fights

Ukraine has mounted a fierce defence of Pokrovsk for the fifth straight week since Russia’s concerted offensive began to take its eastern city, while at the same time it tries to finesse a Russian-inspired United States peace plan heavily criticised by US lawmakers.

The Russian Ministry of Defence said on Monday its “assault groups of the 2nd Army have completely liberated the Gornyak and Shakhtersky microdistricts in Pokrovsk.

On Tuesday, it said its forces were fighting in the Vostochny and Zapadny districts of Myrnohrad, to the east of Pokrovsk.

Both cities, in Ukraine’s Donetsk region, lie within an envelope which Russian forces have gradually tried to seal shut. Supplies and reinforcements can currently only reach Ukrainian forces from the west – and Russia claims to have effective fire control over those supply routes.

Ukrainian officials insisted the defence of Pokrovsk was still very much a contest. “Our positions are held in the centre of Pokrovsk, shooting battles continue, and the enemy fails to consolidate,” said Ukraine’s head of the Center for Countering Disinformation Andriy Kovalenko on Sunday, citing the 7th Air Assault Brigade fighting there.

Ukraine has evidently strained its resources to defend the Pokrovsk-Myrnohrad enclave, whereas the concentration of Russian offensive forces in Pokrovsk has not compromised their ability to assault elsewhere.

During November 20-27, Russia claimed to have seized Petropavlovka in Kharkiv, Novoselivka, Maslyakovka, Yampol, Stavki, Zvanovka, Petrovskoye, Ivanopolye and Vasyukovka in Donetsk, Tikhoye and Otradnoye in Dniperopetrovsk, and Novoye Zaporozhiye and Zatishye in Zaporizhia.

The Russian forces’ recent rate of advance has amounted to about half a dozen villages a week.

But Ukraine disputes some of Russia’s claims.

On November 20, Russian chief of staff Valery Gerasimov said his forces had seized the city of Kupiansk in Ukraine’s northern Kharkiv region, and were setting upon retreating Ukrainian units on the left bank of the Oskil River.

But Kovalenko replied on the Telegram messaging service: “Russia did NOT occupy Kupiansk. Gerasimov is just a liar,” and he repeated the claim a week later.

Ukraine has also had successes on the ground, according to its commander-in-chief, Oleksandr Syrskii. “Despite enemy pressure, the Defence Forces of Ukraine managed to carry out counteroffensive actions in the Dobropillia direction from the end of August to October this year,” he said, referring to a failed Russian flanking manoeuvre towards a town northwest of Pokrovsk.

“As a result, the units split the enemy’s offensive group and liberated over 430 square kilometres [166 square miles] north of Pokrovsk. Russian losses amounted to more than 13,000 killed and wounded.”

Russia also kept up pressure on Ukraine’s rear, launching 1,169 drones and 25 missiles at its cities during the week of November 20-26. Ukraine downed 85 percent of the drones and 14 of the missiles, but Zelenskyy called for more short- and medium-range defences.

Questionable diplomacy

Europe, Ukraine and members of the US Congress have all pushed back against a 28-point peace plan presented by the US administration of Donald Trump last week, describing it as too Russia-friendly.

In its original form, the plan granted key points that Russia has demanded. That included a promise from Ukraine never to join NATO and the surrendering of almost all the territory Russia has taken by force, along with the unoccupied remainder of Donetsk. The US and Ukraine’s other Western allies would have to recognise those annexations as legal.

Ukraine would have to hold an election within 100 days of the plan’s signature – one that Russia seems to believe would unseat Zelenskyy.

Russia has also demanded that Ukraine effectively disarm. The 28-point plan suggests reducing its armed forces by about a third, to 600,000 personnel.

“Right now is one of the hardest moments in our history,” Zelenskyy told the Ukrainian people after seeing the plan, describing it as a choice between “either the loss of our dignity or the risk of losing a key partner”.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Roger Wicker said in a statement: “This so-called ‘peace plan’ has real problems, and I am highly skeptical it will achieve peace.”

Polish Premier Donald Tusk politely said on social media: “It would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created.”

The plan drew heavily from a Russian non-paper submitted to the White House in October, said the Reuters news agency.

“Trump’s 28-point plan, which we have, enshrines the key understandings reached during the Alaska summit,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters.

“I would say not all, but many provisions of this plan, they seem quite acceptable to us,” Putin aide Yury Ushakov told the TASS Russian state news agency.

The United Kingdom, France and Germany drafted a counter-proposal on Sunday, and a Ukrainian delegation led by former Defence Minister Rustem Umerov met with US negotiators under Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Geneva to discuss both documents.

Europe ruled out accepting territorial exchanges resulting from aggression, and suggested territorial negotiations begin from the line of contact without prior Ukrainian concessions. It also suggested Ukraine maintain a strong army of no fewer than 800,000 people, and receive an effective NATO security guarantee.

Their joint statement on Monday simply said they would “continue intensive work”, with final decisions to be made by Trump and Zelenskyy.

Much had been done to refine the original 28 points into a workable agreement, said Zelenskyy. “Now the list of necessary steps to end the war can become doable,” he told Ukrainians somewhat cryptically, describing the work that remained as “very challenging”.

Ukraine has pushed for a meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump before December to thrash out the plan’s final form, but on Tuesday, Bloomberg released transcripts of a leaked telephone conversation between Trump confidant Steve Witkoff and Putin aide Yury Ushakov, in which Witkoff advised Ushakov to have Putin call Trump before Zelenskyy had a chance to meet him. Witkoff suggested that Putin flatter Trump as a peacemaker to win his favour and shape the peace plan directly with him.

That leak prompted opposition to Witkoff travelling to Moscow next week to discuss the reworked plan with Russian officials. The White House said he is to replace General Keith Kellogg, who resigned as mediator for Ukraine after seeing the original 28-point plan.

“It is clear that Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations. Would a Russian paid agent do less than he?” wrote Republican Congressman Don Bacon on social media.

For those who oppose the Russian invasion and want to see Ukraine prevail as a sovereign & democratic country, it is clear that Witkoff fully favors the Russians. He cannot be trusted to lead these negotiations. Would a Russian paid agent do less than he? He should be fired. https://t.co/dxMsda0YV5

— Rep. Don Bacon 🇺🇸✈️🏍️⭐️🎖️ (@RepDonBacon) November 25, 2025

In his first extensive remarks on the peace proposal, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin backed away from an agreement with Ukraine, saying, “Signing documents with the Ukrainian leadership is pointless,” because Zelenskyy was a president who had outlived his mandate.

“I believe that the Ukrainian authorities made a fundamental and strategic mistake when they succumbed to the fear of participating in the presidential elections,” he said, referring to the spring of 2025, when Zelenskyy’s four-year term expired.

Zelenskyy was elected in 2019, and the parliament has twice extended his tenure under the constitutional provision of a national emergency.

Putin said the 28 points did not amount to a peace treaty, calling them “a set of questions that were proposed for discussion and final wording”.

“In general, we agree that this can be the basis for future agreements,” Putin said.

After 14 days, two “College GameDays,” two “Monday Night Footballs” and one election night, the protracted contract dispute between YouTube TV and Walt Disney Co. is finally over.

As my colleague Meg James reported last week, the two sides settled Friday after agreeing on a multi-year distribution deal for YouTube to carry Disney-owned programming.

Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Both sides touted the agreement as a win for consumers. Disney Entertainment Co-Chairs Alan Bergman and Dana Walden and ESPN chief Jimmy Pitaro said in a joint statement that the deal “recognizes the tremendous value of Disney’s programming and provides YouTube TV subscribers with more flexibility and choice.”

For its part, YouTube also noted that the settlement “preserves the value of our service for our subscribers” and “future flexibility in our offers.” The Google-owned platform also apologized to consumers for the “disruption,” saying it appreciated people’s patience during the dispute.

Of course, reaching an agreement is good for customers who had lost access to ESPN, ABC News election coverage and other programming during the two-week blackout.

But this is far from the last impasse that sports fans and other viewers will see — if history is any guide.

In fact, the number of blackouts related to carriage and contract disputes has been increasing over the last decade, particularly as the health of the television business has declined, raising the economic stakes for all sides.

Back in the day, contracts between content providers and distributors would last for five years or more because the industry was more stable and little would change over the course of an agreement.

That’s obviously all different now, with most deals today lasting about two to three years, reflecting rapid changes in a TV business that has been upended by streaming platforms.

In today’s TV landscape — with cable cord-cutters aplenty and many more options to watch your favorite shows and sports teams — negotiations are more fraught.

Traditional pay TV providers like DirecTV and Charter Communications are scrambling to retain their subscribers, while legacy media companies like Disney are trying to support their networks — particularly channels such as ESPN that have invested huge sums for those all-important sports rights that keep viewers engaged.

And in the midst of it all is the growing power of live TV streaming distributors, especially YouTube TV, which has become a much bigger force in the TV business.

The platform’s subscriber base has been quickly growing.

YouTube is approaching 10 million subscribers, making it the third-largest pay-TV distributor, behind Charter Communications and Comcast. Back in February, when it reached a deal with Paramount Global to avert a CBS blackout, that number was reported at 8 million.

Such growth is giving YouTube TV — with the financial backing of tech giant Google — more clout in contract negotiations, making them more willing to push back against fee increases demanded by legacy Hollywood media companies.

Disney sought rates similar to those paid by major distributors, including around $10 a subscriber per month for ESPN, CNBC reported.

“They realize their power,” said Brent Penter, associate analyst at Raymond James. “And they’re trying to use it.”

But Disney is no wilting flower, either. Last week, Disney’s Chief Financial Officer Hugh Johnston struck a tough tone on CNBC when talking about the negotiations, saying, “We’re ready to go as long as they want to.”

The Burbank entertainment giant has some of the most popular programming around, meaning it can command the biggest fees from providers. It also owns a competitor to YouTube TV in Hulu + Live TV and its new ESPN Unlimited direct-to-customer streaming service.

But in this dispute, Disney temporarily lost the distribution fees and potentially advertising dollars for any of its programs that a YouTube TV subscriber didn’t watch, making it a costly standoff.

No one wins in a blackout situation. But if you had to pick a winner, analysts say it might be the alternatives to YouTube TV — services like Fubo, Sling TV, DirecTV Stream and Hulu + Live TV.

If you’re a diehard Eagles fan who also happens to be a YouTube TV subscriber, and you refused to miss the game against the Packers last Monday, you might have signed up for temporary passes through one of these services. And if you liked it, well, you might choose to keep that subscription instead.

That also goes back to the complicated web of options consumers must wade through to find their favorite teams and shows.

“There is friction out there,” said Ric Prentiss, managing director at Raymond James. “Blackouts raise it to a head, where people say, ‘Wait, I don’t know how to navigate this,’ and they start looking at other alternatives.”

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

TV station owner Sinclair Inc. has an eye toward dominating the TV market. The Baltimore-based company, which is known for its conservative bent, has acquired about 8% of rival broadcaster E.W. Scripps, according to a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sinclair also said in the filing that it has had “constructive discussions” with Scripps about potentially combining, though no deal has been reached. Scripps, however, has suggested that it is not interested in a merger.

Finally …

It might be a sign of the economy. My colleague, Suhauna Hussain, wrote about how McDonald’s is seeing lower traffic from one of its core customer bases, low-income households.

On Marajo Island, at the confluence of the Amazon River and Atlantic Ocean in northern Brazil, life ebbs and flows with the tides.

For more than four decades, Ivanil Brito found paradise in her modest stilt house, just 20 metres (65ft) from the shoreline, where she and her husband Catito fished, cultivated crops, and tended to livestock.

“I was a very happy person in that little piece of land. That was my paradise,” she says.

That paradise vanished during a violent storm in February 2024, when relentless waters surged through Vila do Pesqueiro town, eroding the coastline that had nourished generations. “Even though we didn’t move far, it feels like a completely different world,” says Ivanil from their new settlement less than a kilometre (half a mile) inland. “This is a mangrove area – hotter, noisier, and not a place where we can raise animals or grow crops.”

Vila do Pesqueiro, home to about 160 families, lies within the Soure Marine Extractive Reserve, a protected area under the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation. Established to preserve traditional ways of life and sustainable resource management, the reserve now confronts the harsh realities of climate change. While fishing remains the primary livelihood, local cuisine and tourism provide supplementary income to the residents. Yet, intensifying tides and accelerating erosion threaten their existence.

For Ivanil’s son Jhonny, a fisherman studying biology at Universidade do Para, in the Marajo-Soure campus, these transformations are worrying. “The place where our houses used to be is now underwater,” he says. “For me, moving isn’t just about safety – it’s about protecting the place and the people who shaped my life.”

Meanwhile, residents like Benedito Lima and his wife Maria Lima have chosen to remain, despite their home now standing perilously close to the water’s edge. Leaving would mean surrendering their livelihood. “Every new tide shakes the ground,” Benedito says, gazing towards what used to be a safely distant canal. “This isn’t even the high-tide season yet.”

Climate adaptation here takes various forms. Some rebuild farther inland, while others adjust their daily routines to accommodate the sea’s advance. Community leader Patricia Ribeiro believes a collective resilience sustains Vila do Pesqueiro. “Our stories have always been passed down through generations,” she says. “This is our home, our ancestry. We want to stay here to protect what our families built. As long as we’re together, we won’t give up.”

As Brazil prepares to host the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) in nearby Belem, communities like Vila do Pesqueiro exemplify what is at stake. Through its initiatives, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says it supports efforts to enhance resilience, protect livelihoods, and ensure these families can continue living safely on their ancestral lands.

This photo gallery was provided by the International Organization for Migration.