plan

Nov. 30 (UPI) — Top Ukrainian and American leaders are scheduled to meet late Sunday to renew talks about a plan to end the latest chapter in the decades-long battle between Russia and Ukraine.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump‘s special envoy Steve Witkof are set to meet with a Ukrainian delegation to discuss details of the U.S. backed plan to bring the violence to an end.

Ukraine seeks international security guarantees as part of the agreement, as well as a ceasefire based on the existing frontlines, and has refused to cede any Ukrainian territory that is not already under Russian control.

Russian President Vladimir Putin does not appear set to offer any concessions, instead demanding that any military aggression will end “once Ukrainian troops withdraw from the territories they occupy,” according to CNN.

Rubio met with the Ukrainian delegation in Geneva last week to discuss a 28-point plan to end the war, which included demands by Putin that Russia regain its standing on the international stage and that Ukraine be forbidden from joining NATO, a group to which it has long sought membership.

Ukraine said then that the plan was highly favorable to Russia, and that it required “additional work.” The plan ultimately fell by the wayside, prompting the need for the Sunday meeting between the U.S. and Ukrainian delegations.

Russian officials have said they have received some details of the new plan, but have not disclosed them.

“This isn’t an official one, but we do have the document,” Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said. “We haven’t discussed it with anyone yet because the points in it require truly serious analysis and discussion.”

Trump suggested a Thanksgiving Day deadline for a deal to be signed, but later backed away from that, or any, timeline for the war to end.

“You know what the deadline is for me? When it’s over,” Trump said.

The negotiations are happening amidst Russian missile and drone attacks on key infrastructure in cities across Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed Sunday that over the last week, Russia has launched at least 1,400 drone attacks, 1,100 guided aerial bomb strikes and carried out 66 missile attacks on Ukraine.

Ukraine has responded by targeting Russian energy and military infrastructure outposts, striking them with long-range drones and missiles. It also launched drone attacks over the weekend on two tankers shipping oil to Russia in the Black Sea.

The imposing Beaux-Arts mansion at the Huntington in San Marino, designed at the start of the 20th century by architects Myron Hunt and Elmer Grey, first opened to the public in 1928, just for a few weekday afternoon hours, following the deaths of founders Arabella and Henry E. Huntington. (They’re buried out on the lawn.) The railroad, shipbuilding and real estate tycoon (1850-1927) and his wife (1850-1924) were sometimes said to be America’s wealthiest couple, equivalent to billionaires today when their fortune is adjusted for inflation, and they had been spending lavishly on art for two decades. Their nonprofit was founded in 1919, partly to take advantage of brand new income tax deductions for charities, a government novelty lessening what was surely a hefty annual federal assessment, plus eventual estate taxes. For more than 30 years after it opened, their grand house-museum held the best art collection — by far — that the suburban Los Angeles public could see.

The Huntington’s Art Museum, once home to Henry and Arabella Huntington, boasts a large collection of European, American and East Asian art.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

L.A. has seen various major art museums blossom since the 1960s, but the Huntington collection is still enormously impressive. The centerpiece is European paintings, sculptures and decorative arts — especially 18th century British and, secondarily, French — while American art claims maturing depth. (Chinese and Japanese art holdings are modest.) A 2021 acquisitions partnership with the Ahmanson Foundation is bringing major additions, so far including exceptional paintings by Francisco Goya and Thomas Cole.

What follows is a selection of 22 works, chosen from the mansion and the Virginia Scott Steele Galleries for American Art, a short walk away. (The art’s locations are noted as “M1” or “M2” for the mansion’s two floors, or “S” for the Steele.) Note, however, that this is most definitely not a “best of” list. Some works would surely turn up on such a selection, but the aim here is instead to give an idea of the diverse pleasures that will be found throughout the place. The list is in chronological order.

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN — Barack Obama met with U.S. troops and received a military briefing on conditions in Afghanistan on Saturday during the opening leg of an overseas trip designed to showcase his appeal in foreign capitals and reassure American voters that he would make a reliable commander in chief.

Obama’s trip is scheduled to include a visit to Iraq, and his foreign policy judgment got an unexpected boost from that country’s leader, Nouri Maliki, who praised the Democratic presidential candidate’s plan for withdrawing U.S. troops over a 16-month period.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Maliki embraced Obama’s plan, saying: “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Maliki said he was not making an endorsement in the presidential race.

The presumed Republican nominee, John McCain, has said that conditions in Iraq could worsen if troops were removed at the pace his rival has advised.

Obama’s high-profile trip caps a week on the campaign trail during which he focused on national security and U.S. commitments abroad — areas that are considered special strengths of McCain.

Seizing on Maliki’s favorable comments, the Obama campaign put out a statement from his senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice: “Sen. Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16-month timeline for the redeployment of U.S. combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

In a speech last week, Obama said that troops should be drawn down in Iraq and two additional combat brigades deployed in Afghanistan, a war he said the U.S. couldn’t afford to lose.

His visit to Afghanistan comes at a time of sharply deteriorating security across the country. Suicide bombings are an everyday occurrence, and the number of foreign troops killed last month was the highest since the start of the war.

The presumptive Democratic nominee and senator from Illinois is part of an official congressional delegation that includes Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). The lawmakers made a brief visit to Jalalabad airfield in eastern Afghanistan, greeting American troops from their respective home states.

At Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Obama and the others met with senior military officials and got a briefing from the commander of American forces in eastern Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser. The decision to have the delegation meet with Schloesser probably reflected growing U.S. concern over infiltration of fighters from tribal lands on the Pakistani side of the frontier, which borders Afghanistan’s eastern provinces.

Although Afghanistan’s south is the traditional heartland of the insurgency, the eastern front, where U.S. forces are concentrated, has heated up dramatically in recent weeks. American troops suffered their worst single-incident loss in three years last Sunday, when about 200 insurgents staged a well-organized assault on a remote base near the Pakistani border manned by U.S. and Afghan troops; nine Americans were killed and 15 wounded.

On Saturday, a NATO soldier was killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar province. The soldier’s nationality was not released, but nearly all Western troops in that area are Canadian.

On the eve of his trip, Obama told reporters he wanted to make a firsthand evaluation of the Afghan and Iraqi war zones.

“Well, I’m looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,” he said Thursday. “I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense — both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad — of, you know, what . . . their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they’ve been doing.”

In the Afghan capital, where constant power disruptions limit people’s access to radio and television news reports, many residents were not aware of Obama’s arrival. He is to meet with President Hamid Karzai today.

Obama caused a stir this month with remarks about the struggles of the Karzai government.

“I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan and [the] government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence,” Obama told CNN.

Yet there is considerable enthusiasm here at the prospect of a change in the American administration. Many Afghans, while grateful for the U.S.-led invasion more than six years ago that drove the Taliban from power, are disappointed that the country still faces violence and poverty.

Obama “has good ideas about Afghanistan, and I hope he becomes the U.S. president,” said university student Hafeez Mohammad Sultani, 23. “He is young and full of energy.”

Others, however, were more skeptical.

“Bush couldn’t provide security in Afghanistan, so that will be difficult for Obama too,” said telecommunications worker Shams ul-Rahman, 38. “This is a very big challenge for America — maybe there will be some changes in the way Obama is thinking about Afghanistan.”

Obama’s companions on the trip are considered possible administration appointees should he win the presidency. Reed is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Hagel is a Vietnam veteran who, like Obama, has opposed the Iraq war.

Recent polls show that most Americans see McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, as the more seasoned of the two candidates when it comes to foreign policy.

To close the gap, Obama has been trying to shore up his credentials. In speeches and opinion pieces, Obama has argued that invading Iraq was a mistake, that Iraqi officials also favor a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, and that Afghanistan is the real front in the war on terrorism.

In that respect, Maliki’s remarks gave Obama a boost and left McCain in an awkward spot.

The Arizona senator has said that U.S. troops should leave Iraq when the Maliki government and U.S. commanders on the ground deem the country secure. But McCain has dismissed Obama’s 16-month timeline as politically motivated and said it was an invitation for more chaos in Iraq.

McCain’s senior foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, said in a statement Saturday: “The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.

“Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama.

“The fundamental truth remains that Sen. McCain was right about the [U.S. troop] surge and Sen. Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Sen. Obama’s views had prevailed.”

The Republican candidate also has ridiculed Obama for making pronouncements on Iraq and Afghanistan in advance of his visit.

In a radio address Saturday, McCain said: “My opponent . . . announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on a fact-finding mission that will include visits to both those countries. Apparently, he’s confident enough that he won’t find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable.”

Obama is scheduled to visit the Middle East and Europe in what will probably become a media spectacle, with television news anchors covering each stop as though Obama were a head of state.

Images of adoring crowds greeting Obama in Germany and elsewhere feed into a campaign strategy to demonstrate that as president he would improve the United States’ beleaguered reputation in Europe.

Before landing in Afghanistan, the delegation stopped in Kuwait.

Obama relaxed there with U.S. troops, taking to the basketball court for a game of H-O-R-S-E.

—

[email protected]

Times staff writer Nicholas reported from Washington and special correspondent Faiez from Kabul. Times staff writers Laura King in Istanbul, Turkey, Michael Muskal in Los Angeles and Nicholas Riccardi in New York contributed to this report.

—

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

What Maliki said

Here is a part of Iraqi leader Nouri Maliki’s interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he supported Barack Obama’s timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:

Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq?

As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Is this an endorsement for the U.S. presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Source: Der Spiegel

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.

NAPA, Calif. — The Buena Vista tasting room is not just another downtown Napa wine bar.

It is a conspicuously indulgent place, where epicureans can fill their glasses with cabernet and sink into the carefully restored mezzanine’s dark velvet lounges for a tasting of fine caviar and artisan chocolates resembling museum pieces.

One vibe this nook of luxury does not give off is that of a community in distress. Its neighbor in the ornate 1920s Italianate edifice known as the Gordon Building is an Anthropologie store.

The redevelopment of the building, damaged in an earthquake, was bankrolled using a tax shelter created in 2017 for the wealthiest Americans on the promise it would bring opportunity to the most downtrodden places.

Billions of dollars’ worth of tax breaks for the wealthy are being generated by the Opportunity Zone program, often in pursuit of luxury high-rises, high-end hotels and swank office space. It has subsidized hulking self-storage units nestled alongside freeways and upmarket apartments for employees of the hottest Bay Area tech firms.

One thing the tax break has fallen short on: creating opportunities in low-income communities.

Opportunity zones were supposed to encourage investment in low-income communities. But billionaires are building luxury hotels and high-rises, instead.

“This has been perverted into a huge gift for people who did not need it,” said Aaron Seybert, managing director of social investment at the Kresge Foundation, which has found it difficult to put the tax break to work toward its effort to bring opportunity to America’s struggling communities.

“They are spending my money and yours. They said they would do that because these low-income areas are falling behind and they want to help people who live there,” Seybert said.

“The places I work in every day have raised virtually nothing” through the program, he said.

The same grievance can be heard from mayors of struggling towns throughout the nation. Among those declaring the program a bust is the East Baltimore pastor who went to the White House in 2018 to help President Trump unveil it. His community has been passed over as investors chase the double-digit returns that accompany the tax shelter in upscale markets.

The story of how this all happened has deep California roots, sprouting from the vision of a Silicon Valley billionaire who inserted himself into the machinations of federal policymaking.

The Opportunity Zone program was the vision of Silicon Valley billionaire Sean Parker, shown here in 2018.

(Michael Brochstein / Getty Images)

Sean Parker — founder of Napster, Facebook’s first president and the Silicon Valley bad boy depicted in the film “The Social Network” — seemed a stretch for this role.

Parker began working the Washington circuit late in the Obama era, when it was still hospitable to super-rich tech innovators but few had the patience or humility to navigate it. Washington is not about moving quickly and breaking things. Long, slow insider games of horse-trading precede almost every big new federal policy.

Yet Parker’s plan had bipartisan appeal. It focused on the wealth of Americans loath to reinvest their stock market, real estate and other capital gains profits because of the hefty tax bills that come when that money is moved. The idea was to give them a break on those taxes if they steered the money to communities desperate for investment.

“He really went to school on how Washington works,” said David Wessel, author of “Only the Rich Can Play: How Washington Works in the New Gilded Age,” which chronicles Parker’s quest and what became of the program he championed. “He hired a couple of Washington insiders, one a Democrat and one a Republican, and they created this think tank with the goal of getting Opportunity Zones into law…. They laid the foundation by making the case that we have a problem with geographic inequality in the United States, and it is not just incremental.”

Parker held private dinners with lawmakers of competing ideological loyalties, and he donated generously across the aisle.

“The idea initially sounded great,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, a Silicon Valley Democrat who had been approached by Parker to run the think tank, called the Economic Innovation Group. “I was quite enthusiastic about it.” Khanna passed on the job offer, as he was gearing up for a congressional run at the time, but once elected, he would join the push behind the tax break.

Downtown Napa’s Opportunity Zone.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

The historic Franklin Station postal building, a site proposed for a boutique hotel, is in downtown Napa’s Opportunity Zone.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

It allows investors to park their capital gains in Opportunity Zone projects. When they do, they can put off paying taxes on those gains for years, and cut that tax bill by as much as 15% when it does come due. The bigger draw: If they keep their money in the Opportunity Zone project for a decade, they don’t pay any taxes at all on the potentially large profits they make off that investment. The cumulative cost of the incentive is $1.6 billion in foregone tax revenue per year, which the Urban Institute says makes it one of the largest federal programs for steering investment into distressed places.

It seemed a price worth paying for even some progressive Democrats like Khanna if the end result was a flourishing of opportunity in the nation’s economic deserts.

But the California dreaming was disrupted by Washington deal-making. There was no hearing or any public vetting of the measure by lawmakers before it got quietly tucked into the Trump tax cut package of 2017. The final regulations were astoundingly permissive, full of provisions that allowed census districts in some of the nation’s wealthiest places to qualify as Opportunity Zones.

“It has not been used in ways that actually ended up creating jobs,” Khanna said. “It has been gamed.”

The money often has flowed to projects promising big financial returns that analysts — including those on then-President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors — conclude would have happened without the tax break.

While Parker and his think tank remain bullish that with some tweaks Opportunity Zones will be the “Marshall Plan for the heartland” they promised, many erstwhile backers are angry about what the program has become.

Angel Barajas, a Yolo County supervisor, walks through an Opportunity Zone in Woodland, west of Sacramento, that he says has been left behind by the program.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

“Woodland needs housing, it needs infill development,” said Enrique Fernandez, the former mayor of the heavily Latino city west of Sacramento, which persuaded the state to designate two of its census tracts as Opportunity Zones. The tax break has drawn none of it.

“I am really skeptical about the true intentions of this law and how it was implemented,” Fernandez said.

The city of Woodland’s Opportunity Zone district is only an hour’s drive from Napa’s Gordon Building but is in a different universe economically, riddled with vacant lots and litter. It could be a ripe canvas for development as the nearby main street comes alive with new small businesses bolstered by home buyers and renters moving to the town in search of a cheaper alternative to Sacramento, but the tax break is doing nothing to speed that transition.

Jose Ahumada Ruelas gathers recyclables to help his daughter, who collects them for income, at Yolano Village, a low-income housing development in Woodland’s Opportunity Zone.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

On a recent tour of the area, local officials said the investment needed to revitalize the blighted swaths of their community might have come if lawmakers had made good on their promise to steer the incentives only to struggling communities.

There are 8,764 census tracts designated as Opportunity Zones nationwide. Only 16% of them attracted any projects in the gold rush for rich investors in the program’s first year, when the tax breaks were most lucrative, according to an April 2021 UC Berkeley report based on aggregate data from the IRS.

Nearly half the cash invested went to the richest 1% of Opportunity Zones — places that rarely fit the conventional definition of distressed. Data from the consulting firm Novogradac reveal California cities are getting more of that cash than anyplace else.

In Oakland, Opportunity Zone tax breaks are being used to build high-rise apartments on the waterfront; they’ll rent at market rate, far out of reach for most locals. The situation is the same in downtown Long Beach and in Los Angeles neighborhoods like Koreatown and Little Tokyo. In Portland, Ore., the tax break was used to build a Ritz Carlton hotel.

In January, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) launched an investigation into several of these projects, including one in Palm Beach, Fla., where the incentive is being used to build a marina for “super-yachts.”

Todd Zapolski used the Opportunity Zone program to draw investors to his renovation of the Gordon Building in downtown Napa, which is now home to an Anthropologie store and a wine bar.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

The Gordon Building developer said its renovation was possible because downtown Napa qualified as economically distressed under the Opportunity Zone program.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Back in Napa, the developer of the Gordon Building said the project will spur growth in a part of Northern California where underlying challenges of joblessness and housing affordability are obscured by the influx of wine vacationers. “We have some of the wealthiest in the country, and we have some of the poorest in the country,” Todd Zapolski said.

The landmark building was badly damaged in the 2014 South Napa earthquake, and Zapolski said repairing it was possible only because of the Opportunity Zone sweetener.

“We couldn’t make it work unless we had that incentive,” he said. “That gave us the extra oomph for investors to say, all right … we’ll take the risk.”

Parker declined to be interviewed, but the leader of the think tank he created took issue with scathing reviews of the program from community leaders, advocates and lawmakers who once saw promise in it. John Lettieri, president and chief executive of the Economic Innovation Group, said layering too many rules and restrictions onto the incentive would chase away investors.

“The trick is to get them to redeploy their capital without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops that would make it hard to access and leave communities in the same place they have been,” he said. “We were trying to create an incentive that can be relevant enough to a wide array of communities nationwide.”

States had broad authority on where to locate their Opportunity Zones, Lettieri said, and some were not judicious in drawing the maps. He said California, which drew the zones into some of the nation’s most wealthy enclaves, was one of the worst offenders.

California officials were not particularly invested in the federal program, which the Trump administration gave states scant time to shape or vet before they had to draw maps. The administration of then-Gov. Jerry Brown initially proposed an expedient process involving an algorithm. The federal rules were so permissive that the state’s draft maps included the campus of Stanford as an Opportunity Zone.

The downtown San Jose Opportunity Zone sits adjacent to the mega campus Google is building in the city.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Stanford and some others were removed from the program, but other pricey ZIP Codes stayed in amid lobbying by local politicians, economic development agencies and builders.

But the state’s ambivalence about Opportunity Zones is clear in its refusal to match the federal tax break with a credit investors in the projects can also claim on their state taxes. Officials in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration signaled to developers they believe the tax break is a giveaway. New York lawmakers gave their own vote of no confidence after the tax break was put to use for luxury projects in some of New York City’s most expensive ZIP Codes. The tax shelter last year was stripped from New York’s tax code.

Even so, there are cases of truly distressed communities making use of the credit.

An organization called SoLa Impact says it is leveraging the incentive to buy run-down residential properties in underserved neighborhoods of South Los Angeles and rehabilitate them for low-income tenants.

No state has had a bigger impact on the direction of the United States than California, a prolific incubator and exporter of outside-the-box policies and ideas. This occasional series examines what that has meant for the state and the country, and how far Washington is willing to go to spread California’s agenda as the state’s own struggles threaten its standing as the nation’s think tank.

Before he was slain, Los Angeles rap star Nipsey Hussle had plans to use it to invest in businesses in Crenshaw. The Central Valley city of Merced is looking to the tax break to bring its downtown back to life.

The place boosters point to most often is across the country in Erie, Pa., a city that is emblematic of the Rust Belt’s economic collapse. Community leaders say the incentive is crucial to the development of 12 residential and retail projects that will reshape the downtown.

But for every dollar the federal government is investing in Erie through the tax break, it is spending several more in downtown San Jose, a place hardly hurting for capital. The Opportunity Zone there sits adjacent to the future home of a sprawling Google campus that is so big it will reshape the footprint of the downtown, bringing in thousands of highly paid tech workers.

They will be able to stroll to a glistening residential tower getting built with the incentive, where 1,000-square-foot apartments will rent for $4,250 per month. The developer, Urban Catalyst, is not required to set aside anything for affordable housing beyond what the city requires for any other project. The building will have an infinity pool.

The Fountain Alley development in downtown San Jose’s Opportunity Zone will feature “the largest rooftop restaurant and bar in Silicon Valley.”

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

Erik Hayden, founder, of Urban Catalyst.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

On a tour of San Jose’s Opportunity Zone building boom, Urban Catalyst founder Erik Hayden walked journalists through the construction of another stylish structure getting renovated with the tax break, with soaring ceilings and windows the size of movie screens. It will be home to a swank indoor miniature golf course and cocktail bar inspired by Burning Man. The complex will also house a venue for ax throwing and craft beer drinking.

Asked how such projects fit into the program’s goal of uplifting left-behind communities, Hayden points to properties downtown that remain vacant and boarded up, as the rapid gentrification and flood of investment in this community hopscotches across blocks. “It feels to me like a left-behind community,” he said. “We’re building a variety of different things, all of which are needed by downtown.”

It is hard to reconcile these luxury buildings in San Jose with the stated vision of Parker and that of the lawmaker who was the lead champion for the tax break, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the Senate’s only Black Republican.

When Scott was invited to the White House in 2017 and asked by Trump how to make amends for the president’s remark that “there were very fine people on both sides” of the violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., Scott secured Trump’s endorsement for Opportunity Zones.

The senator recounts in his book, “Opportunity Knocks,” how he made the pitch, telling Trump “that we must find fresh ways to alleviate the terrible poverty that is the source of so many of our ills — including the plague of racism.” Scott remains a proponent of the program, saying in a House hearing in November that the tens of billions invested in Opportunity Zone projects are, by the program’s definition, going to “low-income, high-poverty, racially diverse areas.”

The Paseo, a tech office space and retail building in downtown San Jose’s Opportunity Zone, will feature an indoor miniature golf course inspired by Burning Man.

(Gary Coronado / Los Angeles Times)

He pointed to new businesses in Columbia, S.C., an affordable housing development in Rockhill, N.C., and local enthusiasm for the program in Stockton. He acknowledged, though, that accurately measuring the tax shelter’s success is impossible, because there are no disclosure rules that allow taxpayers to learn “exactly what people are doing with the resources and the benefits and the incentives.” Scott says he wants more disclosure.

Those who have soured on the tax break say they have seen enough to know it is doing little to bring the country closer to Scott’s lofty goal of alleviating poverty and racism. But it is, they say, helping a lot of wealthy investors and developers of luxury properties.

One need only peruse the Lake Tahoe real estate ads for evidence.

Among the listings is an 8-acre property directly across the street from Heavenly Mountain Resort ski area. The price tag is $52 million. One selling point: The city has already greenlighted the property for a hotel or condos, shops and a large event space.

Another selling point: It is in an Opportunity Zone.

Nov. 27 (UPI) — Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that he was receptive to the latest U.S. plan to end the conflict in Ukraine, but insisted the country’s forces would have to give up territory.

Putin made the comments to reporters during a visit to the central Asian country of Kyrgyzstan ahead of U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s visit to Moscow next week. Witkoff is expected to discuss a version of the Trump administration’s 28-point peace plan that’s been criticized for allowing Russia to keep territory seized by force and barring Ukraine from joining the western NATO military alliance.

The Russian leader said the U.S. government is now taking some of its positions into account and that the U.S. plan “can be used” as the basis for future agreements, the state-run TASS news agency reported. However, the plan needed to be refined into “diplomatic language,” while other points were non-starters.

Russia currently controls about 20% of Ukraine, about 1,500 square miles, since launching its invasion nearly four years ago. Putin said Russian forces would continue their advance in the eastern Donbass region, The Moscow Times reported.

“Ukrainian forces will have to leave the territories they currently occupy, and then the fighting will stop,” he said. “If they don’t, we will achieve this by military means.”

Russia analyst Tatiana Stanovaya wrote in a post on X that Putin “feels more confident than ever about the battlefield situation and is convinced that he can wait until Kyiv finally accepts that it cannot win and must negotiate on Russia’s well-known terms.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected calls for the country to cede territory and has insisted that any peace deal include security guarantees against further Russian aggression.

“The Russians are peddling the narrative around the world that Ukraine allegedly cannot defend itself,” Zelensky said in a post X Wednesday. “They are saying that Ukrainian warriors cannot defend themselves. The daily combat results of the Ukrainian army, our special forces, and deep strikes — these are all proof that Ukraine can defend its interests.”

Putin also stated that signing any agreement with Ukraine was pointless, implying that it was illegitimate because it had not held elections during the conflict, The Kyiv Independent reported.

However, the paper pointed out that Ukraine’s constitution prohibits elections from being held under martial law, which was declared at the beginning of the conflict in 2022.

Reporting from Washington — A pair of influential senators presented President Obama with a three-page blueprint for a bipartisan agreement to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, but the proposal’s viability is threatened by politics surrounding the healthcare debate.

Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), in a 45-minute meeting Thursday in the Oval Office, also asked for Obama’s help in rounding up enough Republican votes to pass an immigration bill this year.

Although details of their blueprint were not released, Graham said the elements included tougher border security, a program to admit temporary immigrant workers and a biometric Social Security card that would prevent people here illegally from getting jobs.

Graham also said the proposal included “a rational plan to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States.” He did not elaborate on what the plan would be. But in a recent interview, he suggested that onerous measures were unrealistic.

“We’re not going to mass-deport people and put them in jail, nor should we,” Graham said. “But we need a system so they don’t get an advantage over others for citizenship.”

In a statement after the Obama meeting, Graham predicted that their effort would collapse if Senate Democrats proceeded with a strategy to pass a healthcare bill through a simple majority vote — a process known as “reconciliation.” Senate leaders say they are committed to doing just that.

“I expressed, in no uncertain terms, my belief that immigration reform could come to a halt for the year if healthcare reconciliation goes forward,” said Graham, who portrayed the document handed to Obama as “a work in progress.”

Graham added: “For more than a year, healthcare has sucked most of the energy out of the room. Using reconciliation to push healthcare through will make it much harder for Congress to come together on a topic as important as immigration.”

In their own statements, Obama and Schumer sounded more upbeat.

The president said: “Today I met with Sens. Schumer and Graham and was pleased to learn of their progress in forging a proposal to fix our broken immigration system. I look forward to reviewing their promising framework, and every American should applaud their efforts to reach across party lines and find common sense answers to one of our most vexing problems.”

Immigration has gotten scant attention of late. Obama had initially promised to address the issue in his first year, but the deadline slipped as he struggled to pass a healthcare bill. Latino voters, who were a crucial piece of Obama’s winning coalition in the 2008 campaign, have grown impatient. Some advocates of an immigration overhaul warn that Latino voters will stay home in the November mid-term elections if the issue is delayed again.

In an attempt to defuse the anger, Obama met with a group of 14 immigration advocates in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, hours before his meeting with the two senators.

Afterward, some of the guests described the atmosphere in the room as tense. They said they told Obama that families were being severed by widespread deportations. In the fiscal year that ended in September, the U.S. deported 388,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Department of Homeland Security — up from 369,000 the year before.

“I don’t think the president liked hearing that the immigration system is tearing apart families. But that’s our reality,” said Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, who attended the meeting.

Obama agreed to have them meet with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to discuss deportation policies, the White House said.

Even without the healthcare obstacle, passing an immigration bill would be difficult. Schumer has been trying to line up additional Republican co-sponsors in hopes of broadening the bill’s bipartisan support. None has signed up.

Those who attended the meeting said that Obama committed to helping find Republican votes. But he also conceded that in a polarized Senate, that was a difficult mission.

“He was very frank about the challenge of moving this or anything else in the U.S. Congress,” said John Wilhelm, president of the labor union Unite Here.

peter.nicholas@

latimes.com

WASHINGTON — President Trump has a lot riding on a precarious agreement with Taliban militants to end America’s longest war. But the process, which began over the weekend, is fraught with obstacles that could lengthen the conflict rather than conclude it.

The first step in the deal agreed to by the U.S. and the Taliban is a seven-day period of “reduced violence” in which neither side attacks. The period began Saturday and includes a moratorium on the roadside explosive devices, rockets and suicide bombers that have been the Taliban trademark and continued as recently as last month.

It falls short of a cease-fire, which the Taliban consistently refused to consider. But if the weeklong pause is declared a success, U.S. and Taliban leaders will sign a deal in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 29 that begins the drawdown of American troops in exchange for Taliban vows to fight terrorism and stop attacks against the United States.

“This [reduction in violence phase] will serve as a test period of Taliban intent and control of their forces, and as a proof of concept of their commitment to the peace process,” senior State Department official Molly Phee said last week.

“It has taken a lot of work, frankly, to get to this point. But we believe we have established the conditions that can transform the trajectory of the conflict,” she added. “It is high time for the parties to begin moving off the battlefield and into a political process.”

Phee is deputy to Zalmay Khalilzad, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan who has led more than a year of negotiations with a Taliban team that includes men once jailed in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

As of Thursday, Taliban attacks and U.S. airstrikes had fallen off significantly and the truce was largely holding, U.S. officials said.
.

But numerous obstacles will complicate the next phase, which includes bringing the Afghan government into talks with the Taliban and other domestic organizations. The government has been kept out of negotiations until now, in part because Taliban leaders don’t recognize it.

Some critics worry that in a rush to secure an election-year troop withdrawal, Trump might agree to terms that fail to protect U.S. counterterrorism operations or hard-fought civil rights in Afghanistan. Others say conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops are as good now as they ever will be.

“This is a long shot under the best of circumstances,” said Bruce Riedel, a veteran CIA officer who specialized in the region and advised Democratic and Republican White Houses. “Trump badly wants to claim a victory.”

But Riedel said one hard part will be working directly with the Taliban without undercutting the Afghan government, which Washington has backed throughout the nearly two decades of U.S. intervention launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “We are stuck in a war with no easy way out without leaving one side in the lurch,” he said.

Complicating matters even more, the Trump administration now finds itself in the odd position of entering into important deals with the Taliban without a clear partner in the Afghan government.

Official presidential election results announced last week — nearly five months after the vote — gave the victory to incumbent President Ashraf Ghani. But his chief rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has refused to recognize that outcome and declared himself the victor. Within days, the opposing camps deployed their own security forces in an increasingly tense Kabul, and regional warlords were choosing sides.

When asked about the election results, Pompeo declined to endorse Ghani.

Negotiating with the Taliban presents its own challenges. Like the rest of Afghan society, the sprawling group is riven by tribal and regional rivalries. And it has killed hundreds of Americans.

It remains to be seen what happens if attacks against Americans resume after the seven-day pause. Officials say they will deal with such attacks on a case-by-case basis. But Trump has said killing Americans is a red line. He hastily backed out of a deal with the Taliban last fall after it launched an attack that killed a U.S. soldier.

The agreement to be signed Feb. 29 calls for an initial U.S. troop withdrawal over a five-month period. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Austin “Scotty” Miller, has told Pentagon officials he can safely reduce the U.S. troop level from the roughly 12,000 service members now there to 8,600.

Pentagon officials have insisted that even the first round of withdrawals will be conditioned on Taliban leaders not permitting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups on Afghan territory.

Other officials have also pressed for limiting troop withdrawals unless violence levels remain low and Taliban leaders follow through on promises to hold planned power-sharing talks with Afghan government negotiators.

Whether the U.S. insists on those conditions before making steep troop reductions will depend to a large degree on Trump, said a senior U.S. Defense official who did not want to be quoted speaking about the internal deliberations.

Critics fear that as his reelection campaign moves into full swing this summer, Trump may order troop withdrawals whether or not the looming Afghan peace talks go smoothly, in order to be seen as delivering on his promise to end an era of lengthy U.S. overseas wars.

Trump “wants to bring the force levels down. He’s made that clear. The question is whether he is willing to do it if things start to fall apart. And they usually do in Afghanistan,” a senior Defense official said.

The Pentagon plans to continue its training of Afghan army and police, even as it sharply cuts overall force levels. “A big part” of the remaining U.S. force will be focused on that training, said another U.S. Defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Miller has also developed options for continuing military operations against Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other terrorist groups, using forces stationed in the region but outside Afghanistan, if necessary.

As long as the Afghan peace talks remain on track, Pentagon officials believe counterterrorism operations can be carried out with relatively small numbers of special operations troops and airstrikes.

Douglas Lute, a retired U.S. Army general who coordinated fighting in Afghanistan late in the George W. Bush administration and under President Obama, said improved U.S. intelligence in the region and a diminished Al Qaeda threat bode well for security.

“We have intelligence access that we didn’t have before,” Lute said. “We’re much better than we were back when we were simply launching cruise missiles into the desert.”

U.S. officials have also pressed NATO members and other countries with troops in Afghanistan not to exit too hastily. There are roughly 8,000 non-U.S. foreign troops there now, and a quick exit of many of them would force steeper cutbacks in critical training programs.

It is unclear whether the agreement will include a timetable or explicit language committing Washington to a complete pullout of its troops. But it’s unlikely the Taliban would sign on to a deal that does not at least theoretically hold that out as the goal, said Laurel Miller, the former acting special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the State Department.

“You have to look at the U.S.-Taliban agreement as the easy part of the deal,” she said. “It’s a viable first step. Whether that first step leads to further steps is still an open question.”

She said the likely message that the administration is sending the Afghan government is: We’re leaving, so you better make the best deal you can. And if you do, we will support you with aid.

However, she added, “If the U.S. withdraws its troops, I’m deeply skeptical that the U.S. Congress is going to continue to send billions of dollars a year to prop up the Afghan government.”

Congress has appropriated nearly $137 billion in aid for Afghanistan since 2002, with about 63% earmarked for security forces and 26% for development projects, according to a report last month by the Congressional Research Service. In 2020, the White House is seeking $4.8 billion in military assistance and $400 million in economic aid.

Another wild card is Pakistan, which has backed the Taliban and benefited from the unrest in its neighbor. Although Pompeo has invested considerable time courting senior Pakistani officials, Islamabad’s support for peace talks is unclear.

Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary for Defense, said that while she is concerned Trump might “lose patience and pull the plug,” she believed chances for a broad agreement were the best they have been “across three administrations.”

“While we have been fighting this for 20 years, the Afghans have been fighting this for 40,” she said, referring to the civil war and Soviet intervention that predated U.S. involvement. “So there is a degree of exhaustion on both sides and a degree of stalemate.”

LONDON — President Trump’s efforts to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine war closely mirrors the tactics he used to end two years of fighting between Israel and Hamas: bold terms that favor one side, deadlines for the combatants and vague outlines for what comes next. The details — enforcing the terms, guaranteeing security, who pays for rebuilding — matter less.

“You know what the deadline is to me? When it’s over.” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Tuesday.

The formula has worked so far in the tense Middle East, though its long-term viability remains in question. Trump got his moment to claim credit for “peace” in the region from the podium of the Israeli parliament. Even there, he made clear that next on his priority list was resolving the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II.

“Maybe we set out like a 20-point peace proposal, just like we did in Gaza,” U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff told Yuri Ushakov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy adviser in a phone call the day after Trump’s speech, on Oct. 14. A recording of that call leaked to Bloomberg News.

They did just that, issuing a 28-point plan heavily tilted toward Russia’s interests that set off alarms in Europe, which had not been consulted. Trump insisted Ukraine had until Nov. 27 — Thanksgiving in the U.S. — to accept it.

But by Tuesday, Trump had eased off the hard deadline. It seemed clear, even to Trump, that the Israel-Gaza model doesn’t fully apply in Russia and Ukraine as long as Putin refuses to be flattered, pushed or otherwise moved to take the first step of a ceasefire, as Israel and Hamas consented for different reasons on Oct. 9. Making the point, Putin launched waves of bombings on Ukraine Tuesday and Wednesday even as American negotiators renewed Trump’s push to end the war.

“I thought (a Russia-Ukraine deal) would have been an easier one, but I think we’re making progress,” Trump said during the annual White House turkey pardon to mark the Thanksgiving holiday. Hours later, he told reporters that the 28-point plan actually “was not a plan, just a concept.”

The president’s goal may not be a formal, long-lasting peace treaty, one expert said.

“Trump’s approach emphasizes the proclamation of a ceasefire, not its observance,” Mariia Zolkina, a political analyst at the Kyiv-based Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation, wrote on Liga.net, a Ukrainian news outlet, adding: “Donald Trump is not interested in whether the ceasefire will be sustainable.”

Similarities to the tactics and style used in the Israel-Gaza talks

Fresh off the Gaza deal and coveting the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump named his next priority before he’d even left the Israeli Knesset.

“If you don’t mind, Steve, let’s focus on Russia first, All right?” Trump said, turning to Witkoff.

Where the Gaza ceasefire agreement had 20 points, the Russia-Ukraine proposal would start with 28 items and include more detail on who would pay for reconstruction. They envision “peace” boards headed by the president to lead and administer the aftermath. Both lack detail on incentives for complying and enforcement. And both depend on a ceasefire.

Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the Brussels-based European Policy Centre think tank, said the proposals for Gaza and Ukraine show a kind of “naivete by believing that by intervening at that level, by imposing your will on something like this, that you will reach some form of long-term conclusion.”

He said both proposals reflect Trump’s political and personal self-interest.

“In the end, the focus is solely on what Trump thinks he will get out of this in terms of reputation and money,” Zuleeg said.

Each Trump administration plan to end the wars heavily favor one side.

The Trump plan for Gaza leans to Israeli terms. It makes disarming Hamas a central condition for any progress in rebuilding the devastated territory. It also lays out no strict timetable for a full Israeli troop withdrawal, making it conditional on deployment of an international security force.

For Russia and Ukraine, Witkoff looked to open peace plan talks with terms skewing toward Russia. He quietly hosted Kirill Dmitriev, a close ally of Putin’s, for talks in south Florida to help launch the plan that opened talks in Geneva, according to a senior administration official and a U.S. official familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The White House insists that the plan was U.S.-authored with input from both the Ukrainians and Russians.

But that’s where the similarities end. The differences are buy-in — and Putin

The draft that was formally presented to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky decidedly favored the Russians, with no European input. In contrast, the Gaza ceasefire talks got buy-in from Egypt, Qatari, Jordanian, Saudi and other regional powers.

The 28-point Russia-Ukraine plan called for Ukraine to give up land in the industrial Donbas region that the Russians currently don’t control and dramatically shrink the size of its military. It also effectively gave Russia oversight of both NATO and EU expansion. The draft has narrowed by a few points since it was first presented, and Trump is sending his envoys on a bit of shuttle diplomacy to “sell it,” as he said. He said Witkoff will visit Moscow next week — perhaps joined by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was also involved in the Gaza plan. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll will meet with the Ukranians.

European leaders worried that Trump is leaving them out of high-level discussions and vulnerable to Russian aggression.

“He appears perfectly ready to sacrifice Ukraine’s security and Europe’s in the process,” Hannah Neumann, a German member of the European Parliament, said of Trump on Tuesday.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resisted Trump’s pressure to agree to a ceasefire, for a time. But Putin refuses to concede anything on Ukraine.

He’s appeared to be considering the matter, notably when Trump rolled out a red carpet for the Russian leader at a summer summit in Alaska — an old front line of the Cold War. Trump left without an agreement from Putin to end the bloodshed. The Russian leader walked off with long-sought recognition on the world stage.

To the horror of Ukraine and the vexation of Trump, Putin has stood firm.

As the envoys flew home from Geneva last week without any agreement, the White House scrambled to explain. One U.S. official argued that the 28-page plan, which calls on Ukraine to cede the Donbas region and bar Ukraine from joining NATO, represents considerable concessions from Putin because he would be agreeing to give up on his claim, once and for all, that all of Ukraine should be part of Russia.

Putin, the official noted, has long grumbled that the West doesn’t respect Russia’s position in the global world order. The official added that the Trump White House in its approach is not affirming Putin’s position but trying to reflect the Russian perspective is given its due in the emerging peace plan.

It’s not for the administration to judge Putin’s positions, the official said, but it does have “to understand them if we want to get to a deal.”

Kellman, McNeil and Madhani write for the Associated Press. McNeil reported from Brussels and Madhani from Washington. AP writer Lee Keath in Cairo contributed to this report.

Nov. 26 (UPI) — Amid a U.S.-push to end the war in Ukraine, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will travel to Moscow next week for talks on a proposed peace deal, the Kremlin said Wednesday.

The announcement from Putin’s foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov, who said preliminary agreement for the visit had been struck, came a day after Ukraine said it had reached a “common understanding” with the White House on a revised version of a 28-point plan floated by Trump last week.

Ushakov said Putin would “definitely” meet with Witkoff if he came, the state-run Tass news agency reported, on what would be his sixth visit to the Kremlin in nine months.

However, he said Russia was not in formal receipt of the peace plan for Ukraine, but had a copy obtained unofficially.

Ushakov said there were several versions, which caused some confusion, but said he believed “we have some of the latest versions.”

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday night, Trump said the plan had been “fine-tuned, with additional input from both sides,” and that they were going to keep talking.

“They’re talking about [exchanging] land going both ways and cleaning up the border,” he said, adding that frontiers that ran through a house or the middle of a highway or a town were not feasible, making nailing down final details a complex process “that doesn’t go that quickly.”

Trump said the issue of security guarantees was being worked out with the Europeans, whom he said would be involved to a very significant degree.

He said that while he wanted an agreement finalized quickly, there was no longer a deadline.

“I don’t have a deadline. You know what the deadline for me is? When it’s over.”

Trump had originally set a deadline of Thursday for Ukraine to sign the original deal drawn up with Russia, which he now said was not a plan but a roadmap or “a concept.”

Trump said that Witkoff might be accompanied on the trip by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, but said that had yet to be confirmed. He confirmed Kushner, a key player in getting Trump’s Gaza peace plan over the line last month, was involved in the process.

News of Witkoff’s visit came after a leaked transcript of a call with Ushakov in which he appeared to coach his Russian counterpart on how to get on the good side of Trump.

Trump dismissed suggestions that Witkoff was favoring Russia, saying that while he hadn’t heard what had been said, it sounded like typical negotiation tactics and that other members of his team would be doing the same with Ukraine.

“He’s got to sell this to Ukraine. He’s got to ‘sell’ Ukraine to Russia. That’s what a dealmaker does. You got to say, ‘You got this, they want this. You got to convince them of this.’ You know, that a very standard form of negotiation,” said Trump.

For the second time in a week, Japanese fighters scrambled to intercept a suspected Chinese drone flying near the island of Yonaguni. The events come amid growing tensions between the Asian neighbors and highlight the increasing strategic importance of Japan’s southernmost island, which has seen an expanded presence of Japanese and U.S. forces.

Located just 70 miles east of Taiwan, Yonaguni is an increasingly important part of the allied effort to defend the so-called first island chain from Chinese aggression. It is roughly seven miles long and three miles across at its widest point, it has two small ports and an airfield. It’s where Japan wants to set up an air defense system. It’s also where the U.S. Marine Corps recently set up a forward arming and refueling point (FARP), its first that close to the breakaway Chinese nation.

Amid all this tumult, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke with leaders of both nations today and Monday to discuss the future of Taiwan, among other issues. We’ll address that more later in this story.

“On November 24…we confirmed that an estimated Chinese unmanned aerial vehicle had passed between Yonaguni Island and Taiwan, and in response,” the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) stated on X. “We scrambled fighter jets from the Air Self-Defense Force’s Southwest Air Defense Force to intercept it.”

Once detected, the suspected drone flew south for about 250 miles, then cut east for about another 100 miles before returning along the same route, according to a map published by the Japanese MoD, which provided no additional details about the incident.

Meanwhile, Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported a Chinese drone and a helicopter traveled along a similar route on Monday, but it is unclear if the two incidents are related.

Monday’s interception by Japan followed a similar incident a week earlier.

Chinese drone flights are fairly routine along this path around Taiwan and during major drills, the skies see a heavier presence of Chinese military aviation assets. However, tensions have increased between the two nations with a long history of sometimes violent enmity. In particular, Beijing is enraged by Tokyo’s announcement that it will place surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) on Yonaguni and Japan considers any attack on Taiwan an existential threat. China has made no secret about wanting to subsume Taiwan, by force if necessary, a concern we have frequently addressed.

Speaking to reporters during a visit to Yonaguni on Sunday, Japan’s defense minister said his country is moving forward with plans to deploy an unspecified number of air defense systems on the island.

“The deployment can help lower the chance of an armed attack on our country,” Shinjiro Koizumi explained. “The view that it will heighten regional tensions is not accurate.” 

In January, former Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said Tokyo wanted to base Type 03 Chu-SAM missiles on Yonaguni, Bloomberg News noted. 

The medium-range Chu-SAM was first introduced in 2003, according to the U.S. Army, and its missiles can hit aerial targets up to roughly 30 miles away.

“The SAM’s vehicle chassis is based on the Kato Works Ltd/Mitsubishi Heavy Industries NK series heavy crane truck,” the Army explained. “It uses a state-of-the-art active electronically scanned array radar.”

The Chu-SAM system includes a command center, radar unit, launcher, and transloader, with each unit equipped with six missiles that travel at Mach 2.5, the Army noted, adding that it “can track up to 100 targets simultaneously and target 12 at the same time, engaging fighter jets, helicopters, and cruise missiles.”

Given its stated range, the Chu-SAM system can engage aerial targets roughly halfway between Yonaguni and Taiwan’s east coast (likely even farther in reality), an area Chinese aviation assets are likely to fly should it plan to invade the island nation.

Once again, this could be just one system, Japan also has the U.S. Patriot system, as well.

Koizumi’s comments about the Chu-SAM raised hackles in Beijing.

“Japan’s deployment of offensive weapons in the southwest Islands close to China’s Taiwan region is a deliberate move that breeds regional tensions and stokes military confrontation,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters on Monday. “Given Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s erroneous remarks on Taiwan, this move is extremely dangerous and should put Japan’s neighboring countries and the international community on high alert.”

Mao was referencing another Chinese point of contention.

The newly elected Japanese Prime Minister recently stated that a Chinese military blockade of Taiwan would constitute a “survival-threatening” situation, thereby enabling “collective defense” alongside U.S. military forces, Newsweek reported.

“It was the first time such an explicit remark had been made by a sitting prime minister of Japan, which like the United States has long been deliberately vague as to whether it would intervene militarily in the event of an attack on Taiwan,” NBC News posited.

As this turmoil unfolded, a Chinese company released a video simulating an attack on Japanese ships and other targets using its newly introduced YKJ-1000 hypersonic missile. Although it isn’t clear if the timing is related, it is another indicator of the increasingly bellicose messaging between the two neighbors.

Trump has taken a mixed approach toward Taiwan.

The American president has at times expressed a degree of thinly veiled skepticism about Taiwan’s value to the U.S., The Diplomat noted. He has also implied the U.S. is committed to Taiwan’s freedom. In his latest administration, Trump has signed off on a $700 million deal to sell Taipei National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) medium-range air defense systems, a plan first put forward under the Biden administration. In addition, Trump authorized a $330 million deal to sell Taiwan aircraft parts.

Meanwhile, as we mentioned earlier in this story, the Trump administration has also authorized the temporary deployment of Marines to Yonaguni to set up a FARP to extend the range of helicopter patrols from the island.

“No U.S. Marine CH-53E has ever before landed that far southwest in Japan, nor has a FARP ever been established there,” Maj. Patrick X. Kelly, executive officer of Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron (HMH) 462, said in a statement. “This evolution not only validated that MAG’s [Marine Aircraft Group 36] organic heavy-lift assault support helicopters, in support of its adjacent units and our JGSDF [Japan Ground Self-Defense Force] partners, can generate tempo anywhere the commander should choose, but also served as a huge leap forward in our relations between the U.S. Marines and the JGSDF.”

“FARPs significantly extend MAG-36’s operational reach,” said Col. Lee W. Hemming, commanding officer of MAG-36. “Our ability to rapidly establish and disassemble these sites in austere environments enhances our capacity to respond to, and support, disaster relief and other critical operations throughout the region – particularly in conjunction with our Japanese Self-Defense Forces partners. This collaborative FARP capability underscores our commitment to regional security and humanitarian assistance.”

Given its proximity to Taiwan, Yonaguni also makes sense as a forward staging area for standoff weapons to strike Chinese targets, including ships, and advanced radars to track their movement, if Japan decides to go that route. Marine Corps doctrine calls for troops to be staged in China’s weapons engagement zone ahead of any conflict, and more islands in the region will likely become increasingly armed, but none are as close to Taiwan as this one.

The U.S. Army’s Typhon ground-based missile system, which can fire Tomahawk cruise missiles and SM-6 multi-purpose missiles, was recently deployed to Japan, but some 1,200 miles to the northeast on Honshu Island. Last year, we wrote about reported plans for the U.S. Marine Corps units and their High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to be rushed to the southwestern Japanese islands near Taiwan in case of a Chinese invasion. The anonymously sourced Kyodo News report about that move didn’t specifically mention Yonaguni, but it makes sense that it could be a destination for such future efforts.

Another Marine weapons system that might even make more sense for Yonaguni is Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) armed with Naval Strike Missiles (NSMs). In previous reporting, we noted that these highly mobile missile systems have been deployed to Luzon in the Philippines. The NSM is well suited for fighting in the littorals. With the baseline NSM’s range of around 110 nautical miles, placing these systems on Yonaguni would hold Chinese vessels operating near the northern part and the backside of Taiwan at risk. They can also strike fixed targets on land. NMESIS is highly mobile on land, making its launchers very hard to target at distance by adversary forces.

While weapons like NMESIS on Yonaguni could pose a real threat to Chinese forces trying to take the island, getting them there in the case of a Chinese move on Taiwan will likely be a great challenge. The idea would be to have them there permanently or rush them there at the start of a crisis, before the shooting begins. This would work as a deterrent to keep the fighting from starting, as well as tactical capability once the fighting begins.

Still, Beijing has a very large arsenal of missiles, aircraft and ships on hand and in development that could rain fire on Yonaguni. Any U.S. logistic missions having to push materiel forward in a time of crisis to the island would be traveling deep within China’s anti-access bubble, as well, which may be entirely unsurvivable. So, once things light off, if weapons are fired from the island, or even preemptive action by China, could widen the conflict significantly, and any forces on the island could be cutoff and under fire.

As previously mentioned, amid the boiling tensions, Trump spoke with both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Takaichi on Monday.

“Taiwan’s return to China is an important component of the post-war international order,” Xi told Trump, according to an official account of the conversation by China’s state media. For his part, Trump affirmed that the U.S. “understands the importance of the Taiwan issue to China,” Chinese media said.

“Takaichi said Trump briefed her on his overnight phone call with China’s Xi and the current state of U.S.-China relations,” according to The Associated Press. “She said that she and Trump also discussed strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance and ‘development and challenges that the Indo-Pacific region is faced with.’”

“We confirmed the close coordination between Japan and the United States,” the Japanese leader added, declining to give any other details of her talks with Trump, citing diplomatic protocol.

Regardless of diplomatic platitudes, when it comes to Yonaguni Island, moving surface-to-air missiles there is largely a defensive overture. It’s also the first step in providing protection for additional assets, should Japan choose to allow their deployment. But for now, it certainly has gotten Beijing’s attention.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Ukraine says it supports the “essence” of a United States plan to end its war with Russia, as US President Donald Trump said “progress” is being made on securing a deal and that he would dispatch his special envoy to Russia for talks with President Vladimir Putin.

Tuesday saw a flurry of diplomatic activity after US and Ukrainian negotiators met two days earlier in Geneva to discuss Trump’s initial peace plan, which had been seen in Ukraine as a Russian wish list calling on Kyiv to cede territory to Moscow, limit its military and give up on joining NATO.

The plan has since been modified, with the emerging proposal reportedly accomodating concerns of Ukraine and its European allies.

Speaking at a video conference of the so-called coalition of the willing – a group of 30 countries supporting Ukraine – President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Kyiv was ready to “move forward” with the as-yet-unpublished “framework”, though he still needed to address “sensitive points”.

Earlier, a Ukrainian official had told the Reuters news agency that Kyiv supported “the framework’s essence”. Building on that sense of momentum, Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, who led negotiations in Geneva, told US news website Axios that the security guarantees Ukraine was seeking looked “very solid”.

Speaking at the White House, Trump conceded that resolving the Ukraine war was “not easy”, but added, “We’re getting close to a deal.”

“I thought that would be an easier [deal], but I think we’re making progress,” he said.

Taking to his Truth Social platform later on, he said that he would send envoy Steve Witkoff to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to iron out “a few” remaining differences over the deal.

He said he hoped to meet “soon” with Putin and Zelenskyy, “but ONLY when the deal to end this War is FINAL or, in its final stages”.

Russia, which had hammered Ukraine’s capital Kyiv with a deadly barrage of missiles the previous night, seemed unconvinced of progress.

Russia has not yet seen the modified plan, which remains unpublished, but Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined that it should reflect the “spirit and letter” of an understanding reached between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at their Alaska summit earlier this year.

“If the spirit and letter of Anchorage is erased in terms of the key understandings we have established, then, of course, it will be a fundamentally different situation [for Russia],” Lavrov warned.

Reporting from Moscow, Al Jazeera’s Yulia Shapovalova said there was a lot of “uncertainty” at the Kremlin, though there had allegedly been “behind-the-scenes interactions” between Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev and US counterpart Steve Witkoff, “who reportedly worked on the initial stage” of Trump’s plan.

The Russian side, she said, was not happy about revisions to the peace plan.

“Unlike the initial American plan presented by Donald Trump, which consisted of 28 points, the so-called European version doesn’t include withdrawing the Ukrainian armed forces from Donbas, it allows Kyiv to join NATO, and it doesn’t limit the size of its armed forces,” Shapovalova said.

Still, US Army Secretary Dan Driscoll had earlier emerged upbeat from meeting with Russian officials in Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, with his spokesman saying: “The talks are going well and we remain optimistic.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X that there were “a few delicate, but not insurmountable, details that must be sorted out and will require further talks between Ukraine, Russia and the United States”.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said it was “unclear when those talks will happen, who will be involved, and what they will look like”. But, she added, it was clear they would not be imminent, given the upcoming American Thanksgiving holiday on November 27.

Macron urges ‘pressure’ on Putin

As the US strained to bridge the gap between Ukraine and Russia, leaders in the coalition of the willing, who have pledged to underwrite and guarantee any ceasefire, moved fast on security guarantees and a reconstruction plan for Ukraine.

In the video meeting, co-chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with Zelenskyy and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in attendance, the leaders decided to set up a task force between the US and coalition countries to “solidify” security guarantees.

Trump has not committed to providing back-up for a post-ceasefire “reassurance force” for Ukraine. The plan for the force involves European allies training Ukrainian troops and providing sea and air support, but would be reliant on US military muscle to work.

Speaking after the video call, Macron said discussions in Geneva had shown that there should be no limitations to the Ukrainian army, contrary to what had been outlined in the initial draft of the US plan.

He also said a decision on using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s reconstruction, at the heart of a political and legal impasse in a Europe seeking funding for Ukraine, would be “finalised in the coming days” with the European Commission.

Western countries froze approximately $300bn in Russian assets in 2022, mostly in Belgium, but there has been no consensus on how to proceed. Some support seizing the assets, while others, like Belgium, remain cautious owing to legal concerns.

According to reports, Trump’s plan would split the assets between reconstruction and US-Russia investments.

Macron hit out at Russia, saying “continued pressure” should be put on Moscow to negotiate. “On the ground, the reality is quite the opposite of a willingness for peace,” he said, alluding to Russia’s overnight attacks on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, which left seven dead and disrupted power and heating systems.

In his daily evening address, Zelenskyy said: “What is especially cynical is that Russia carried out such strikes while talks are under way on how to end the war”.

Madrid, Spain – Real Madrid fans were divided over plans announced this week by club President Florentino Perez to allow private equity investors to buy up to a 10% stake in the club.

Some fans of “los merengues” said it would mean selling off part of the club, even though Real Madrid remains the wealthiest football club in the world.

They also noted that in recent years, Real Madrid had already changed membership rules, contravening promises to keep memberships within families and diluting its character.

Others supported the investor plan, saying it made good business sense and would not alter the trajectory of a hugely successful club that has won the Spanish domestic title 36 times and collected a record 15 UEFA Champions League trophies.

Perez insisted that allowing private equity investors – who often deploy large amounts of capital into companies not listed on public stock exchanges – to take a stake in the club was an “indispensable project” for the future of football.

Speaking to club members on Sunday, Perez said he will propose a statutory reform during an extraordinary assembly to allow for the possibility of outside investors to take a minority stake in the club, according to reporting by The Associated Press news agency.

“We will continue to be a members’ club, but we must create a subsidiary in which the 100,000 members of Real Madrid will always retain absolute control,” he said.

“On that basis, this subsidiary could simply incorporate a minority stake, for example, 5% – never more than 10% – from one or more investors committed to the very long term and willing to contribute their own resources.”

Perez said that would be “the clearest and most compelling way to value our club”.

The 78-year-old added that it would allow the club to pay dividends to club members, which it is presently forbidden from doing.

Perez insisted investors would be obliged to “respect our values”, contribute to the growth of the club and “help us protect our assets from external attacks”.

He said Real Madrid could have the right to buy its assets back from investors.

Perez reiterated several times that members would never lose control of the club.

He said his proposal would make sure that the current 98,272 members are recognised as the real owners of the club, with the number of members fixed for the future.

“With this protection in place, no one will be able to diminish our status as owners or alter the balance that guarantees the independence and stability of Real Madrid,” Perez said. “It will be us, the members of today, who will have the responsibility of safeguarding our culture of values and ensuring that our club continues to lead world football for many generations to come.”

The Real Madrid president further explained the reform would “shield the club from external and internal attacks on our assets, and to highlight their value so that we are all aware of the treasure that we, as members, have in our hands”.

Spanish club ownership versus English

Real Madrid, like Barcelona and a small number of other Spanish football clubs, is classed as a nonprofit organisation as it is owned by its club members, or socios. Real Madrid, founded in 1902, has only ever had this ownership model.

This ownership structure prevents large private investors from forging a majority controlling stake in the clubs; it also means they can claim tax concessions.

This is despite the fact that Real Madrid was named the world’s wealthiest football club for the fourth straight year in 2025, with an estimated market valuation of $6.75bn, according to the Forbes List. It was also the first club to earn $1bn in revenue.

The nonprofit status allows Spanish clubs to preserve some traditions of their clubs and for members to take an active role in the organisations.

Graham Hunter, a British football journalist who specialises in Spanish football, pointed to the example of Joan Laporta, the current president of the other Spanish mega club, Barcelona.

“Laporta went from being a member and a lawyer to being [club] president in seven years,” he said.

In stark contrast, football clubs in England or the United States – Manchester United or Inter Miami being just two examples – can be owned by individuals, corporations and in some instances, acquired on public stock exchanges, resulting in more commercialised ownership structures.

It means their club’s performances are often centred on more short-run processes like profit maximisation, whereas in Spain, the club is in the hands of fans – not large private investors – allowing scope for longer-term business strategies to be enacted.

If Perez’s plan goes ahead, this could open the door for this famous Spanish club to become more like its foreign rivals.

The high-profile, multi-billionaire boss of Louis Vuitton, Bernard Arnault, was named in Spanish media on Monday as a potential investor in the club, should the new minority ownership rules be adopted.

Fans reaction

Some Real Madrid fans did not share Perez’s enthusiasm to open up the club to large private investors.

David Garcia, a former season ticket holder at the Santiago Bernabeu stadium, said Perez had previously told fans he would preserve the club for members.

“On Sunday, Florentino [Perez] misled the members again. He had told us that access to the club was restricted to the children or grandchildren of members to prevent a Russian or Chinese person from joining,” he told Al Jazeera.

Garcia added that in recent years, the rules of admission to membership had been changed several times, and Chinese and other foreigners had appeared on membership lists.

Alejandro Dominguez, a former vice president of the Real Madrid Veterans Pena, questioned why outside investors were needed to boost the coffers of such a profitable club.

“I don’t understand why we need more money when we are already the richest club in the world?” he told Al Jazeera.

However, Fernando Valdez, a lifelong Real Madrid fan who is part of La Gran Familia supporters club, said he believed the reform would not harm the character of the club.

“If we were selling off huge chunks of the club to raise money to compete with Paris Saint-Germain, then that would be worrying, as it would change the club forever. But it is not like that,” he said.

“We need to know more details about this, but on the face of it, it does not seem like anything to worry about. Five percent or 10% is nothing.”

David Alvarez, who writes about Real Madrid for El Pais newspaper, said Perez’s ownership plan was not designed to compete with other high-spending clubs like Manchester City.

“This will allow the club to pay dividends to socios (club members). At present, the law stops them from doing that. They would have to sell a much bigger stake to be able to compete with the other big clubs in Europe, so they are not trying to do that.”

Russian forces have launched a drone and missile attack on the Ukrainian capital, killing at least one person, as officials from Ukraine and the United States sought to rework a plan proposed by Washington to end the war.

In a statement on Tuesday, Ukraine’s State Emergency Service said the overnight attack on Kyiv damaged residential buildings in the Pecherskyi and Dniprovskyi districts.

“In Kyiv, as a result of a night attack, two people were killed, six were injured, and 18 people were rescued, including three children,” the service said.

Another attack on Brovarsky, Bila Tserkva and Vyshgorod districts, hours later, wounded a 14-year-old child, it added.

There was no immediate comment from Russia.

The attack followed talks between US and Ukrainian representatives in Switzerland’s Geneva to thrash out Washington’s so-called 28-point plan, which Kyiv and its European allies saw as a Kremlin wish list.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in his nightly address late on Monday, said the talks in Geneva mean the “list of the necessary steps to end the war can become doable”.

But he said there remained “sensitive issues” that he will discuss with US President Donald Trump

“After Geneva, there are fewer points – no longer 28 – and many of the right elements have been taken into account in this framework. There is still work for all of us to do together – it is very challenging – to finalise the document, and we must do everything with dignity,” he said.

“Ukraine will never be an obstacle to peace – this is our principle, a shared principle, and millions of Ukrainians are counting on, and deserve, a dignified peace,” he added.

No Trump-Zelenskyy meeting scheduled

Trump, too, hinted at new progress.

“Is it really possible that big progress is being made in Peace Talks between Russia and Ukraine??? Don’t believe it until you see it, but something good just may be happening,” the US president wrote earlier on Monday on his Truth Social platform.

At the White House, spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said there were a couple of points of disagreement remaining, but “we’re confident that we’ll be able to work through those.”

She said Trump wanted a deal as quickly as possible, but there was no meeting currently scheduled between the US president and Zelenskyy.

Trump, who returned to office this year pledging to end the war quickly, has reoriented US policy from staunch support for Kyiv towards accepting some of Russia’s justifications for its 2022 invasion.

US policy towards the war has been inconsistent. Trump’s hastily arranged Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in August led to worries that Washington was prepared to accept many Russian demands, but ultimately resulted in more US pressure on Russia.

The latest, 28-point peace proposal again caught many in the US government, Kyiv and Europe off-guard and prompted new concerns that the Trump administration might be willing to push Ukraine to sign a peace deal heavily tilted towards Moscow.

The plan would require Kyiv to cede more territory, accept curbs on its military and bar it from ever joining NATO, conditions Kyiv has long rejected as tantamount to surrender.

It would also do nothing to allay broader European fears of further Russian aggression.

Ukraine’s European allies drew up a counter-proposal which, according to the Reuters news agency, would halt fighting at the present front lines, leaving discussions of territory for later, and include a NATO-style US security guarantee for Ukraine.

A new version of a draft worked on in Geneva has not been published.

Kremlin slams EU proposal

An adviser to Zelenskyy who attended the talks in Geneva told The Associated Press news agency they managed to discuss almost all the plan’s points, and one unresolved issue is that of territory, which can only be decided at the head-of-state level.

Oleksandr Bevz also said the US showed “great openness and understanding” that security guarantees are the cornerstone of any agreement for Ukraine.

He said the US would continue working on the plan, and then the leaders of Ukraine and the US would meet. After that, the plan would be presented to Russia.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, speaking to reporters, welcomed the “interim result” of the Geneva talks, saying the US proposal “has now been modified in significant parts”, without details.

Merz added that Moscow must now become engaged in the process.

“The next step must be that Russia must come to the table,” he said in Angola, where he was attending a summit between African and European Union countries. “This is a laborious process. It will move forward at most in smaller steps this week. I do not expect there to be a breakthrough this week.”

The Kremlin said it had yet to see the revised peace plan.

Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov added there was no plan for US and Russian delegations to meet this week, but the Russian side remained “open for such contacts”.

Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign affairs adviser, said the plan the Kremlin had received before the Geneva talks had many provisions that “seem quite acceptable” to Moscow. But he described European proposals “floating around” as “completely unconstructive”.

Countries supporting Kyiv – part of the “coalition of the willing” – are meanwhile due to hold a video call on Tuesday following the Geneva talks.

Turkiye also said it hopes to build bridges between Russia and Ukraine.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s office said he spoke to Putin by telephone and told him Ankara will contribute to any diplomatic effort to facilitate direct contact between Russia and Ukraine.

Erdogan “stated that Turkiye will continue its efforts for the termination of the Russia-Ukraine war with a fair and lasting peace”, his office said.

DALLAS — Ross Perot, outlining how he would mend the U.S. economy, proposes a combination of tax cuts and loans for small business and tougher trade policy to create more jobs at home.

“We cannot be a superpower if we cannot manufacture here,” the Texas billionaire said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. He called for the United States to make almost everything it needs at home. “We have to manufacture here,” he said.

Perot, whose undeclared presidential candidacy has surged in opinion polls, described himself as a “fair and free trader” but believes that “agreements we’ve cut with countries around the world are not balanced at all.”

He said he would adjust the “tilted deck” of trade with Japan “in a very nice, diplomatic way. In this case (make) the Japanese say: ‘We’ll take the same deal on cars we’ve given you.’ ”

The effect, he said, would be to drastically reduce imports from Japan. “You are going to see the clock stop,” said Perot. “You could never unload the ships to this country; just could never unload the ships.”

In a similar vein, he opposes a free-trade agreement with Mexico, believing it would drain manufacturing jobs from a U.S. economy that cannot afford to lose them.

Perot said he is willing to have his mind changed. “This is a complicated, multi-piece equation that we need to think through very carefully. In carpenter’s terms, measure twice, cut once,” he said.

But in Mexico, “labor is a 25- year-old with little or no health-care expense working for a dollar an hour. You cannot compete with that in the U.S.A., period,” he said. “So you would have a surge in building factories down there but a long-term drought here at a time we cannot pay our budget deficits.”

The interview centered on Perot’s agenda on the issues of trade, taxes and the federal deficit. In Perot’s view, problems of the U.S. economy are interrelated, from trade to the national debt and the troubled public school system–which he calls “the least effective public education system in the industrialized world.”

“We’ve got a country $4 trillion in debt, adding $400 billion this year,” he said in his Dallas office–graced by portraits of his family and the painting “Spirit of ‘76” on a wall behind his desk.

“And we have a declining job base, which gives us a declining tax base at a time when we’ve run our debt through the ceiling. In business terms, that’s a ticket for disaster. Never forget that every time you lose a worker–who goes on welfare–the welfare check exceeds the tax payment that used to come to the IRS.”

Perot’s reference to a declining job base reflects his belief–disputed by some scholars–that jobs created in the 1980s were at lower wages than the jobs they replaced as manufacturing companies restructured. Most analysts and government data agree that wages for less educated, industrial workers have fallen over the last two decades. But there have been rising incomes at the same time for educated employees–especially those in new, computer-based information industries.

Perot, who will turn 62 this month, is a pioneer of the information-based industry. In 1962 he founded Electronic Data Systems, which innovated the business for organizing computer data for large companies and the government. It made Perot one of the nation’s wealthiest men. But Perot says that advanced industries alone cannot be the solution for the United States.

“Don’t bet the farm on high tech,” he said. “Information industry is all about intellectual acuity. And in a country with the least effective public education in the industrialized world, it kind of makes you grimace.

“What I’m saying is, right now, we can’t take people out of factories and send them to Microsoft (the leading computer software firm). If their children had a great education, we could. That’s generational change. But their children are not getting a great education.”

Perot made great efforts on behalf of educational reform in Texas in 1984, and has said he supports greatly expanded funding for education starting at preschool levels for all children. “It’s the best investment we can make,” he has said.

But education is for the future, and there is a need to create jobs now in the United States, not overseas, Perot declared.

“Do we need to make clothing in this country? Of course we do. Do we need to make shoes in this country? Of course we do. We have places in our country where people would be delighted to work in a shoe factory for reasonable wages.

“When I think of shoes, I think of Valley Forge (the winter encampment during the American Revolution where George Washington’s soldiers wrapped their feet in bandages and rags),” said Perot, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy.

“My mind bounces back and forth between the world I hope we have and the world that might be. We might be fighting barefooted.”

Perot contended that jobs can be created fastest in small companies.

“The quickest way to stimulate the economy and have a growing, dynamic job base is to stimulate small business. You’ll create more jobs faster by going through small business than through the huge industries,” said Perot, who started his business career as a salesman for IBM.

He said small-business people today are starved for credit and capital since banks are cautious of lending in the aftermath of the speculative 1980s, and small business doesn’t have access to big stock and bond markets.

But if he should become President, solving the credit problem will be “easy,” Perot said. “Change the regulations and the banks will loan the money,” he said, indicating that bank examiners should loosen their definitions about prudent loans and reduce the amount banks must reserve against potential losses.

Perot would attract investors to small business ventures by reducing the tax on capital gains. “I’ve got to give you a reason to take money out of Treasury bills to invest in a high-risk, wildcatting venture,” Perot explained.

“I can’t force you to take your money out of T-bills, so I have to create an environment where you want to take this risk.” That means a tax preference. “But I’m not changing capital gains for everybody. This is for the really high-risk start-up of a small company,” Perot said.

But “you will rarely hear me use the word ‘capital gains tax rate.’ I’ll be talking about money to create jobs,” he said.

Perot’s own considerable fortune, estimated by various business publications at $3.3 billion, is invested mostly in T-bills and corporate and high-rated municipal bonds. He has $200 million invested in Perot Systems, $350 million in real estate and about $40 million in funds for start-up companies, including a stake in Next Inc., the computer company headed by Apple co-founder Steven P. Jobs.

Perot also spoke of pushing for legislation to allow, and encourage, banks to make equity investments in start-up companies–a form of government-backed development bank.

“Or some other vehicle will emerge,” he said. “You find what seems to be the best way out–and then you adjust 1,000 times as you go. That’s the way you do anything, whether it’s cutting grass or making rockets.”

Perot’s views on big business are harsh. He believes a ruinous gap opened up between management and labor in large corporations, between executives who paid themselves handsomely while demanding reductions in the pay of ordinary workers. The result was a reduction in American competitiveness and hurt the U.S. economy, he says, repeating a theme he sounded often in two stormy years on General Motors’ board of directors.

Today, he is not surprised that the chief executives of more than a dozen major corporations, meeting last month at the Business Council in Hot Springs, Va., uniformly disapproved of him and his candidacy.

“They’re part of the Establishment,” Perot said. “The status quo works for them right now, and I’m talking about major, major change.”

Still, big companies should be enlisted in a drive to turn the U.S. economy to pursuits of peace, from what Perot terms “45 years of Cold War which drained us. The Cold War broke Russia, but it drained us.”

For all his distrust of foreign trade agreements, Perot admires the way Japanese companies do business–in particular Toyota, which he studied while a director of GM. “They work as a team and their products have quality,” Perot said. “Have you spent time in a Lexus dealership? All those guys selling Lexuses have to do is get you to drive it around the block.”

Perot himself drives an ’87 Oldsmobile. But he said U.S. industry should start doing things the way Japanese industry does, having senior business figures help small start-ups, “targeting industries of the future and making sure sacrifice in corporations starts at the top.”

Perot acknowledges that many things he admires in Japanese industry stem from that country’s different way of organizing society. “But my point is, you and I, our company is failing. And we have a competitor who’s winning. I would say, let’s go study him and figure out why he wins.”

To pay for his programs, Perot said, “We are not going to raise taxes unless we have to. But I ain’t stupid enough to say ‘Watch my lips.’ ”

He would “go to a new tax system because the one we have now is paper-laden, inefficient, not fair and so on.” But he claims to have no specific ideas yet on how to change taxes. “I would get people in, and in 60 days I’d have half a dozen new tax systems,” he said.

“My points on taxes are basically three: We’ve got to raise the revenues to make the country go.

“Two, we’ll get rid of the waste. The Department of Agriculture, with 2% of our people engaged in farming, is bigger than it was when a third of our people were farming. You’ve got to cut it down and you need a strong consensus to do that.”

He has been criticized for not being more specific on what other programs he would cut, and by how much. But as a third step, he said he would demand authority to selectively cut programs approved by Congress. “Give me the line-item veto, or don’t send me there,” said Perot, echoing a demand first raised by Ronald Reagan.

Perot has become linked with the idea that wealthy people might help reduce the federal deficit by giving up their rights to Social Security and Medicare. By one calculation, which Perot ascribes to Bush Administration chief economic adviser Michael J. Boskin, such a sacrifice by the wealthy could save the Treasury $100 billion a year–although Perot says that figure has proved dubious.

“I’d give up Social Security in a minute,” said the Texas billionaire. “And if a lot of people would give it up who did not need it, that’s worth looking at.”

Would that be subjecting the venerable Social Security program to a “means test,” which would adjust individual benefits based on income or assets.

“I never got down to what means testing is,” Perot said. “We’ve just got to go through and look at every single item. We have work to do.”

Nov. 23 (UPI) — Talks between the United States and Ukraine in Switzerland have been the “most productive and meaningful so far,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday.

Officials from both countries are meeting in Switzerland as the United States works to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine in the latest chapter of war between the two counties, which has dragged on since early 2022.

Ukrainian and Russian officials have presented the draft of a 28-point plan aimed at ending the war. President Donald Trump has said he wants Ukraine to agree to the deal by Thursday, the BBC reported.

The plan suggests that Russia could be given more Ukrainian territory than it currently holds, puts limits on Ukraine’s army and prevents Ukraine from even becoming a member of NATO. These conditions hew very closely to Moscow’s demands for peace.

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in a social media post Sunday that European leaders stand ready to reach a deal “despite some reservations,” but said “Before we start our work, it would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created.”

A bipartisan group U.S. Senators told reporters that Rubio told them the deal was not authored by the United States, nor was it the sole position of the Trump administration, but a proposal drafted by Russia and given to U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, NBC News reported.

Sen. Angus King, I-Me., said the plan appeared to be a “wish list of the Russians.”

Later, the U.S. State Department countered that claim, called King’s words “patently false,” and said the plan was indeed, the position of the Trump administration.

“The peace proposal was authored by the U.S.,” Rubio wrote on social media Saturday night. “It is based on input from the Russian side. But it is also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine.”

The plan proposes that areas of Ukraine’s Donbas region still under Ukrainian control are ceded to Russia, that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk are recognized as Russian territory by the United States and that Ukraine will reduce the number of troops in the region to 600,000.

Perhaps most controversially, the proposals also calls for Russia “to be reintegrated into the global economy” and be invited to rejoin the G8, an international forum for leaders of the world’s eight most industrialized nations.

MINNEAPOLIS — Since it was created in 2018, the federal government’s cybersecurity agency has helped warn state and local election officials about potential threats from foreign governments, showed officials how to protect polling places from attacks and gamed out how to respond to the unexpected, such as an election day bomb threat or sudden disinformation campaign.

The agency was largely absent from that space for elections this month in several states, a potential preview for the 2026 midterms. Shifting priorities of the Trump administration, staffing reductions and budget cuts have many election officials concerned about how engaged the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency will be next year, when control of Congress will be at stake in those elections.

Some officials say they have begun scrambling to fill the anticipated gaps.

“We do not have a sense of whether we can rely on CISA for these services as we approach a big election year in 2026,” said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat who until recently led the bipartisan National Assn. of Secretaries of State.

The association’s leaders sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in February asking her to preserve the cybersecurity agency’s core election functions. Noem, whose department oversees the agency, replied the following month that it was reviewing its “funding, products, services, and positions” related to election security and that its services would remain available to election officials.

Simon said secretaries of state are still waiting to hear about the agency’s plans.

“I regret to say that months later, the letter remains very timely and relevant,” he said.

An agency in transition

CISA, as the agency is known, was formed under the first Trump administration to help safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure, including dams, power plants and election systems. It has been undergoing a major transformation since President Trump’s second term began in January.

Public records suggest that roughly 1,000 CISA employees have lost their jobs in recent years. The Republican administration in March cut $10 million from two cybersecurity initiatives, including one dedicated to helping state and local election officials.

That was a few weeks after CISA announced it was conducting a review of its election-related work, and more than a dozen staffers who have worked on elections were placed on administrative leave. The FBI also disbanded a task force on foreign influence operations, including those that target U.S. elections.

CISA is still without an official director. Trump’s nomination of Sean Plankey, a cybersecurity expert in the first Trump administration, has stalled in the Senate.

CISA officials did not answer questions seeking specifics about the agency’s role in the recently completed elections, its plans for the 2026 election cycle or staffing levels. They said the agency remains ready to help protect election infrastructure.

“Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Noem, CISA is laser-focused on securing America’s critical infrastructure and strengthening cyber resilience across the government and industry,” said Marci McCarthy, CISA’s director of public affairs.

She said CISA would announce its future organizational plans “at the appropriate time.”

Christine Serrano Glassner, CISA’s chief external affairs officer, said the agency’s experts are ready to provide election guidance if asked.

“In the event of disruptions or threats to critical infrastructure, whether Election Day-related or not, CISA swiftly coordinates with the Office of Emergency Management and the appropriate federal, state and local authorities,” she said in a statement.

States left on their own

California’s top election security agencies said CISA has played a “critical role” since 2018 but provided little, if any, help for the state’s Nov. 4 special election, when voters approved a redrawn congressional redistricting map.

“Over the past year, CISA’s capacity to support elections has been significantly diminished,” the California secretary of state’s office said in a statement to the Associated Press. “The agency has experienced major reductions in staffing, funding, and mission focus — including the elimination of personnel dedicated specifically to election security and foreign influence mitigation.

“This shift has left election officials nationwide without the critical federal partnership they have relied on for several election cycles,” the statement said.

CISA alerted California officials in September that it would no longer participate in a task force that brought together federal, state and local agencies to support county election offices. California election officials and the governor’s Office of Emergency Services did what they could to fill the gaps and plan for various security scenarios.

In Orange County, Registrar of Voters Bob Page said in an email that the state offices and other county departments “stepped up” to support his office “to fill the void left by CISA’s absence.”

Neighboring Los Angeles County had a different experience. The registrar’s office, which oversees elections, said it continues to get a range of cybersecurity services from CISA, including threat intelligence, network monitoring and security testing of its equipment, although local jurisdictions now have to cover the costs of some services that had been federally funded.

Some other states that held elections this month also said they did not have coordination with CISA.

Mississippi’s secretary of state, who heads the national association that sent the letter to Noem, did not directly respond to a request for comment, but his office confirmed that CISA was not involved in the state’s recent elections.

In Pennsylvania, which held a nationally watched retention election for three state Supreme Court justices this month, the Department of State said it is also relied more on its own partners to ensure the elections were secure.

In an email, the department said it was “relying much less on CISA than it had in recent years.” Instead, it has begun collaborating with the state police, the state’s own homeland security department, local cybersecurity experts and other agencies.

Looking for alternatives

Simon, the former head of the secretary of state’s association, said state and local election officials need answers about CISA’s plans because officials will have to seek alternatives if the services it had been providing will not be available next year.

In some cases, such as classified intelligence briefings, there are no alternatives to the federal government, he said. But there might be ways to get other services, such as testing of election equipment to see if it can be penetrated from outside.

In past election years, CISA also would conduct tabletop exercises with local agencies and election offices to game out various scenarios that might affecting voting or ballot counting, and how they would react. Simon said that is something CISA was very good at.

“We are starting to assume that some of those services are not going to be available to us, and we are looking elsewhere to fill that void,” Simon said.

Karnowski and Smyth write for the Associated Press. Smyth reported from Columbus, Ohio.

Officials from the US, Ukraine, and national security advisers from France, UK and Germany to hold talks in Geneva today to discuss plan to end the war.