Connect with us

News

Peace plans ready to be presented to Russia in days, says Zelenskyy

Published

on

Peace plans ready to be presented to Russia in days, says Zelenskyy

Volodymyr Zelenskyy says proposals negotiated with US officials on a peace deal to end Russia’s war in Ukraine could be finalised within days, after which American envoys will present them to the Kremlin.

After two days of talks in Berlin, US officials said on Monday they had resolved “90%” of the problematic issues between Russia and Ukraine, but despite the positive spin it is not clear that an end to the war is any closer, particularly as the Russian side is absent from the current talks.

In the early hours of Tuesday morning the Ukrainian president said the US Congress was expected to vote on security guarantees and that he expected a finalised set of documents to be prepared “today or tomorrow”. After that, he said, the US would hold consultations with the Russians, followed by high-level meetings that could take place as soon as this weekend.

“We are counting on five documents. Some of them concern security guarantees: legally binding, that is, voted on and approved by the US Congress,” he said in comments to journalists via WhatsApp. He said the guarantees would “mirror article 5” of Nato.

On Monday, US officials declined to give specific details of what the security package was likely to include, and what would happen if Russia attempted to seize more land after a peace deal was reached. They did, however, confirm that the US did not plan to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.

Advertisement

Leaders of the UK, France, Germany and eight other European countries said in a joint statement that troops from a “coalition of the willing” could “assist in the regeneration of Ukraine’s forces, in securing Ukraine’s skies, and in supporting safer seas, including through operating inside Ukraine”.

They stopped short, however, of suggesting these would be guarantees that would match Nato’s article 5, and in any case there is little sign that Russia is anywhere close to agreeing to the kind of package under discussion between Washington and Kyiv.

On Tuesday, the Kremlin said it had not seen the details of proposals on security guarantees. “We have seen newspaper reports so far, but we will not respond to them. We have not seen any texts yet,” its spokesperson, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters.

Peskov added that Moscow, which has in the past demanded Kyiv cede territories Russia claims as its own and ruled out the presence of any foreign troops in Ukraine, had not changed its stance on the conflict and the achievement of its military goals.

“Our position is well known. It is consistent, it is transparent and it is clear to the Americans. And, in general, it is clear to the Ukrainians as well,” Peskov said.

Advertisement

Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said Russia would not agree to troops from Nato countries operating in Ukraine “under any circumstances”. It was unclear whether that formulation also included troops drawn from Nato countries operating under a separate non-Nato command.

The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said on Monday that peace was closer than at any time since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion. But privately, European officials say that at this stage the talks are more about keeping the Trump White House onboard with supporting Ukraine than about reaching a lasting deal between Moscow and Kyiv.

The main sticking point between the Ukrainian team and US negotiators remains the issue of land. Trump wants Ukraine to give up the parts of the Donbas region it still holds, while Ukraine wants to freeze the lines at the current point of contact. “We are discussing the territorial issue. You know it is one of the key issues. At this point, there is no consensus on it yet,” Zelenskyy said after the Berlin talks.

The US negotiation team, led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, has proposed a compromise solution whereby Ukraine would withdraw, but Russia would not advance and the demilitarised area would become “a free economic zone”. Russia has suggested that they could use police and national guard formations rather than the military, implying they would still expect to control the territory.

“I want to stress once again: a ‘free economic zone’ does not mean under the control of Russia. Neither de jure nor de facto will we recognise Donbas – its temporarily occupied part – as Russian. Absolutely,” said Zelenskyy.

Advertisement

It is not clear how the two sides will proceed on the territorial issue, with Zelenskyy previously suggesting that a compromise solution such as a free economic zone could be theoretically possible if the Ukrainian people voted for it in a referendum. The critical stumbling block is likely to be when the plans are put to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, who has given no sign he is willing to compromise on his war aims.

“If Putin rejects everything, we will end up with exactly what we are experiencing on our plane right now – turbulence,” said Zelenskyy, recording the comments after his plane took off from Berlin for the Netherlands for a series of meetings on Tuesday.

“I believe the United States will apply sanctions pressure and provide us with more weapons if he rejects everything. I think that would be a fair request from us to the Americans,” he said.

News

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino says he will step down in January

Published

on

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino says he will step down in January

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino speaks during a news conference on an arrest of a suspect in the January 6th pipe bomb case at the Department of Justice on Dec. 4, 2025.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

FBI deputy director Dan Bongino said Wednesday he plans to step down from the bureau in January.

In a statement posted on X, Bongino thanked President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel “for the opportunity to serve with purpose.”

Bongino was an unusual pick for the No. 2 post at the FBI, a critical job overseeing the bureau’s day-to-day affairs traditionally held by a career agent. Neither Bongino nor his boss, Patel, had any previous experience at the FBI.

Advertisement

Bongino did have previous law enforcement experience, as a police officer and later as a Secret Service agent, as well as a long history of vocal support for Trump.

Bongino made his name over the past decade as a pro-Trump, far-right podcaster who pushed conspiracy theories, including some involving the FBI. He had been critical of the bureau, embracing the narrative that it had been “weaponized” against conservatives and even calling its agents “thugs.”

His tenure at the bureau was at times tumultuous, including a clash with Justice Department leadership over the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

But it also involved the arrest earlier this month of the man authorities say is responsible for placing two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican committee headquarters, hours before the assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In an unusual arrangement, Bongino has had a co-deputy director since this summer when the Trump administration tapped Andrew Bailey, a former attorney general of Missouri, to serve alongside Bongino in the No. 2 job.

Advertisement

President Trump praised Bongino in brief remarks to reporters before he announced he was stepping down.”Dan did a great job,” Trump said. “I think he wants to go back to his show.”

Continue Reading

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

Trending