troops

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.

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.”

The British Army has suspended the use of its controversial new Ajax armored fighting vehicles after dozens of soldiers became ill after riding in them. The U.K. Ministry of Defense confirmed that “around 30 personnel presented noise and vibration symptoms” following an exercise involving the tracked vehicles.

The Ministry of Defense said that the Army immediately put a two-week pause on using Ajax, following Exercise Iron Fist conducted on Salisbury Plain over the weekend. The ministry added that the “vast majority” of the soldiers affected “have now been medically cleared and are continuing on duty.” Others, however, “continue to receive expert medical care.” The statements were provided to Sky News by a Ministry of Defense spokesperson. Reportedly, the affected soldiers spent between 10 and 15 hours in the vehicles.

The decision was made by Luke Pollard, the defense procurement minister, and will now see a safety investigation carried out on the armored fighting vehicles. In the meantime, the Ministry of Defense said that “a small amount of testing of the vehicle will continue, in order to ensure that any issues can be identified and resolved.”

Speaking at Rusi, Luke Pollard said that safety was a “top priority” for the MoD and that’s why he ordered training be paused on Ajax until the military can establish the cause of the issues. He said he declared the vehicles safe earlier this month based on written evidence…

— Larisa Brown (@larisamlbrown) November 25, 2025

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that these kinds of issues are by no means new for the vehicle.

In the summer, soldiers were hospitalized after suffering hearing and other injuries caused by loud noise and vibrations inside the vehicles.

Earlier this month, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that a “small number” of soldiers had reported noise and vibration issues after trials that involved three variants of the tracked vehicle.

#1 Another wave of Ajax noise & vibration (N&V) chatter has followed IOC. I’m not going to weigh in on either side, but here’s how we might spot if N&V issues are real or rumour – an off-the-cuff thread. pic.twitter.com/OIqEy22Vkt

— Jon Hawkes (@JonHawkes275) November 26, 2025

However, a ministry spokesperson also told Deborah Haynes of Sky News that, following an investigation, “no systemic issues were found.”

Also in November, defense procurement minister Pollard said that “After all the problems [Ajax] may have had in the past, we have put those to bed now.”

Pollard was speaking as the Ministry of Defense announced the initial operating capability (IOC) for Ajax. This milestone required a squadron of 27 vehicles ready to deploy on operations from a pool of 50. By this point, 165 of the vehicles had been delivered from a total of 589 on order, in six different versions (Atlas armored recovery vehicle, Apollo armored repair vehicle, Ares armored personnel carrier, Ajax reconnaissance vehicle, Athena command post vehicle, and Argus engineering vehicle).

Ajax is a disaster.

It’s incredible that the platform was signed off for Initial Operating Capability given the ongoing issues with injuries to vehicle crews.

Coupled with the lack of clarity about how Ares and Athena will be used by the Infantry, our armoured capability is in… pic.twitter.com/7jJYr6bYiT

— Ben Obese-Jecty MP (@BenObeseJecty) November 25, 2025

The nature of the noise and vibration problem was already well known by that point.

In 2021, the Ministry of Defense published a review that revealed that, for almost two years, senior officers and ministry officials were aware of problems with the vehicles that put troops at risk.

The same review noted that, although the potential for hearing damage had been identified in December 2018, it wasn’t until November 2020 that trials were suspended for the first time. A year later, more than 300 soldiers had been offered hearing tests, and 17 of them were still receiving specialist treatment.

As well as these problems, the Ajax program has seen serious delays.

At one point, IOC was expected in 2017. In June 2021, the Ministry of Defense said that, although IOC had been delayed by another year, it had “90 percent confidence” that it would be declared in September 2021. Ultimately, the Army would have to wait until November 2025 for that milestone.

The summer of 2021 also saw a damning report into Ajax from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British defense and security think tank.

That report described it as a program in crisis, highlighting the vehicle’s excessive noise and vibration and asking what it said were the two fundamental questions about Ajax: “Whether the vehicle can be fixed, and whether it is worth saving.”

The RUSI report also provided more details on how the noise and vibration issues manifest themselves.

Taking noise first, RUSI reported that the main problem was due to the integration of the Bowman headsets for the crew radios. These headsets picked up the engine noise from what “has long been recognized as a noisy vehicle” and put the sound directly into the crews’ ears. While that problem can clearly be fixed with different headsets, it does raise alarming questions about how these noise tests were carried out.

Second and more worrying is the vibration issue, which is at least partly derived from problems with quality control in the fabrication of the vehicle hulls by General Dynamics Land Systems UK (GDLUK). The vibration not only leads to significant crew discomfort but also has other effects: “Preventing the main armament from stabilizing on the move, damaging the electronic systems that make Ajax a step-change in capability, and leading to a high rate of component failure, with the idler and rear road wheels shearing off with concerning regularity.”

If the future of the Ajax program was questionable in 2021, it is even more precarious now.

What is clear is that the British Army badly needs modern armored fighting vehicles.

The Ajax is the first new tracked armored fighting vehicle for the Army in almost 30 years. Some of the equipment it’s replacing, like the FV432 armored personnel carrier dates back to the 1960s.

Armed with a 40mm main gun, the Ajax is based on the ASCOD 2 armored fighting vehicles used by Spain and Austria and was selected by the United Kingdom in 2010 as the winner of the Future Rapid Effect System contract.

Ajax was never based on a “proven design” – it was based on Pizarro II which had been cancelled in Spain a couple of years before UK selection as a result of the Global Finacial Crisis. In effect, it wasn’t even based on a paper design. And then saw over 1400 design changes… https://t.co/RzmGQmdZ9K

— Francis Tusa (@FTusa284) November 26, 2025

The GDLUK proposal fought off competition from the rival CV90 offered by BAE Systems.

That saddest thing about this is that in a sane world the CV90 in UK service would be getting its major mid-life upgrade about now and we’d be planning for its replacement. https://t.co/wMlEF42WkM

— Defence With A ‘C’ (@defencewithac) November 26, 2025

The service’s most modern tracked infantry fighting vehicle, the Warrior, entered service in 1988. In 2021, the Ministry of Defense announced its intention to replace the Warrior with the Boxer, an 8×8 wheeled armored personnel carrier, which would appear to make the introduction of a new tracked IFV all the more urgent.

On the other hand, the decision to give up the Warrior shows that armored infantry is no longer a core capability within the British Army.

As the RUSI report states:

“If grouped within the Heavy Brigade Combat Teams alongside Challenger 3, Ajax cannot deliver infantry to the objective and cannot perform the divisional reconnaissance function. Alternatively, if made part of the Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team, Ajax will struggle to be sustained operating independently. Ajax’s inability to peer-to-peer recover also makes it a poor independent unit, while its weight, complexity, and size make it hard to deploy with lighter forces, despite the British Army seeking to operate further afield with greater frequency.”

With a total program cost of £5.5 billion (around $7.3 billion), this is a huge investment for a vehicle the importance of which within the British Army is somewhat unclear, and which still has unresolved issues that can threaten the health of soldiers. That price tag also doesn’t consider the costs of any future technical fixes to the vehicle.

As it stands, the British Army will use Ajax primarily as a reconnaissance vehicle, a mission that it doesn’t appear immediately suited to, based on its considerable size and weight. The situation would have been different if the Army had planned to retain the Warrior IFV. After all, when Ajax was first drafted, it was expected to work in support of Warrior.

Since the Ajax program was launched, drones have also significantly reshaped the battlefield. Not only do drones offer a cheaper, more survivable, and more flexible way of conducting reconnaissance, including from standoff distances, but the presence of attack drones adds a new dimension of threat to vehicles like Ajax.

⚙️ There will be a huge amount of pressure to move from Ajax to a raft of pet-favourite IFV’s for Armoured Infantry.

We must resist knee-jerk reactions. A series of entirely sensible short term decision making is part of the reason the Army is where it is. We need a longer term,… https://t.co/f596X0A4qS pic.twitter.com/WX8F8yc8S3

— The Other Chris (@TotherChris) November 26, 2025

Although the Ministry of Defense says that Ajax’s armor is designed to protect against at least some kinds of kamikaze drones, it also admits that the vehicles have yet to be fitted with electronic countermeasures to defeat such threats.

This would seem to be a prerequisite for any kind of operational capability, which makes it all the more puzzling that the Ministry of Defense is already talking about deploying Ajax as part of a future British Army presence in Ukraine, provided there is a ceasefire and an agreement covering such a force.

“When we have the ability to deploy incredibly capable platforms like Ajax and the brilliant men and women trained to use it to its fullest effect,” Pollard told Sky News, “there’s a clear opportunity for us to be able to enhance NATO’s capabilities on the eastern flank and any coalition of the willing deployment potentially in the future.”

Before that happens, the longstanding problems related to vehicle noise and vibration will have to be resolved, and a comprehensive counter-drone system will need to be installed. But with the latest pause on its use, it’s increasingly questionable if the Ajax program will survive long enough for that to happen.

Contact the author: [email protected]

WASHINGTON — On Saturday, after 19 years of war, the United States and the Taliban began what both sides delicately called a seven-day “reduction of violence” in Afghanistan, a trial attempt at a partial truce. If the experiment works, they have set Feb. 29 for a ceremony to sign an agreement that would launch broader peace negotiations.

The Taliban has a good reason to keep its promise to pause offensive operations for a week: Under the proposed deal, the U.S. will withdraw about one-fourth of its roughly 12,000 troops from Afghanistan by this summer. It’s one goal the Taliban shares with President Trump, who wants to run for reelection claiming he is ending the United States’ longest war.

But the larger peace process that is supposed to follow will be far more difficult — and the Taliban is not the only complicating factor.

There’s also Trump’s impatience and his penchant for disrupting slow-moving diplomatic efforts at whim.

As early as 2012, Trump declared the U.S. war in Afghanistan “a complete waste” and said it was time to pull out. If something goes wrong in the Afghan peace process — and something surely will — will he check his impulse to declare victory and leave?

The plan negotiated by Trump’s special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, has plenty of moving parts. Its text hasn’t been released, but officials and others say it is almost identical to a draft deal Khalilzad reached in September.

According to their accounts, the deal calls for the United States to trim its troop presence from about 12,000 to 8,600 by July — and later, if all goes well, to zero. Or as the Taliban put it in a statement Friday, the deal would lead to “the withdrawal of all foreign forces … so that our people can live a peaceful and prosperous life under the shade of an Islamic system.”

The Taliban must agree not to harbor Islamic State, Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that seek to attack the West. The plan even provides for U.S. forces and the Taliban to cooperate on counterterrorism.

Peace negotiations among all Afghan factions are supposed to begin within 10 days after the plan is signed. But the government in Kabul led by President Ashraf Ghani is mired in an internal power struggle and could prove incapable of acting as an effective player.

Those talks could lead to a new constitution and give the Taliban a major role in a future Afghan government.

Keeping that complex process on track will require Washington to stay involved in Afghanistan with both diplomatic muscle and continued financial aid — which means Congress will have to buy in.

That hasn’t happened. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other Republican hawks are already grumbling about trusting the Taliban and the folly, in their view, of reducing troops below 8,600.

One question is practical: U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy Al Qaeda, which launched the 9/11 attacks from its sanctuary there, and to push the Taliban out of power. Can U.S. counterterrorism needs be met without troops in Afghanistan?

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who helped run the war under two presidents, says the answer is yes.

“The threat is not what it was in 2001. Al Qaeda is much diminished,” he told me. “And we’re much better at counterterrorism than we were back when we were simply launching cruise missiles into the desert.”

Other questions could be difficult in a different way.

Most Americans have concluded that the U.S. war in Afghanistan turned into a tragic, expensive failure once it expanded beyond unseating Al Qaeda. The explicit U.S. recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political force makes that verdict official.

And allowing the Taliban to win a share of power — or potentially dominate the government in Kabul — will diminish whatever hope remains of helping Afghanistan become a recognizable democracy.

Americans once congratulated themselves for freeing Afghanistan’s women from Islamic extremism. Taliban leaders have said they intend to protect women’s rights to education and employment, but their track record — closing schools, barring women from public life, and worse — inspires little confidence.

Many, including Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, are pessimistic.

“We encouraged women to step forward,” Crocker told me. “Now it appears they’re expendable.”

Trump has disrupted his own diplomacy more than once. When the U.S. and Taliban reached a tentative deal last September, Trump impulsively decided that he wanted Taliban leaders to fly to Camp David for a splashy ceremony three days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban, which isn’t big on photo ops, refused. Republicans in Congress also denounced the idea of honoring the leaders of a guerrilla force who had killed 1,800 Americans by bringing them to the presidential retreat in Maryland. Trump announced that he was canceling the deal entirely, blamed the Taliban for an attack that killed a U.S. serviceman in Kabul, and pronounced the peace talks “dead.”

Khalilzad needed almost six months to bring the deal back to life.

If the Feb. 29 deal holds, Trump will claim credit for cutting U.S. troops in Afghanistan down to 8,600 — the same number deployed when President Obama left office.

But what Trump really wants is to announce —in an election year, no less — that those troops are on their way home, too.

Given the complexities of Afghan politics, that’s probably impossible. Diplomats warn that putting pressure on the Afghans to conclude a peace agreement could scuttle the process.

If Trump wants to withdraw troops as part of a comprehensive deal — one that avoids chaos, meets U.S. counterterrorism needs and gives Afghanistan a chance at peace — he’ll need to exercise unwonted self-restraint.

After three years as president, he doesn’t have many diplomatic achievements to his name. He’s staged disruptive events, including summit meetings with Kim Jong Un, trade wars and withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, but produced few tangible accomplishments.

Launching a peace process for Afghanistan, if it succeeds, could be his most substantive achievement — but only if he gets out of his own way.

US president’s controversial deployment of soldiers to US cities has raised alarm and a series of legal challenges.

A United States federal judge has said the Trump administration must pause its deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, DC, a setback for the president’s push to send the military into cities across the country.

US District Judge Jia Cobb temporarily suspended the deployment in a ruling on Thursday, responding to a lawsuit filed by city officials who said Trump had usurped policing powers and was using the military for domestic law enforcement.

The federal government has unique powers in Washington, DC. But the Trump administration has taken the controversial step to deploy soldiers in a growing list of Democrat-led cities, despite frequent protests from state and local officials and a lack of any emergency conditions.

Cobb, who said in her decision that the president cannot deploy soldiers for “whatever reason” he wants, gave the Trump administration 21 days to appeal the order before it goes into effect.

Lawyers for the government slammed the lawsuit that challenged the military deployment as a “frivolous stunt”.

“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

Trump has also deployed troops to cities such as Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois, in what he depicts as an effort to tackle crime and round up undocumented immigrants.

Residents and civil liberties groups have documented aggressive raids and what they say are widespread rights violations and racial profiling by federal agents during those crackdowns, in which US citizens have sometimes been swept up.

Trump has threatened to imprison local and state officials who criticise his deployment of the military.

A legal challenge filed in September by Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb said that US democracy would “never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand”.

Trump ordered the first deployment in August, involving about 2,300 National Guard members from various states and hundreds of federal agents from various agencies.

Nov. 20 (UPI) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump‘s deployment of 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Washington was illegal, saying the president lacks the authority to dispatch troops “for the deterrence of crime.”

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb said that while Trump is the commander in chief, federal laws constrain his power to federalize and deploy those troops, particularly in Washington, which Congress controls.

“The Court rejects the Defendant’s fly-by assertion of constitutional power, finding that such a broad reading of the President’s Article II authority would erase Congress’ role in governing the District and its National Guard,” Cobb wrote in her 61-page ruling.

Cobb also said that Trump also lacked authority to deploy out-of-state National Guard troops to Washington to assist in law enforcement.

Cobb’s ruling will not take effect until Dec. 11, giving the Trump administration time to appeal. The Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing its own ruling on the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago. Federal appeals courts are also considering National Guard troop deployments to Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles.

Trump has justified his troop deployments by claiming, without evidence, that large-scale violence and chaos demands the presence of national troops to protect federal functions. State and local leaders, as well as municipal law enforcement officers, have said they don’t need federal help to protect their cities.

Hundreds of National Guard troops deployed to Chicago and Portland, Ore., are being sent home, and those who will remain will continue to stay off the streets amid court battles over their deployment by the Trump administration, a defense official said Monday.

The withdrawal of soldiers — sent from California and Texas — is part of a larger change to troop deployments after President Trump began his immigration crackdown in various cities with Democratic leadership. The official requested anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

U.S. Northern Command said in a statement Sunday it was “shifting and/or rightsizing” units in Portland, Los Angeles and Chicago. Although it said there would be a “constant, enduring, and long-term presence in each city.”

In the coming days, 200 California National Guard troops currently deployed to Oregon will be sent home, and about 100 will remain in the Portland area doing training, the official said. The military also plans to cut in half the number of Oregon National Guard troops on deployment there from 200 soldiers to 100, the official said.

About 200 Texas National Guard troops in Chicago also are being sent home and about 200 soldiers will be on standby at Fort Bliss, an Army base that stretches across parts of Texas and New Mexico, the official said.

About 300 Illinois National Guard troops will remain in the Chicago area, also doing training, but they currently are not legally allowed to conduct operations with the Department of Homeland Security, the official said.

The official said the upcoming holiday season may have played a role in the change in deployments.

Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, said Trump “never should have illegally deployed our troops in the first place.”

“We’re glad they’re finally coming home,” she wrote in an email. “It’s long overdue!”

Separately, the Trump administration has stepped up immigration enforcement in Charlotte, North Carolina, expanding an aggressive campaign that’s been spearheaded by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

National Guard deployments have been one of the most controversial initiatives of Trump’s second term, demonstrating an expanded willingness to use the military to accomplish domestic goals.

Troops, including active-duty Marines, were deployed to Los Angeles during immigration protests earlier this year.

The National Guard was also sent to Washington, D.C., where they were part of a broader federal intervention that Trump claimed was necessary because of crime problems.

The deployments later expanded to Portland and Chicago.

Although they don’t play a law enforcement role, members of the National Guard have been tasked with protecting federal facilities, particularly those run by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

About 100 troops who have been in Los Angeles will remain on deployment, the defense official said.

Watson writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Chris Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.

Nov. 16 (UPI) — Hundreds of troops from the Texas National Guard and California National Guard will return to their home states after their deployment to Chicago and Portland, Ore., reports said Sunday.

President Donald Trump federalized 200 members of the Texas National Guard who were deployed to Chicago on Oct. 6, while another 200 from the California National Guard were deployed to Portland.

Around 300 Illinois National Guard troops were also activated in Chicago, and 200 Oregon National Guard troops were activated in Portland.

The Trump administration has justified the federalization of National Guard troops as a means to protect federal authorities and buildings amid widespread protests over raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies.

Anonymous sources told CBS News and CNN that troops from California and Texas would soon return home, while the Trump administration would reduce the number of federalized Oregon National Guard members from 200 to 100, keeping all 300 Illinois National Guard members in place.

To activate the troops, Trump had invoked Title 10 of the federal code, which allows the president to call up National Guard members from any state if another is “in danger of invasion by a foreign nation” or if there is a “danger of rebellion against the authority of the government.”

The activations prompted immediate lawsuits in Illinois and Oregon, which contested Trump’s justification for federalizing and sending National Guard troops.

U.S. District Court Judge April Perry in her ruling had found that there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.”

Her ruling was then upheld by a circuit court panel that wrote “political opposition is not rebellion,” blocking the National Guard members from actually deploying on Chicago streets.

The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has issued an order for a supplemental briefing and has not yet granted a full review of the case.

Concurrently, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut granted a temporary restraining order to block the federalization of Oregon National Guard troops in early October, also preventing them from deploying on Chicago streets.

A circuit court panel then stayed her order, permitting their deployment as the case continued through the lower court.

Immergut then issued a ruling on Nov. 7 that found Trump’s federalization order to be unlawful, exceeding his statutory authority under Title 10 and violating the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on state sovereignty, again blocking their deployment. The Trump administration has appealed that case to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, U.S. Northern Command issued a statement Friday that said the U.S. Defense Department would “be shifting” its Title 10 footprint in Portland, Chicago and Los Angeles, which saw troop deployments earlier this year. It indicated that the U.S. would be establishing a “long-term presence” of troops in each city.

“Our work to protect federal functions, personnel, and property remains a top priority — each and every day. We are prepared to commit as many troops as needed, for as long as needed, to support our law enforcement partners in cities across the country,” the statement reads.

“Our troops in each city (and others) are trained and ready, and will be employed whenever needed to support law enforcement and keep our citizens safe.”

Undated video circulating on social media shows Russian troops moving through dense fog in Pokrovsk as Moscow steps up efforts to reinforce positions. Ukraine says around 300 Russian soldiers are in the town and are trying to push north to encircle the area.

Nov. 8 (UPI) — A federal judge issued a permanent injunction that prevents the deployment of the National Guard in Portland, Ore., saying Donald Trump “exceeded the President’s authority.”

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, in a 106-page decision Friday, wrote in all caps: “THIS PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.”

She issued a temporary restraining order on Oct. 4 blocking the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. One day later a second order blocked deployment of National Guard troops from other states to Portland streets.

“The evidence demonstrates that these deployments, which were objected to by Oregon’s governor and not requested by the federal officials in charge of protection of the ICE building, exceeded the president’s authority,” the judge, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, wrote.

Immergut, who made the decision after the three-day trial, said the troops were not needed to quell protests against Trump’s immigration policies.

“This Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ nor was the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard,” Immergut wrote.

She said a stay of federalization of Oregon troops will last 14 days that “preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed.”

Starting in early June, there were daily demonstrations outside ICE’s building in Portland. They have been small and peaceful and dispersed when federal agents in riot gear came to the scene, The New York Times reported.

Sometimes federal officers used tear gas, rubber bullets and pepper spray balls.

Immergut said she expects the decision to be appealed with the White House not responding to a request for comment Friday night.

“The ‘precise standard’ to demarcate the line past which conditions would satisfy the statutory standard to deploy the military in the streets of American cities is ultimately a question for a higher court to decide,” she wrote.

During the trial, federal lawyers said they intended to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

On Sept. 27, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he planned to use “full force” to protect “war-ravaged Portland.”

The next day, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asked Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek to activate 200 members of the Oregon National Guard to protect federal property. Kotek refused and Trump federalized the troops.

Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a president may use the National Guard on U.S. soil in only three situations: a foreign invasion; a rebellion or threat of a rebellion; or laws of the nation cannot be enforced with existing resources.

The Trump administration argued the last two conditions were met. The judge disagreed.

“Oregon National Guard members have been away from their jobs and families for 38 days,” Kotek, a Democrat, said after the ruling on the lawsuit by the state and city. ” The California National Guard has been here for just over one month. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision involving his state’s troops “a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people.”

Trump has sought to send troops into Democrat-run cities. Another judge has blocked troops from Chicago after a lawsuit and that decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Troops have been sent to the District of Columbia, Los Angeles and Memphis, Tenn., to assist ICE and/or reduce crime.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.

US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers.

United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities.

The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland.

Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media.

BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment!

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/ffzgj0zCjM

— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) November 8, 2025

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports.

The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion.

Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city.

But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.

A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation.

About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours.

Prosecutors dismissed two cases.

Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest.

Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.