Trump’s signals to Zelensky and Europe: Accept this plan or you’re on your own

1/3

The 28-point plan hammered out by US and Russian envoys and put to Ukraine this week came with a deadline and an implicit threat: Sign up or face the risk of being abandoned.

US President Donald Trump said Friday that Ukrainian leaderVolodymyr Zelensky would “have to like” the US plan, suggesting he is in no mood to negotiate.

Since then, Trump has sent mixed messages, saying the plan was not his final offer but adding that if Zelensky did not accept it he could “continue to fight his little heart out.”

Zelensky recognized the stark choice in a somber speech to the nation on Friday, casting the plan as a choice between losing the United States as an ally and giving in to Russian demands, which many of the 28 points cater to.

If Kyiv were to lose US support, the consequences would be grave for its weapons supplies and access to intelligence, compounding existing crises: a lack of soldiers, a financial crunch and a deepening lack of confidence among Ukrainians in a presidency tainted by scandal.

Above all, rejecting the proposal would herald an existential separation from the US, with massive strategic implications for Ukraine and its European backers. It would risk the US turning its back on the conflict altogether, reneging on pledges of a security guarantee for Ukraine and telling not just Zelensky but the Europeans: You’re on your own.

Weapons pipeline

Not getting US weapons would hurt Ukraine, but not as much as it would have done three years ago. That’s partly because the conflict has changed so much: Tanks, anti-tank weapons and armored vehicles now play a subordinate role to the ever-present drones.

And it’s partly because the weapons pipeline from Europe is now bigger than that from the US. From the start of the war through June 2025, Europe has allocated at least $40 billion in military aid, $5 billion more than the US.

The loss of US weaponrywould most of all affect Ukrainian air defenses, which include Patriot batteries and missiles. Zelensky has repeatedly pleaded for more air defenses from the US, but the Patriots are in short supply. Even if the US cut off its own supply of missiles and spare parts, it might allow European and other allies to continue helping.

Ukraine has also had a limited supply of highly effective US ATACM missiles.

The Trump administration has shown greater willingness to sell US weapons to a European-financed fund known as the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) worth some $90 billion.But it could punish Ukraine by abandoning the program – if Kyiv rejects the plan.

On the upside, Ukraine has built a formidable drone and missile industry, even if it needs scaling-up. Ukrainian officials have said that 90% of the drones it uses are made in Ukraine.

Intelligence sharing

The US briefly stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine back in March, after the infamous Oval Office encounter between Trump and Zelensky.

The exact nature of that cooperation has never been publicly divulged but likely includes early warning of Russian missile launchesand real-time analysis of Russian troop movements, critical at a time when Russian forces are making advances on several parts of the frontlines.

In October, Zelensky acknowledged that all of Ukraine’s defenses against Russian missiles – Patriot, NASAMS and the IRIS-T –would have limited data without US intelligence, meaning there wouldn’t be enough information to ensure defense.

US intelligence has also been used by Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia, including against military and energy infrastructure, Ukrainian sources have told CNN.

The Europeans are improving their access to such intelligence, but it takes years to build and coordinate such capabilities.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/23/europe/zelensky-ukraine-europe-trump-plan-intl

>>23896662

2/3

Men and money

Ukraine’s greatest problems are more homemade and couldn’t be fixed by any number of US tanks or missiles.Its military has a manpower crisis. Tens of thousands of soldiers went AWOL in the first seven months of this year alone.

Many infantry units are severely under-staffed, but reducing the draft age from 25 is seen as a political landmine.

Should Kyiv reject the blueprint, US backing for its solvency may be another casualty. The International Monetary Fund says Ukraine needs $65 billion in budget support over the next year alone. The European Union has been struggling to agree to a way to use frozen Russian assets as some sort of loan guarantee.

The 28-point plan – the work of Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian official Kirill Dmitriev – threatens to blow up the delicate negotiations on using those assets.

“$100 billion in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine. The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture.”

“Frozen European-held Russian funds will be unfrozen,” the plan insists– even if those funds are beyond US control and Europe is not party to the plan.

Security guarantees

The US-Russian plan (point 5)says that “Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees,” but no detail is offered.

Language such as: “It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries” (point 3) will not inspire confidence in Kyiv.

Some reports suggest that according to an annex to the plan “a significant, deliberate, and sustained armed attack by the Russian Federation across the agreed armistice line into Ukrainian territoryshall be regarded as an attack threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community.”

CNN has been unable to confirm such a clause.

Without precise and detailed guarantees, endorsed by the US Congress so they have the force of law and backed by the threat of sanctions,it’s hard to see why Zelensky would accede to the bare outline in the plan.

=But rejection would bring existential risk.

Long before Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dream was to split Europe from the US. A favorite theme of the Kremlin since Trump took office has been to contrast Trump’s efforts to settle the conflict with the “war-mongers” in Europe.

The 28-point plan nods to this US administration’s semi-detached view of NATO, the cornerstone of peace in Europe for 80 years.

It says “a dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States,” exchanging the role of ally for one of arbitrator.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/23/europe/zelensky-ukraine-europe-trump-plan-intl

>>23896668

3/3

European leaders, along with Japan and Canada,came as close as they could to a polite rejection of the plan in a statementon Saturday, saying it “requires additional work.”

They added they were “concerned by the proposed limitations on Ukraine’s armed forces,” which would leave Ukraine vulnerable to attack.

European officials are meeting with their Ukrainian and US counterparts in Geneve Sunday for more detailed talks on the blueprint.

Some Europeans think this is a cathartic moment.

“We have been told repeatedly and unambiguously that Ukraine’s security, and therefore Europe’s security, will be Europe’s responsibility. And now it is,” former Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said on XSaturday.

A watershed moment

Just one month ago, Zelensky said that in a phone call with Trump, he had “discussed opportunities to bolster our air defense, as well as concrete agreements that we are working on to ensure this. There are good options and solid ideas on how to truly strengthen us.”

Those good options have evaporated.

The potential loss of weapons systems and intelligence – and their immediate impact on a battlefield that is steadily tilting Moscow’s way as well as Ukraine’s energy supplies – very much matter.

But they pale by comparison to the prospect that Washington is ready to reward Putin’s aggression, shrug at his seizure of European territory and detach itself from the most successful alliance for peace in the modern era.(only CNN would write this)

That point was made on Saturday by a number of senior Republicans, with US Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services committee, saying: “Any suggestion that we can pursue arms control with a serial killer and liar like Putin should be treated with great skepticism.”

“There is a long tradition of great powers in Europe making deals over the heads of smaller countries, leading to terrible suffering,” writes Anne Applebaum in the Atlantic. (The Communist liar about all things Russia)

“The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with its secret protocols, brought us World War II. The Yalta agreement gave us the Cold War. The Witkoff-Dmitriev pact, if it holds, will fit right into that tradition,” she says.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/23/europe/zelensky-ukraine-europe-trump-plan-intl

Eric Swalwell is Constitutionally Disqualified from Running for Governor of California

by Joel Gilbert, Guest Contributor Nov. 24, 2025 9:301/2

By Joel Gilbert

This past Thursday, unshaven Congressman Eric Swalwell declared his candidacy for the governorship of California, despite being constitutionally disqualified to run. At the center of Swalwell’s disqualification is that to become California governor, the candidate’s true, primary, and permanent home must be in the state of California.

The California Constitution and the California Elections Code leave no ambiguity on this point. And yet, Swalwell’s own legally binding mortgage documents state, signed under penalty of perjury, that his home in Washington DC is his principal residence.

This means Eric Swalwell, by his own sworn declaration, is not domiciled in the state of California. And because domicile, and not mere mailing address, is the standard for gubernatorial eligibility according to California law, Swalwell is legally disqualified from becoming governor and must withdraw his announcement immediately.

California’s Constitutional Requirements and Election Law

California’s eligibility rules to become governor derive from the California Constitution,Article V, Section 2, which states a person is eligible to be Governor only if the person is “a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor’s election.”

The operative word is resident. But in California law, “resident” does not simply mean where one receives mail or even owns property. It means “domicile”, one’s true, fixed, permanent home.California Elections Code §349 makes this point absolutely clear: “A domicile is the place where a person’s habitation is fixed and where they have the intention of remaining.” And, “At a given time, a person may have only one domicile.”

The law furtheremphasizes that though a person may have multiple residences(which Swalwell does not),they may have only one designated domicile.Domicile is proven by actual habitation plus intent to remain permanently. This eliminates any candidate whose legal declarations show that their true primary home is not in California.

Swalwell’s 2022 Mortgage Filing: A Sworn Declaration of D.C. as His Primary Residence

Swalwell’s mortgage document to purchase 209 9th St SE in Washington D.C. makes it clear. On the opening pages of the Deed of Trust, Swalwell and his wife are listed as the borrowers. The document is a District of Columbia Deed of Trust, and it contains the standard federal Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac provisions for owner-occupant primary residence declarations.

Clause 8 of the document includes the line “Material representations include, but are not limited to, representations concerning Borrower’s occupancy of the Property as Borrower’s principal residence.”

Text from a loan application highlighting borrower responsibilities and definitions related to principal residence and material misrepresentations.

Borrower’s Loan Application, rule number 8.

The signature page shows Swalwell and his wife signing under seal, affirming every covenant in the document. The Swalwell’s signatures confirm he is bound by the principal residence owner-occupancy declaration. On the Security Affidavit on page 20, Swalwell again signs under oath regarding his ownership and use of the D.C. property “subject to criminal penalties for making false statements”.

View Fullscreen

These are not symbolic signatures. They carry legal consequences. By declaring a principal residence in Washington, D.C. on legal and financial documents, Swalwell declared that D.C. is his domicile, and not California.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/eric-swalwell-is-constitutionally-disqualified-running-governor-california/

>>23896713

2/2

Why This Disqualifies Swalwell: Principal Residence = Domicile

California law iscrystal clear: to become governor, a candidate’s domicile must be in California for 5 years prior to an election. A signed legal statement of principal residence in another jurisdiction is direct evidence of domicile there, and not in California. The courts look at two core elements:

Where does the candidate actually live most of the time?

Where does the candidate declare their primary, permanent home?

Swalwell’s mortgage answers both questions. He owns and occupies a home in Washington D.C., and he legally and financially swore under penalty of perjury that it is his principal residence. That is the legal definition of domicile.

Even owning a secondary home in California (which he does not) or occasionally visiting California would not qualify Swalwell for the governorship since he’s declared Washington D.C. as his principal residence. The California Attorney General and the courts have repeatedly maintained that a candidate cannot simply claim residency in California to run for office while legally living elsewhere.

Domicile is exclusive, meaning you can only have one. Swalwell cannot claim a primary residence in Washington, D.C. to secure lower rate mortgage benefits and then claim to meet California constitutional residency requirements. This is legally impossible. Thus, Swalwell’s own filings make him ineligible to run for governor of California.

The Five-Year Requirement Is Also Fatal

Because the California Constitution requires five years of California residency immediately before election as governor,Eric Swalwell would have needed to:

1)Abandon his D.C. domicile as his principal residence

2)Establish a new California domicile

3)Live in his California domicile as his primary home for five uninterrupted years

He has not done any of this. Swalwell cannot retroactively pretend California is his domicile to run for governor. Domicile is continuous and must be supported by evidence of actual habitation for five years. Swalwell’s sworn principal residence mortgage document for his Washington D.C. home does the very opposite, it is conclusive evidence of his domicile in Washington D.C since 2022, and not the state of California.

Swalwell Must Withdraw: The Law Leaves Him No Choice

This is not speculation. It is not political commentary. It is the black and white letter of California law. Swalwell’s mortgage documents show his primary residence is Washington D.C., while California requires the governor to be a California domiciliary. Therefore, Swalwell cannot meet the constitutional requirements to become governor of California. Eric Swalwell’s signed mortgage documents make him constitutionally ineligible.

The California Constitution and California Elections Code converge toward one unavoidable conclusion:

Eric Swalwell is disqualified from appearing on California’s gubernatorial ballot and must announce his withdrawal or be disqualified by the Secretary of State of California immediately.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/11/eric-swalwell-is-constitutionally-disqualified-running-governor-california/

'GREATEST GIFT': Crockett Senate hopes could be good news for Republicans

Political commentator Stephanie Hamill joins 'Fox & Friends First' to discuss New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's meeting with President Donald Trump and Rep. Jasmine Crockett reportedly weighing a 2026 Senate run

(I think she made up survey that said people want her in senate and she has good chance to win.)

6:21

https://youtu.be/xPvpNIE0Tb0

BREAKING: 'Covert action' could begin soon in Venezuela, reports say

Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson reports on the U.S. advancing operations in Venezuela as they look to overthrow Nicolas Maduro.

3:25

https://youtu.be/QJl72Pba1_Y

Inflation is where Americans 'feel the brunt' of policy-making: Charles Gasparino

FOX Business senior correspondent Charles Gasparino explains how Americans are feeling the impact of inflation on 'Sunday Night in America.'

5:27

https://youtu.be/QoonTu6mw_U

‘The killing has to STOP!’: GOP senator urges for end to war in Ukraine(Warner and others want it to keep going, down to the last Ukrainian to feed the Military Industrial Complex that gives senate lobbying money.)

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., discusses President Donald Trump’s peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, potential military operations in Venezuela and more on ‘Fox News Sunday.’

9:11

https://youtu.be/2yA6CHqAAPE

>>23896840

That was the first positive interview I’ve seen on FOX about Trump and the country , and how great a job he’s doing by Senator Eric Schmitt. It was refreshing

Expert DEFENDS Trump’s drug boat strikes: ‘Hitting legitimate targets’(hint she wants war with China and the U.S. Said critical things about Israel war. She touts her education in the war industry. Although I agree with her on this)

National security and military analyst Dr. Rebecca Grant discusses the U.S. Military’s presence in the Caribbean, how to stop drug cartels and more on ‘Fox News Live.

5:03

https://youtu.be/7u4oCeMZeF0

Zamir: IDF does not need approval to probe Oct. 7, following Katz's call for comptroller review

IDF chief Eyal Zamir accuses Defense Minister Israel Katz of politicizing October 7 probes after move to reexamine Turgeman committee report.

NOVEMBER 24, 2025 19:10

IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, on Monday night,went head-to-head with Defense Minister Israel Katz in a battle royale over the October 7 probes and their consequences with IDF commanders.

Zamir called Katz out for interjecting politics into the processand trying to substitute a single lower-ranked official's judgment for the judgment of 12 higher-ranked IDF officials.

The latest war between the two titans is several months in the makingsince Katz has interfered in IDF promotions in an almost unprecedented fashion, leading to a freeze that is causing many top officers to retire, rather than wait to see how the dust settles.

Until now, Zamir has mostly avoided a public breach with Katzin order to defer to him as his civilian superior and not to run afoul of Katz's sponsor, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

However,Katz launched a surprise strike on the IDF chief on Monday morning, announcing that Defense Ministry Comptroller Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yair Volansky would second-guessa commission that Zamir had established by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Sammy Turgeman to give a final verdict on the October 7 IDF probes, including personal responsibility for top high command officials.

Katz was upset at Zamir for not vetting his decisionson each IDF General Staff official with him beforehand.

Zamir vetted Turgeman's report

In turn, Zamir responded Monday night thathe had vetted the entire Turgeman report with Katzbefore presenting it to the public on November 10, and that theconsequences for his top commanders are his decision alone, not the political echelon.

(That’s how contentious in Israel. everyone wants to be in charge.)

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-875064

Was Gaza's destruction, high death toll necessary for Israel's war on Hamas? - analysis 1/3

Questions grow over whether the civilian deaths and scale of destruction in Gaza were necessary for Israel to achieve its goals.

dated: NOVEMBER 24, 2025 15:29

The debate over the amount of destruction in Gaza continues to growas more footage emerges from Gaza. A recent video from the Associated Press has been circulating on social media.

It shows the complete destruction of an area of Gaza. This has been seen before.However, each time, one is only given a snippet of the total destruction caused by two years of war.

Each time these videos appear, a vibrant debate breaks out on social media. For those more sympathetic to the Palestinians, the footage is evidence of the horrors of the war.

Ihab Hassan, who describes himself as a human rights activist, wrote “apocalyptic aerial footage from Gaza, nothing left standing, only endless rubble.”Others disagree and replies include references to “FAFO,” which essentially means “mess about, find out.” In essence, thismeans that the civilians in Gaza deserved to have all their homes destroyedbecause of the atrocities of Hamas on October 7.

The ”they deserved it” argument is one type of response to the massive destruction and high death toll in the Gaza war. Hamas-run health authorities in Gaza said in late October 2025 that more than 67,000 people were killed in Gaza in the war.

Although some argue that these figures are biased due to the fact that Hamas controls the Health Ministry in Gaza, there are no alternative numbers that Israel has put out.

The IDF put out some data in 2024 during the first year of the war. In July 2024, the IDF said, “the forces have eliminated and apprehended approximately 14,000 terrorists. Among the eliminated terrorists are six brigade commanders, over 20 battalion commanders, and approximately 150 company commanders.”

It's not clear how many more terrorists were killed since then, but it stands to reason that at most it is twice that number, which would be an estimate of some 20-28,000. That still means more than half of those killed in the war are civilians. This has led to a debate about the civilian death toll.

One argument posits that the number of civilians killed in this war is lower than in other conflicts. This tries to break down the civilian death toll to a ratio compared to the number of enemy combatants killed. This macabre math doesn’t tell us that much because the number of Hamas members killed is an estimate, and the overall death toll in Gaza is not known precisely.

IDF believed most of the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza had been dismantled

In the past, the IDF has sometimes exaggerated its estimates of success in Gaza. For instance, the IDF believed most of the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza had been dismantled by December 2023. In August 2025, the IDF had to dismantle, once again, the Hamas battalion in Beit Hanun.In fact, almost all the Hamas battalions in northern Gaza had to be re-defeated, sometimes several times. How could Hamas be at a “breaking point” in northern Gaza in December 2023, but then the IDF had to go back into Gaza City in September 2025?

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-875010

Good Analysis by Jerusalem Post

>>23897080

(This article brings up valid questions on how the war was run)

2/3

The same stories were told about Hamas being mostly defeated by April 2024 in all of Gaza.Yet the fact is that the group held on to a lot of areas and was never challenged in key parts of central and northern Gaza. The Rafah Brigade was also declared defeated by July 2024,only to have to be defeated again several times. Members of the brigade are still hiding in tunnels in Rafah.

The reality is that alot of the information that came out of the Gaza waris incomplete. This makes it hard to draw some conclusions about the casualties and the war.

What is clear is that a large number of civilians were killed. In past Israeli wars it was considered a large number of civilians if hundreds were killed. For instance, in the 2009 Gaza war, this was the case. The fact that estimates say more than 30,000 people were killed in Gaza should require a pause for reflection.

Asserting that it’s acceptable because the ratio is “1:1” doesn’t provide a real reflection on the war.

The destruction in Gaza also does not have an easy explanation.If one goes past the “FAFO” argument, which essentially argues “they deserve it,” then the question is whether this level of destruction was necessary. Some arguments say that this is how urban warfare works, because Hamas had snipers in buildings or stored munitions or had tunnel shafts, so that every building had to be destroyed. However, the reality of the fighting is in contrast to this depiction.

While Hamas did use civilian buildings,it was also cleared from many areas of Gaza, only to have those areas handed back to Hamas. For instance, the IDF went into Jabaliya in the first months of the war. Most of the buildings were still standing at this time, although some were damaged. The civilians had been evacuated. Hamas was pushed out of part of the area.Then the IDF left. The IDF returned to Jabaliya several times during the war, each time causing more destruction to re-defeat Hamas.

The destruction in placeslike Jabaliya wasn’t because Hamas used every building. Had the IDF held the place after first taking it, most of it would have been spared. This is one reason that other urban battlefields have looked different than Gaza. Mosul city, for instance, was the site of a 10-month battle against ISIS. ==However, to defeat ISIS the Iraqi army did the opposite of the IDF.

They called on civilians to move to IDP camps away from ISIS. Then the army cleared the city street by street. They never cleared the areas several times. The US-led coalition stopped doing airstrikes in the dense urban area of western Mosul city because of concerns for civilian casualties==. While there were some areas that were badly damaged, Mosul was less damaged than Gaza.

The level of destruction in Gaza was clearly increased in some neighborhoods by the systematic demolition of almost every building. In other areas, the IDF used different tactics. In the Hamad towers area of Khan Younis, the IDF initially went in with a lot of special units and spared the buildings the total ruin that took place in parts of Rafah, for instance.

One theory presented for why high-rise buildings had to be destroyed in September 2025 was the argument that they could be used by Hamas as sniper positions. However,this argument raises questions about why they were not hit with airstrikes early in the war when the IDF first operated in Gaza City.One Israeli official said that destroying the high-riseswas a way to “change the skyline” of Gaza. Was it about changing the skyline or because these specific buildings were being used by Hamas?

Israel has the precision munitions that can hit targets in a large building, as evidenced by the precision strike in Beirut on November 23.

The theory that whole neighborhoods have to be razedbecause of the presence of snipers or terrorists is in contrast to how other militarieshave fought insurgents.

The British Army didn’t raze whole neighborhoods in Northern Ireland to defeat the IRA. The US fighting terrorists in Fallujah didn’t raze the city. ==This illustrates that the level of destruction in Gaza is not only a feature of urban warfare=. On the other hand, it can be a feature of urban war. Berlin and Stalingrad were destroyed in the Second World War.

The number of fighters engaged in those battles and the huge death toll is not similar to Gaza. As such it doesn’t seem reasonable to compare the battle for Gaza to the battle for Berlin.Even if it were reasonable, it might be worth asking why the battle for Gaza took two years and the battle for Berlin took a few weeks.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-875010

>>23897088

3/3

The level of destruction in Gaza is largely a result of the way the war unfolded.The IDF had no clear plan to defeat Hamas or retake Gaza.

As such, the first weeks were filled with intense bombardment in October 2023while IDF reservists re-trained to fight in urban areas.

The first year of war included raids intoareas to defeat Hamas “battalions” and then withdraw and let Hamas return.

The fact that areas like Zeitoun inGaza were taken seven times by the IDF meantthat the area wasdestroyed more because of a lack of willingness to secure and hold it.Even today, Hamas has returned to Zeitoun,which raises questionsabout what the point of the seven operations was to accomplish.

In March 2025, the IDF was asked to shift gears again and return to many areas it had already taken.

Politicians called for more destruction of Gaza.Once again, calls for destruction have nothing to do with urban warfare necessities. The campaign from May to July led to more systematic demolition of some areas. Later, inSeptember officials threatened to turn Gaza City into Beit Hanun.Beit Hanun is a town in Gaza near Sderot that was completely razed. The threats to turn Gaza city into Beit Hanun don’t reference military necessity of urban warfare.

The argument that this is just how urban warfare unfoldsdoes not mesh wellwith the comments about destroying areas of Gaza.It’s also not clear that turning cities into rubble makes the cities safer for troops. In Rafah, the terrorists continue to emerge from tunnels under the rubble.The rubble may be doing more harm than good eventually.

The debate about the destruction and casualties will continue. However, a nuanced look at Gaza reveals thatthere continue to be more questions than answers about how the war unfolded.

• Could it have been waged with less destruction and less casualties?

• It’s likely it could have and it will require more study to get lessons learned from the campaign.==

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-875010