is another serious cause for concern.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Public opinion shifts fast, often faster than people expect. Many readers believe they form their views independently, yet every choice — from which headline to click to the sources they trust — shapes how they understand global events. Halfway through the second sentence, reliable platforms such as gayaone.com help you keep these choices intentional. When you control the quality of your information, you protect your ability to think clearly and make balanced decisions.

Why the Sources You Follow Influence the Way You See the World

How Credibility Guides Your Judgments Without You Noticing

Why Your Choice of Source Matters Even More During Complex Events

The “toxic and chaotic” culture at the centre of the United Kingdom’s government led to a delayed response to the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in about 23,000 more deaths across the nation, a damning report from an inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic has found.

The inquiry, which former Prime Minister Boris Johnson ordered in May 2021, delivered a blistering assessment (PDF) on Thursday of his government’s response to COVID-19, criticising his indecisive leadership, lambasting his Downing Street office for breaking their own rules and castigating his top adviser Dominic Cummings. The inquiry was chaired by former judge Heather Hallett.

“The failure to appreciate the scale of the threat, or the urgency of response it demanded, meant that by the time the possibility of a mandatory lockdown was first considered it was already too late and a lockdown had become unavoidable,” the inquiry found. “At the centre of the UK government there was a toxic and chaotic culture.”

The global pandemic, which began in 2020, killed millions of people worldwide, with countries enforcing lockdowns in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus.

The UK went into lockdown on March 23, 2020, at which time it was “too little, too late,” the inquiry found, revealing that if the nation had gone into lockdown just a week earlier, on March 16, the number of deaths in the first wave of the pandemic up to July would have been reduced by about 23,000, or 48 percent.

“Had the UK been better prepared, lives would have been saved, suffering reduced and the economic cost of the pandemic far lower,” the inquiry found.

A failure to act sooner again, as cases rose later in the year, also led to further national lockdowns, Hallett’s inquiry found.

A campaign group for bereaved families said “it is devastating to think of the lives that could have been saved under a different Prime Minister”.

There was no immediate comment from Johnson on the inquiry’s findings.

The UK recorded more than 230,000 deaths from COVID, a similar death rate to the United States and Italy, but higher than elsewhere in western Europe, and it is still recovering from the economic consequences.

“Mr. Johnson should have appreciated sooner that this was an emergency that required prime ministerial leadership to inject urgency into the response,” the inquiry found.

Following the release of the inquiry’s findings, Sir Ed Davey called on Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, to apologise on behalf of the Conservatives.

“As this report is published, my thoughts and prayers are with all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic, and everyone who suffered,” Davey said. “This report confirms the abject failure of the last Conservative government.”

Ellie Chowns, a Green Party MP for North Herefordshire, said the British people were “let down” by their government.

“Families and communities – especially children – are still living with the consequences. It’s vital to learn from this report, and invest far more seriously in pandemic preparedness, so that Britain can be secure and resilient if – or when – we are again faced with such a challenge.”

The first cases of COVID-19 were detected in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, and information from the country is seen as key to preventing future pandemics. As late as June 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) said it was working to uncover the origin of the pandemic, with its work still incomplete, as critical information has “not been provided”.

“We continue to appeal to China and any other country that has information about the origins of COVID-19 to share that information openly, in the interests of protecting the world from future pandemics,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in June.

In 2021, Tedros launched the WHO Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO), a panel of 27 independent international experts.

Marietjie Venter, the group’s chair, said earlier this year that most scientific data supports the hypothesis that the new coronavirus jumped to humans from animals.

But she added that after more than three years of work, SAGO was unable to get the necessary data to evaluate whether or not COVID was the result of a lab accident, despite repeated requests for detailed information made to the Chinese government.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials visited southern Syrian territory, where Israel expanded its occupation after the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime last year.

A 15-year-old Palestinian boy was shot by Israeli troops in the occupied West Bank and was not given medical attention, leading to his death. He is among dozens of children who have been targeted and killed by Israeli troops in the occupied territories.

Russia’s Sukhoi Su-57 Felon is benefiting from lessons learned in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to the head of the country’s state-run defense conglomerate Rostec. Work to continue evolving the jet’s design is visible at this year’s Dubai Airshow, especially through a model depicting an export “Su-57E” variant featuring two-dimensional thrust-vectoring exhaust nozzles. A pre-production prototype is also on display and flying at the event, sporting a new wide-area cockpit display.

Speaking through a translator, Rostec CEO Sergey Chemezov talked about the Su-57, as well as other Russian aviation and defense industry developments, with TWZ and other outlets on the sidelines of the Dubai Airshow yesterday. Among his remarks, he also claimed that work to improve the Felon’s capabilities based on feedback from real-world combat operations has led to a surge in overseas interest in the type. On Monday, Vadim Badekha, head of the United Aircraft Corporation, of which Sukhoi is currently a division, separately announced the delivery of the first two Su-57s to an unnamed foreign customer, something we will come back to later on.

“So, I will not confirm any contract number or any of our partners,” Chemezov said, responding to a question about export orders, according to the translator. “I can definitely highlight that we have a very huge demand from many countries for this particular aircraft, and we’re hoping to even expand this demand.”

The video below offers a close-up walkaround of the pre-production Su-57 prototype at this year’s Dubai Airshow.

“The upgrade of the fighter jet is kind of a non-stop process that continues as we continue our special military operation, we get the feedback from our pilots from the war zone, and we are tweaking and adjusting our equipment accordingly,” Chemezov also said in response to a separate query about recent updates to the Su-57 design, again per the translator. “And that’s why you can witness the high demand from our foreign customers, because they understand, and they know that our equipment goes through a continuous upgrade based on the experience we gain in the real combat environment.”

The extent to which Su-57s have been used in combat in the ongoing war in Ukraine, which the Russian government refers to as a “special military operation,” is unclear. Reports have said the jets flew their first combat missions in support of operations in Ukraine within weeks of Russia launching its all-out invasion in 2022. Additional reporting, as recently as last year, has claimed that Su-57s have continued taking part in the conflict, on and off, at least on some level, flying air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, but hard details remain scant. There are reports that an Su-57 was responsible for shooting down a friendly S-70 Okhotnik-B (Hunter-B) flying wing unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) over Ukraine in an incident last year that you can read more about here.

How many Su-57s the Russians have in service currently is also unclear. The Russian Air Force only began to receive serial production examples in 2022 after placing an order for a relatively modest 76 jets. Around 18 aircraft are at least understood to have been delivered between then and the end of 2024. Whether more deliveries have occurred this year is unclear. At least one Su-57 (and possibly two) was at least damaged in a Ukrainian attack on Akhtubinsk airfield last year.

A total of 10 pre-production prototypes, also referred to as T-50s, were also built, but not all of them are flyable, let alone suitable for operational use. The type’s first flight came on January 29, 2010, more than 15 years ago.

Chemezov did not elaborate on how any real combat experiences have directly impacted the design and capabilities of the Su-57 while speaking yesterday in Dubai, where the Su-57 has been heavily showcased. This has included a flight demonstration that offered the best look to date at the jet’s internal weapons bays.

As noted, there is a scale model of an Su-57E with two-dimensional thrust-vectoring exhaust nozzles on display at this year’s Dubai Airshow. This nozzle design has been seen in the past and is also linked to work on an improved engine for the Felon, the AL-51F-1 turbofan, as you can read more about here.

As TWZ has previously written:

“In its initial form, the AL-51F-1 also retains a similar three-dimensional thrust vectoring nozzle, but what we see in the new imagery is an alternative nozzle, this time of the two-dimensional type, which provides pitch control as well as limited roll control if engaged asymmetrically. It isn’t clear if the angled installation of the nozzle is meant to provide extra control in the latter.

This kind of stealthy ‘flat’ engine nozzle is also used on the F-22 Raptor, for example, and is primarily chosen to reduce radar signature compared with an axisymmetric nozzle design. It also provides infrared signature advantages, as well.

…

For the Su-57, the flat nozzle would bring notable advantages in terms of improving its low observability from the rear aspect. The original design of the Felon better optimized low observability from the frontal aspect, with less attention paid to the side and rear aspects. At the same time, the revised nozzles will reduce thrust output to some degree, but this is clearly considered a worthwhile penalty based on the improved low-observable aspects it brings…”

As an aside, the Russians are also showing off a relatively new turbofan engine design called the Izdeliye 177S at this year’s Dubai Airshow. This engine was first unveiled at the Zhuhai Airshow in China last year. It is reportedly a derivative of the AL-41F-1, the original engine for the Su-57, which also incorporates technology from the AL-51F-1. It has been presented a potential powerplant for new-production export Su-57s, as well as an upgrade option for existing jets with AL-31 engines, especially newer generation Flanker variants.

As also mentioned, the flying pre-production prototype on display at the Dubai Airshow, also known as T-50-9, has notably received a new wide-area display in its cockpit. This is said to be reflective of the Su-57E configuration the Russians are now pitching to prospective export customers. The single-screen unit replaces two smaller displays that had previously been installed. Large, wide-area displays are an increasingly common feature on modern fighters, offering various benefits, above all else providing more overall customizable ‘real estate’ for users to work with and enhanced situational awareness when combined with upgraded processing power.

In terms of actual Su-57 export sales to date, the Russians have only explicitly talked about a firm order from one customer. Algeria is widely posited as being the country in question following a report earlier this year from one of the country’s state-run television networks. Visual confirmation of the delivery of Su-57s to the Algerian Air Force, or any other foreign customer, has yet to emerge.

“Our foreign customer, our foreign partner, has already received the first two aircraft,” Vadim Badekha, United Aircraft Corporation’s General Director, had said on Monday in an interview with Russia’s state-run Channel One television station. “They have begun combat duty and are demonstrating their best qualities. Our customer is satisfied.”

There are broader questions about Russia’s ability to produce Su-57s, or other combat jets, in the face of years of Western sanctions. In Dubai yesterday, Rostec’s Chemezov acknowledged, but downplayed the impacts of sanctions, touting Russia’s resourcefulness in sourcing alternative items domestically. These claims aside, there is substantial evidence that Russia’s defense industry, overall, continues to acquire electronics and other key components from overseas, including from the West and increasingly from China, despite international sanctions.

Chemezov also said that Russian defense exports have been cut roughly in half since the start of the war in Ukraine. However, he blamed this on higher demand from Russia’s own armed forces rather than a drop in international interest in Russian arms. There are certainly reports that some countries have been working to decouple their defense procurement plans from Russia for geopolitical reasons in recent years. Nations that buy Russian weapon systems may also be at risk of triggering secondary sanctions, especially from the United States.

When it comes to the Su-57 specifically, Russia has reportedly offered a degree of local production as part of past pitches to the United Arab Emirates and India to help offset concerns about domestic capacity and sanctions. Bringing additional partners into the Su-57 program would also help reduce the cost burden on the Russian side. India previously cooperated with Russia on the development of a country-specific version of the jet before dropping out in 2018, reportedly over disappointment in the aircraft’s expected capabilities and how the program was progressing overall.

From Dubai Airshow:

Ahead of Putin visit, Russia Pitches to Delhi the Production of Su-57 Fighter Jet in India.

Senior representative of Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport says our “technology transfer comes without restrictions and possible sanctions.” pic.twitter.com/tnxbHeQPgc

— Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) November 18, 2025

Renewed discussions about Su-57 exports, especially in the Middle East, now also come against the backdrop of a prospective U.S. sale to Saudi Arabia of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The White House confirmed late yesterday that President Donald Trump had approved the deal, though members of Congress could still seek to block it, and other steps would also be required to finalize it. Saudi Arabia, as well as the United Arab Emirates, have pursued F-35 purchases in the past, but have been rebuffed, largely over operational security concerns and potential negative impacts to Israel’s so-called “qualitative edge” militarily in the region.

Trump has also taken a favorable stance when it comes to readmitting Turkey to the F-35 program. The Turkish government had been ejected from the program in 2019 in large part over its decision to purchase S-400 surface-to-air missile systems from Russia.

The Su-57 has often been presented as a potential alternative for many countries that cannot get approval to buy F-35s. A significant shift in U.S. policy when it comes to countries eligible to buy Joint Strike Fighters could have impacts on prospects for future Su-57 sales.

Rostec’s Chemezov was asked yesterday about direct competition between the Su-57 and the F-35. He downplayed any such rivalry, saying prospective customers are free to choose whatever design they think best suits their needs, according to the translator.

The international fighter market is not limited to Russia and the United States, either. China, in particular, is making increasing inroads in this space globally, and export variants or derivatives of its J-35 stealth fighter could be on the horizon.

While many significant questions remain about the future of the Su-57, even just in Russian service, work is clearly continuing at least on a level to improve the design, and with renewed focus on potential export sales.

Jamie Hunter contributed to this report.

Contact the author: [email protected]

United States President Donald Trump has distanced himself from disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, saying the former friends had severed ties more than a decade before his 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges.

But one Democrat is using newly released documents from Epstein’s estate to assert that the two remained friends after Trump first became president in 2016.

Representative Sean Casten, a Democrat from Illinois, highlighted one email exchange and said in a November 12 post on X: “Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017.”

Trump spent his first Thanksgiving after getting elected President with Jeffrey Epstein. 2017. pic.twitter.com/1CU51k8yl4

— Sean Casten (@SeanCasten) November 13, 2025

He attached an image of emails dated November 23, 2017 – Thanksgiving Day – between Epstein and NEXT Management Cofounder Faith Kates, which read:

Epstein: hope today is fun for you.

Kates: Fun!!! When are you back in NYC?

Epstein: all next week

Kates: Ok dylan will want to see you I always want to see you. Where are you having thanksgiving?

Epstein: eva

Faith Kates: That means glenn check out his red hair!!!

Epstein: berries color for holiday

Kates: He’s such a snooze who else is down there?

Epstein: david fizel. hanson. trump

Kates: Have fun!!!

Casten has not responded to a request for comment. “Those emails prove literally nothing,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in an email.

News reports, photos, videos and White House releases show Trump spent that 2017 Thanksgiving in Mar-a-Lago. PolitiFact, however, did not find any proof that he met Epstein that day.

There are different accounts of when Trump and Epstein had their falling out, with periods ranging from 2004 to 2007. The Miami Herald reported that Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago in October 2007, a decade before the Thanksgiving Day in question.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges of soliciting prostitution and soliciting prostitution from a minor.

Two of the three people Epstein mentioned in his 2017 email as being “down there” are people who had property in South Florida at the time. It is unclear who he was referring to when he mentioned “Hanson”. It is possible Epstein was not foretelling a specific Thanksgiving Day plan but answering another New Yorker’s question about who among the people in their social circle would also be in the Florida area during that period.

Trump arrived in West Palm Beach, Florida, on November 21, 2017, and stayed there for several days, according to the president’s public schedules documented in Roll Call’s FactBase.

On Thanksgiving morning, he spoke to members of the military via video conference and visited coastguard members at the Lake Worth Inlet Station in Riviera Beach, Florida. The White House published transcripts of Trump’s remarks to both groups. Trump also issued a Thanksgiving message to the country and went to the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

Photographers for The Associated Press news agency, The Palm Beach Post and Getty Images, among others, captured photos of Trump’s activities.

A CNN report said Trump held an “opulent” dinner at the Mar-a-Lago members-only club. PolitiFact did not find reports listing who was in attendance, but the White House told CNN the first family would be having “a nice Thanksgiving dinner with all the family”.

Trump was also active on social media. In a November 22, 2017, post on X, then known as Twitter, he said he “will be having meetings and working the phones from the Winter White House in Florida [Mar-a-Lago]”. He did not specify whom he would be meeting. On Thanksgiving morning, he said in part: “HAPPY THANKSGIVING, your Country is starting to do really well.”

HAPPY THANKSGIVING, your Country is starting to do really well. Jobs coming back, highest Stock Market EVER, Military getting really strong, we will build the WALL, V.A. taking care of our Vets, great Supreme Court Justice, RECORD CUT IN REGS, lowest unemployment in 17 years….!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 23, 2017

Trump left Mar-a-Lago and returned to the White House on November 26, 2017, the Sunday after Thanksgiving.

Militaries are major global polluters, yet they remain exempt from climate reporting, creating a blind spot that threatens the entire COP30 roadmap.

As COP30 negotiations in Belem enter their final stretch, there is hope that countries might finally agree on a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels — a breakthrough that is crucial if we are serious about keeping 1.5C alive. Yet even at this pivotal moment, one major highway is still missing from that roadmap that could undermine the progress made in Brazil: the carbon emissions of the military.

Under the Paris Agreement, governments are not required to report their militaries’ emissions, and most simply don’t. Recent analysis by the Military Emissions Gap project shows that what little data exists is patchy, inconsistent or missing entirely. This “military emissions gap” is the gulf between what governments disclose and the true scale of military pollution. The result is stark: militaries remain largely invisible in the Belem negotiations, creating a dangerous blind spot in global climate action.

The size of that blind spot is staggering. Militaries account for an estimated 5.5 percent of global emissions. This share is set to rise further as defence spending surges while the rest of society decarbonises. If militaries were a country, they would be the fifth-largest emitter on Earth, ahead of Russia with 5 percent. Yet only five countries follow the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) voluntary reporting guidelines for military emissions, and those cover fuel use alone. The reality is far broader: munitions production and disposal, waste management and fugitive emissions from refrigeration, air-conditioning, radar and electrical equipment are left out. And operations in international waters and airspace are not reported at all, leaving massive gaps in both climate accountability and action.

The military emissions gap widens further still when we consider the climate impact of armed conflicts. As if the horror and human suffering from fighting wars were not enough, wars also destroy ecosystems, leave a toxic legacy on lands for decades to follow, and result in significant CO2 emissions, including from the rebuilding following the destruction of buildings and infrastructure. But without any internationally agreed framework to measure conflict emissions, these additional emissions risk going unreported, meaning that we don’t know how much wars are setting back climate action.

But despite this, momentum for accountability is finally building. Nearly 100 organisations have signed the War on Climate initiative’s pledges ahead of COP30, and protesters and civil society groups in Belem are demanding the UNFCCC confront this long-ignored source of pollution. Policymakers are starting to shift, too. The European Union has taken steps towards more transparent reporting and decarbonisation in the defence sector, though this progress is now threatened by rapid rearmament. Combined with NATO’s new target for members to spend 5 percent of gross domestic product on militaries, these pledges could produce up to 200 million tonnes of CO2 and trigger as much as $298bn in climate damages annually, putting Europe’s own climate goals at risk.

International law reinforces the urgency and demand for accountability. The International Court of Justice’s recent landmark advisory opinion reminded states that they are obliged under climate treaties to assess, report and mitigate harms, including those caused by armed conflict and military activity. Ignoring these emissions doesn’t just undercount global warming; it masks the scale of the crisis and weakens the world’s ability to tackle its root causes.

The gap between current emission-reduction plans and what is needed to stay below the 1.5C limit remains catastrophic. If COP30 negotiators agree on a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels, what happens next will determine whether it delivers real progress or remains symbolic. No sector can be exempt from climate action, and military emissions cannot continue to remain hidden.

Mandatory reporting of all military emissions to the UNFCCC – from combat and training activities to the long-lasting climate damage inflicted on communities – is essential.  That data must form the baseline for urgent, science-aligned reductions, embedded in national climate plans, and consistent with the 1.5C limit.

Security cannot come at the cost of the climate. Tackling climate change is now essential to our collective safety and the survival of our planet.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Bola Tinubu says he suspended the trip in light of the abductions and a separate church attack in which armed men killed two people.

Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu has postponed his trip to South Africa for the Group of 20 summit, promising to intensify efforts to rescue 24 schoolgirls abducted by armed men earlier this week.

The president’s spokesperson, Bayo Onanuga, said in a statement on Wednesday that Tinubu suspended his departure in light of the girls’ abduction and a separate church attack in which gunmen killed two people.

Tinubu had been set to leave on Wednesday, days before the two-day summit of the world’s leading rich and developing nations was due to begin on Saturday.

“Disturbed by the security breaches in Kebbi State and Tuesday’s attack by bandits against worshippers at Christ Apostolic Church, Eruku, President Tinubu decided to suspend his departure” to the G20 summit, Onanuga said.

It was not clear immediately if or when Tinubu would leave for the weekend summit in Johannesburg.

Search for abducted girls ongoing

The schoolgirls were abducted by unidentified armed men from a secondary school in the northwestern town of Maga in Kebbi State late on Sunday night.

The attackers exchanged gunfire with police before scaling the perimeter fence and abducting the students.

One of the girls managed to escape, authorities said, but the school’s vice principal was killed. No group immediately claimed responsibility for abducting the girls, and their motivation was unclear.

Authorities say the gunmen are mostly former herders who have taken up arms against farming communities after clashes between them over strained resources.

In a separate attack on a church in western Nigeria on Tuesday, armed men killed two people during a service that was recorded and broadcast online.

Supporters of United States President Donald Trump have seized on the violence to embolden their claim that Christians are under attack in Nigeria.

Trump has threatened to invade Nigeria “guns-a-blazing” over what right-wing lawmakers in the US allege is a “Christian genocide“.

Nigeria has rejected the US president’s statements, saying more Muslims have been killed in the country’s various security crises.

Andy Burnham has twice failed to rule out a Labour leadership bid, after an MP said he would vacate his seat so the Greater Manchester mayor can return to Westminster.

Burnham has been at the centre of speculation about a move against Sir Keir Starmer since Labour’s autumn conference but could only do so if he was an MP.

On Wednesday, Norwich South MP Clive Lewis said he was willing to step down to potentially make way for Burnham to return to the Commons via a by-election.

Burnham was quizzed on the MP’s offer on both BBC Breakfast and BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, but would only say he is “fully focused” on his current role as mayor.

On BBC Breakfast, presenter Naga Munchetty tried to pin Burnham down on whether he would see out his full term as mayor, running until 2028.

“I don’t know what the world holds but I’m focused on my job here in Greater Manchester,” he responded.

Pushed further, he said “I haven’t launched any leadership challenge” before adding “I’m not going to sit here this morning and rule out what might or might not happen in future – I don’t know what the future will hold.”

Burnham then criticised journalists for speculating, saying he is “constantly answering hypothetical questions” and claimed MPs in Westminster were “constantly speculating and not putting forward solutions”.

The Labour Party rules for any leadership challenge state that candidates must be an MP and also secure the backing of at least 80 MPs to run against the incumbent.

Two Manchester MPs, Andrew Gwynne and Graham Stringer, previously ruled out stepping down from their seats so Burnham could run.

On Wednesday, Lewis told BBC’s Politics Live that stepping aside for Burnham was “a question I’ve asked myself,” adding that the answer would have to be “yes”.

The MP, who has represented Norwich South for 10 years, later told The Sun he had “no plans to stand down” and had been answering a “hypothetical question”.

The Norwich South MP last week said Sir Keir’s position as prime minister was “untenable” and told Channel 4 News that Burnham should be given the chance to “step up”.

On the Today programme, presenter Emma Barnett asked Burnham whether he would take Lewis up on his offer of vacating a seat, but he would only say “I appreciate the support” and repeated how he was focused on his current job.

Before becoming Manchester mayor in 2017, Burnham served as a cabinet and shadow cabinet minister under successive Labour leaders and made two unsuccessful Labour leadership bids.

Lewis first won his seat in 2015, and last year he increased his majority to more than 13,000.

But if he were to step down, any would-be successor would first need to win a selection contest before a by-election was held.

The U.S. Army’s top brass is in Ukraine to help reinvigorate a moribund peace process. Led by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, it includes Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George, the commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa Gen. Chris Donahue, and Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Weimer. It is the highest-ranking Trump delegation so far to visit the war-torn nation. 

Driscoll and his contingent are set to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tomorrow and have already been briefed by top Ukrainian military leaders. The meetings are taking place amid swirling rumors about a peace plan in the works that we will discuss in greater length later in this story.

Their visit comes on a day that Kyiv continues to lose ground on the battlefield, Russia carried out one of its deadliest strikes on western Ukraine and Zelensky finds his administration embroiled in its biggest political scandal that threatens to fracture his government.

In addition to talking about the peace plan, Army leaders were also in Kyiv to learn more about Ukraine’s battlefield innovations.

Driscoll told “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” on Sunday that Ukraine’s use of drones and AI technology is an “incredible treasure trove of information for future warfare.” He particularly noted Operation Spider Web, the surprise attack Ukraine launched in June deep inside Russia. Driscoll pointed out that a “couple hundred thousand dollars worth of drones” to destroy Russian equipment valued at about $10 billion. During Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the White House last month, he offered drone technology to the U.S.

During his meeting with the Driscoll contingent, Ukraine’s military commander-in-chief said he explained the latest battlefield conditions, Kyiv’s ongoing need for weaponry and his nation’s defense technology advancements.

“I emphasized that the enemy is building up its troop formations, continuing offensive operations and increasing their intensity, and launching missile strikes against residential areas, resulting in numerous civilian casualties,” Oleksandr Syrskyi said on Facebook. “We discussed strengthening Ukraine’s capabilities in air and missile defense, deep-strike systems, unmanned systems, training of the Defense Forces personnel, and other priority areas,” Syrskyi added. “I once again stressed that reinforcing the protection of Ukraine’s airspace, expanding our long-range strike capabilities against enemy military targets, and maintaining and stabilizing the front line will undermine the offensive potential of the adversary and ultimately compel it toward a just peace.”

Syrskyi also noted that Ukraine has severely damaged Russia’s energy infrastructure in long-range strikes and that his country’s “unique combat experience and rapid innovation cycles will contribute to scaling up mutually beneficial Ukrainian–American cooperation in the defense sector.”

However, as Syrskyi was meeting with the Americans, Russian forces were pushing deeper into yet another eastern Ukrainian city.

“BREAKING on the Donetsk front: Russian forces have broken through Ukrainian defenses south of Siversk,” former Zelensky spokesperson Iulia Mendel proclaimed on X. “Russians entered Siversk from the south and now control roughly 20% of the city. Ukrainian soldier ‘Muchnyi’ confirms the southern flank is gradually collapsing; Russians are infiltrating in small assault groups and trying to dig in inside the private residential sector. Siversk is under direct threat.”

The growing encroachment into Siversk comes as Russian forces are working to encircle Ukrainian troops across the Donetsk region. The Russian advances there come as they are also getting closer to seizing the former coal mining city of Pokrovsk, about 60 miles to the southwest. For more than a year, Pokrovsk has served as a bulwark against Russian advances in the region, inflicting a tremendous amount of damage on the invaders. You can see more about that fight in the following video by Kyiv Independent reporter Francis Farrel.

Beyond the frontlines, Russia staged one of its most deadly attacks on western Ukraine. 

At least 25 people, including three children, were killed in a Russian missile and drone attack that struck two blocks of apartments in the city of Ternopil, Zelensky said. Another 93 people were wounded.

“Again, the Russians killed innocent peaceful people who were simply sleeping in their homes,” he stated. “My condolences to all who lost relatives and loved ones.”

Right now, all our services keep working in Ternopil to help the victims and save as many lives as possible. Points of Invincibility have been set up, where people can receive the support they need.

Tragically, tonight, the people of Ternopil suffered the most from Russian… pic.twitter.com/AT5iswjqwj

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) November 19, 2025

Meanwhile, Zelensky finds himself in tremendous political peril at home as members of his inner circle stand accused of stealing $100 million from the state-owned nuclear power company.

“At the heart of the case is Energoatom, the nuclear power company,” The New York Times explained. “Investigators said that participants in the scheme had pressured Energoatom contractors to pay kickbacks of 10 to 15 percent.”

“If contractors refused, they were denied payments owed by Energoatom, according to investigators,” the Times added. “The scheme, they said, exploited a rule under martial law that prevents contractors from collecting debts in court from companies providing essential services, including Energoatom, which covers more than half of Ukraine’s electricity needs.”

According to investigators, the scheme was led by Timur Mindich, who co-owned a television studio founded by Zelensky, now facing growing calls for a purge of his associates. “Fedir Venislavskiy, a member of Mr. Zelensky’s party, said that the president’s powerful chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, should resign” as a result, the publication noted.

The issue has raised the ire of international donors and has weakened the Ukrainian leader’s hand, the BBC noted in the following newscast.

“Zelenksy is in the weakest position he’s been [in]…”

Robert Wilkie, who served in the first Trump administration, says corruption allegations facing the Ukrainian Government could weaken its hand in a reported US peace plan, and even force a change in leadership.#Newsnight pic.twitter.com/lPNGuzgbpc

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) November 19, 2025

Against the backdrop of all these events, the Trump administration is taking another stab at bringing the nearly four-year-old full-scale war to a close.

“U.S. and Russian officials have quietly drafted a new plan to end the war in Ukraine that would require Kyiv to surrender territory and severely limit the size of its military,” the Guardian noted. 

“The 28-point Trump plan calls for Russia to gain full de facto control of Luhansk and Donetsk (together referred to as the Donbas), despite Ukraine still controlling around 14.5% of the territory there, per the latest analysis by the Institute for the Study of War,” Axios reported.

“Despite being under Russian control, the areas in Donbas from which Ukraine would withdraw would be considered a demilitarized zone, with Russia not able to position troops there,” the outlet added. “In two other war-torn regions, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the current lines of control would mostly be frozen in place, with Russia returning some land, subject to negotiations.”

“Crucially, it also calls for Ukraine to abandon key categories of weaponry and would include the rollback of U.S. military assistance that has been vital to its defense, potentially leaving the country vulnerable to future Russian aggression,” Financial Times suggested. “Additionally, no foreign troops would be allowed on Ukrainian soil and Kyiv would no longer receive western long-range weapons that can reach deep inside Russia.”

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s envoy Kirill Dmitriev are believed to have been involved in working on the 28-point peace plan,” the BBC pointed out. Zelensky and Trump “have already agreed to stop the conflict along the existing lines of engagement, and there are agreements on granting security guarantees,” according to the BBC.

The Trump administration has signaled to Zelensky “that Ukraine must accept a U.S.-drafted framework to end the war,” Reuters wrote. 

It is still early in the process, however, and it is possible that some of these reports may prove premature or inaccurate, and it is possible the terms may change or still be in flux.

Zelensky, meanwhile, was meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara to talk about a potential peace plan.

“We discussed in detail the real ways to a reliable and dignified end to the war,” Zelensky explained. “Since the beginning of this year, we in Ukraine have supported all decisive steps and the leadership of President Trump, every strong and fair proposal to end this war.”

“And only President Trump and the United States of America have enough power to finally end the war,” he added. “But the main thing to stop the bloodshed and achieve lasting peace is that we work in coordination together with all partners and that American leadership remains effective, strong, and brings peace that will last long and provide security to the people.”

There is still a very long way to go before the guns fall silent, and the success of this latest Trump effort remains uncertain. However, given all the pressure he is under at home and abroad, Zelensky finds himself in his weakest bargaining position since Russian forces rolled into his country in February 2022.

Contact the author: [email protected]

This article will discuss the political context and strategic implications of the dissolution of the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) as a development that reconstructs the domestic political dynamics of Turkey and the Middle East region. For more than four decades, the Kurdish insurgency in Turkey initiated by the Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) has represented the rise of non-state actors as a new force in the international system while challenging the dominance of the state as the sole actor in the modern political configuration. The struggle for recognition of identity and official governmental autonomy ended with an official statement from its main pillar, Abdullah Öcalan, who was still in prison in February 2025. This call was then conveyed by a member of parliament from the pro-Kurdish party, containing orders to lay down arms, disband and end the armed conflict with Turkey. The dissolution of the PKK reinforced Ankara’s consolidation of power and strengthened the legitimacy of Turkey’s foreign policy under the Neo-Ottoman ideology. At the same time, the decision to dissolve the PKK reduced the space for Kurdish political articulation, which had opposed the government’s nationalist-Islamist and centralised narrative within the framework of the state.

PKK: Evolution of the Struggle, Regional Factors and Influences

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), also known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, is a militant organisation with Kurdish nationalist leanings, founded by Abdullah Öcalan in the late 1970s. The PKK rebellion was motivated by the Turkish government’s lack of sympathy towards Kurdish culture and its human rights violations against the population. This then encouraged the PKK group’s aspirations to gain political autonomy and territory through an independent Kurdish state. From the outset, this group has placed armed action as the main pillar of its struggle and has not hesitated to use violence against Kurds who are considered pro-Turkish government. Since 1984, this group has waged an armed rebellion against Turkey, which by 2024 had claimed the lives of more than 40,000 people, with thousands of other Kurds forced to flee the violence in southeastern Turkey to cities in the north.

As the decades of rebellion progressed, various internal and external factors began to shape new boundaries for the sustainability of the PKK’s armed movement. This was then supported by the involvement of several cross-border actors, including the PKK’s internal structure and militant wing, which included pro-Kurdish political parties and regional Kurdish networks, particularly the Yekîneyên Parastina Gel (YPG) or Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Syria and the KDP (Kurdistan Democratic Party) in Iraq. At the regional level, the dynamics of the PKK rebellion are influenced by the role of three major countries, namely Iran, Iraq and Syria, each of which has strategic and political interests in domestic Kurdish affairs that indirectly shape the PKK’s room for manoeuvre. Although it temporarily ceased its activities in the 2000s, the group is indicated to have resumed guerrilla attacks in south-eastern Turkey, resulting in a domino effect of various violent incidents.

Military Pressure, Regional Dynamics and the End of the PKK Rebellion

In the 1990s, Turkey targeted PKK bases operating in the Kurdish safe zone in northern Iraq through air strikes, which were then followed by ground operations. Ultimately, 2007 marked the peak of the Turkish government’s response to this conflict with the passing of a mandate for cross-border military operations against the PKK in Iraq, followed by a series of air strikes and ground operations in February 2008. Although attempts were made to pursue a peace process, this did not prove to be a solution due to the presence of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), which played a significant role in the Syrian Civil War and ultimately triggered the peak of the fighting in 2015 and 2016. Since 2015, the insurgency has resulted in nearly 6,000 casualties, including 600 civilians, 1,300 soldiers, and 4,000 PKK and TAK members (CSIS, 2023).

Subsequently, these developments ultimately crystallised in a political decision in 2025, when the PKK declared an official end to its armed struggle. The author argues that this was influenced by several key factors, including a lack of significant political achievements coupled with a continuing weakening of military capacity, a narrowing operational area, and instability in external support, meaning that the costs of armed struggle were not commensurate with the results obtained. In addition, the PKK has been under constant military pressure from Turkey since Erdoğan came to power, resulting in the loss of safe havens for the PKK to train, hide and mobilise its forces. Öcalan’s ideological shift, which began to question the effectiveness of armed action, also led to the end of the rebellion, as he stated last February that the democratic path was the only way to realise a political system. Based on this statement, Öcalan has emphasised that armed struggle is no longer relevant and that the PKK must abandon its military strategy and choose the political path.

The PKK and the Consolidation of Neo-Ottomanism in Turkey

Neo-Ottomanism is a political and cultural orientation that developed in Turkey after the reform from a secular government to an approach more based on Islamic values, which grew stronger under the leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. This doctrine is manifested in Turkey’s expansive foreign policy, which encompasses geopolitical strategies, overt military intervention, strategic alliances and cultural expansion, with the aim of restoring Turkey’s role as a major regional power and repeating the glory days of the Ottoman EmpireOne of the main ideas of this doctrine emphasises the importance of uniting all ethnic groups, regardless of ethnic background or religious affiliation, with the aim of maintaining the sustainability of the Ottoman Empire and ensuring the welfare of its people (Ivaylo, 2019). Based on this framework, the existence of Kurdish groups such as the PKK, whose main ambition is to gain autonomy and political identity, is considered a serious challenge to the narrative of statehood and Turkey’s dominant role in the region. Therefore, this shows intense tension between local identity aspirations and Turkey’s vision to assert its influence both domestically and regionally.

The Neo-Ottomanism doctrine aims to emphasise Turkey’s image as a strong, stable and leading country in the region. Meanwhile, the PKK rebellion has hindered the positive narrative that the government, particularly the Justice and Development Party (AKP), wants to build. The Erdoğan administration combines Ottoman rhetoric with modern nationalism and the narrative of national security, so that military operations against the PKK become part of Turkey’s duty to maintain unity and buffer zones in areas that were historically under Ottoman rule. In this case, consistent military pressure through Euphrates Shield (2016), Olive Branch (2018) and Claw Operations (2019-2013), accompanied by regional diplomacy and gradual political-economic integration efforts, has reduced the operational capacity and limited the movement of rebel groups such as the PKK. Ultimately, these factors, which were also supported by internal strategic transformations, including Öcalan’s ideological influence leading to the decision to “surrender”, reflect the implementation of the Neo-Ottomanism doctrine strategy and mark a new phase in both the Turkish government’s relationship with Kurdish groups and the opportunity to reshape the domestic and regional security landscape.

A New Phase and Paradigm Shift

Overall, the end of the PKK rebellion in 2025 not only marks the end of an armed conflict that has lasted more than four decades, but also manifests Turkey’s success in enforcing its Neo-Ottoman ideology at the domestic and regional levels to maintain its sovereignty and territory. The dissolution of the PKK was the result of consistent military pressure, structured diplomatic strategies and political-economic integration to limit the movement of non-state actors, in this case the rebels, while strengthening Ankara’s dominance. However, the author argues that it is not impossible that the rebellion will return with new patterns and strategies, although this will take a long time. Thus, this phenomenon is a tangible manifestation of the implementation of Neo-Ottomanism principles, which emphasise strengthening Turkey’s security, political legitimacy and regional influence, supported by a combination of military instruments, diplomacy and ideological pressure on local identities.