Russia rejects proposed Ukraine peace-plan amendments as unacceptable

By

-

November 25, 2025

Ukraine peace plan amendments 'don't suit' Russia — The original draft 28-point peace plan backed by US President Donald Trump said Ukraine had to offer territorial and security concessions to Russia (file image)

A Thanksgiving Deadline and a War’s Fragile Pause: Inside the Race to Rewrite Peace for Ukraine

There is something almost theatrical about calendars and conflict. Give a battle a deadline and suddenly the world hustles to rewrite fate. This week, a date looms — November 27, Thanksgiving in the United States — set by Washington as the line in the sand for Kyiv to answer a sweeping proposal to end the fighting. For many in Europe, the timetable felt rushed; for Moscow, the original U.S. draft read like a victory lap. For Ukrainians, it is the kind of ultimatum that hums with existential dread.

The draft that shook capitals

Washington’s initial draft was long — a 28-point blueprint — and blunt. Insiders say it began, shockingly to many in Kyiv, by nodding toward the kind of concessions Moscow had demanded since 2014: territorial compromise, sharp limits on Ukraine’s military capacity, and pledges to avoid NATO membership. The text, as leaked and fiercely debated, triggered an immediate backlash in Brussels and among Kyiv’s partners.

In a diplomatic triage over a weekend in Geneva, negotiators trimmed and retooled the plan. The product that emerged was shorter — reportedly about 19 points — and consciously framed to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty. European officials pushed hard to strip out blanket amnesties for wartime actions and to retain the possibility of future security arrangements for Kyiv, including language that would keep NATO’s door ajar in one form or another.

Moscow’s response: offense, then spin

That retooled text did not sit well in Moscow. State media framed the European version as an affront; op-eds in Kremlin-aligned outlets decried it as “fantasy” or “unacceptable.” Kremlin spokespeople were not shy: “European amendments are unconstructive,” said one aide in a press briefing, a sentiment that played well on primetime television.

Across Russian editorial pages, commentators varied between mockery and outrage. One column called Europe’s suggestion to only settle territorial questions after a ceasefire “scandalous,” while another fumed about the idea of holding frozen Russian funds until reparations were paid. Such lines of attack serve a political purpose: painting any Western push for a negotiated settlement as a plot against Russian dignity and interests.

Kyiv: survival, dignity, and suspicion

In Kyiv, the mood is taut. “We are talking about whether our children will have the right to speak Ukrainian in their schools 10 years from now,” said Olena Petrenko, a teacher who fled a frontline town last winter and now volunteers at a community center in Podil. Her voice carried a bitter mix of exhaustion and defiance. “Any plan that asks us to trade land for peace is asking us to trade our history.”

Ukrainian officials and many citizens bristled at the notion of a preordained territorial settlement before guarantees were in place. The Geneva draft’s removal of an amnesty clause was a relief to those who fear impunity; the International Criminal Court’s outstanding arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin looms large in public conversations and legal calculations.

What Europe insisted on — and why it matters

European leaders inserted several core principles into the revised proposal. They pushed for:

Stronger security guarantees for Ukraine, modeled in part on collective defense concepts like NATO’s Article 5;
A larger peacetime Ukrainian military than the original U.S. draft envisioned;
The rejection of a blanket wartime amnesty that would undercut accountability for alleged war crimes;
A mechanism to hold Russian assets frozen in Western banks until reparations could be considered.

These are not mere diplomatic flourishes. They reflect a deep European anxiety: that a hasty deal could normalize conquest, set a precedent for territorial revisionism elsewhere, and declare amnesty over atrocities. “We cannot have peace be a synonym for impunity,” a senior EU diplomat told me. “That is not peace — that is capitulation.”

Voices from both sides

Out on the street in Moscow, the narrative is different. “Europe doesn’t get to dictate to us what is and isn’t in Russia’s security perimeter,” said Ivan Sokolov, a retired engineer who still watches Channel One daily. “If they insist on freezing our money, we will respond.” His comment mirrored the nationalist themes that thread through Russian state media: siege, honor, and grievance.

Back in Kyiv, people I spoke with had a practical, human focus. “We’re tired of headlines,” said Yana, a mother of two who runs a bakery in a suburb recently returned to Ukrainian control. “We want schools, hospitals, lights at night. If a plan gives us that without losing everything else, fine. But no promises forced on us in a backroom.”

Numbers and the human toll

The scale of disruption underlines why these debates matter. International agencies estimate that the war has displaced millions, fractured supply chains, and devastated infrastructure in key regions. Hundreds of towns and thousands of lives have been changed, many irrevocably. Economic sanctions and asset freezes have already remapped the financial landscape, with Western banks holding large, contested balances tied to Russian entities.

And the law is not idle: the ICC warrant, ongoing investigations into alleged atrocities, and the growing dossier of war-related damage mean any settlement will have to contend with questions of justice, reparation, and how to verify compliance.

Why this is a global story

Why should someone in Lagos, São Paulo, or Jakarta care about a negotiation parchment drawn up in Geneva and debated in Washington and Moscow? Because this is not just about two nations. It is about whether borders can be redrawn by force in the 21st century and how international systems respond when they are challenged.

Moreover, the choices made here ripple through global food markets, energy lines, and security alliances. They set precedents for diplomacy in a world of rising tensions, resurgent nationalism, and unequal power blocs. The North American timetable, the European safeguards, and Moscow’s rhetoric together form a test case for whether negotiated peace can reconcile security and justice.

What comes next — questions we must ask

As the November deadline approaches, the options feel stark: a hurried ceasefire that might entrench injustice, continued war that guarantees more suffering, or a painstaking, longer process that could deliver both security and accountability. Which of these outcomes is acceptable to the people whose lives are on the line? What price are nations willing to pay to defend principles versus pursuing expediency?

“Negotiations without those who suffered most at the table are hollow,” said Dr. Miriam Adler, an international law scholar. “Any durable solution must be anchored in protections that restore basic rights and offer real guarantees.”

So as diplomats draft, redact, and argue north of this fragile line of contact, ordinary people continue to live with the consequences — baking bread, teaching children, mourning the missing. Their voices, not headlines, should shape the bargain.

Will the world choose a rushed peace, a prolonged war, or a hard, just settlement? The answer will reverberate far beyond Kyiv’s chestnut-lined avenues and Moscow’s glossy studios. It will tell us what international order we are building — or letting crumble.

Madaxweyne Xasan Sheekh oo soo xirey Shirweynaha Labaad ee Aqoonsiga Qaranka

By

Mahad

-

November 25, 2025

Nov 25(Jowhar)-Madaxweynaha Jamhuuriyadda Federaalka Soomaaliya Mudane Xasan Sheekh Maxamuud ayaa maanta soo xiray Shirweynaha Labaad ee Aqoonsiga Qaranka (SNIDC2025), oo muddo laba maalmood ah ka socday Caasimadda Muqdisho.

Continue

Taliban Reports Pakistani Forces Killed 10 People in Afghanistan

By

hanad

-

November 25, 2025

Taliban says 10 killed in Afghanistan by Pakistani forces — A house damaged after an airstrike during cross-border clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Kabul last month (file image)

The Night the Light Went Out in Gerbzwo

It was midnight when a small, sunbaked village on the edge of Afghanistan’s Khost province became a place where time stopped. Neighbors who had known each other since childhood say they were roused by a roar and then by silence—the house of a man named Wilayat Khan gone in an instant, and with it, the lives of his children and one woman.

The numbers are stark and terrible: nine children—five boys and four girls—and a woman killed, according to the Afghan Taliban’s spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, who posted photographs of the aftermath on the social platform X. Those images are the kind that lodge in your throat: charred masonry, toys scattered like punctuation marks on the earth, and a community trying to make sense of a violence that arrived at their doorstep while they slept.

What Happened — and Where

Local accounts and the Taliban’s statement say the strike took place in the Gerbzwo district of Khost. Mujahid also reported cross-border operations in Kunar and Paktika provinces, where four civilians were injured. Pakistan’s military and foreign ministry did not respond when journalists sought comment outside business hours, and government spokespeople have not yet issued a public explanation for the attack.

These incidents come on the heels of a suicide bombing targeting Pakistani security forces in a border province, and follow another deadly blast in Islamabad earlier this month that claimed 12 lives and was claimed by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), an insurgent group that shares ideological ties with the Afghan Taliban.

Timeline at a Glance

Midnight strike in Gerbzwo, Khost—family home destroyed, 10 civilians killed.
Raids reported in Kunar and Paktika—several civilians injured.
Suicide attack in Pakistan targeting security forces—unclaimed (per local media).
Earlier this month, a bombing in Islamabad killed 12—claimed by TTP.
Recent diplomatic efforts: a Doha ceasefire agreement followed by failed peace talks in Turkey over control of militant groups operating from Afghan soil.

Voices from the Ground

“We heard the blast at once. The walls shook. My neighbor’s courtyard was a hole of dust,” said Rahim, a farmer who lives six houses away from where Wilayat Khan’s family slept. “We found charred clothes, fragments of a little shoe. How do you bury a future?” His voice, in Pashto, trembled even when translated through a local fixer.

A Kabul-based doctor, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of treating victims in conflict zones, said, “In a matter of minutes the trauma wards fill with the same faces: children. The mortality among pediatric blast victims is desperate—because of the nature of injuries and the lack of stabilized transfer systems.”

“We cannot accept our villages becoming battlefields,” said Fatima Gul, an aid worker with an international NGO operating in eastern Afghanistan. “Civilians are meant to be protected. When houses are hit like this, entire families are erased.”

From Islamabad, a Pakistani security official speaking on condition of anonymity told a reporter, “We take operations seriously and follow strict procedures. We are reviewing the incident and will share information in due course.” The bland procedural language masks a tense reality: a disputed border, porous mountains, and militias that move like water across the ridgelines.

Why This Matters Beyond One Village

At one level, this is the story of a tragedy that will haunt a small Afghan village for generations. At another, it is a snapshot of a much bigger, more complicated problem: the enduring and dangerous spillover of militancy, mistrust, and military action across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

The two countries have endured decades of fraught relations, with periodic flare-ups that escalate into skirmishes or larger confrontations. The clash between Islamabad and Kabul’s security forces last October—described by both sides as the worst violence since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021—left scores dead and stoked new cycles of retaliation. Even after a temporary ceasefire was agreed in Doha, negotiations in Turkey faltered, with diplomats unable to agree on how to handle armed groups that use Afghan territory to strike at Pakistan.

And let us not forget the human arithmetic behind the headlines: the United Nations and independent monitors have documented years of suffering among Afghan civilians—displacement, shrinking humanitarian access, and waves of casualties tied to cross-border operations and local insurgencies. For families in provinces like Khost, Kunar, and Paktika, peace is not a diplomatic verb but the absence of the sound of explosions at night.

Hard Numbers, Harder Truths

Precise casualty figures in conflict zones are always contested, and independent verification can be slow. Still, patterns are clear: civilian casualties have remained stubbornly high in Afghanistan over the past decades, and cross-border tensions often precipitate spikes in deaths and displacement.

A Closer Look at the Political Puzzle

Why do talks collapse? Why does cross-border violence continue despite ceasefires? There are at least three overlapping dynamics to watch:

Militant networks that operate fluidly across borders and command loyalties beyond state control.
Mutual distrust between Islamabad and Kabul—any action is viewed through a lens of strategic suspicion.
Local dynamics: clan rivalries, resource disputes, and economic desperation that make border communities vulnerable to being dragged into larger conflicts.

“You can have diplomatic agreements in the capital, but in the valleys and the passes, loyalties and grievances run deep,” said Dr. Aisha Mirza, a scholar of South Asian security. “Stabilizing the border requires political solutions, not only military ones. And it requires engaging the communities who pay the price.”

What Comes Next?

For the families in Gerbzwo, the immediate needs are simple and urgent: proper burials, trauma counseling, and help to rebuild what was lost. For policymakers, the agenda is painfully familiar and stubbornly difficult: to find mechanisms that prevent militants from using Afghan soil to attack Pakistan without subjecting Afghan civilians to punitive strikes.

Will Islamabad offer transparency and an independent investigation into the strike? Will Kabul—or the de facto authorities—allow neutral monitors access to affected areas? If recent diplomatic efforts are any guide, these questions will linger unresolved while families wait for clay to be swept up, and for children who were—until an hour earlier—playing in courtyards and dreaming of schools and bicycles.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Violence like this is a mirror. It reflects the fragility of borders drawn on maps, the failures of diplomacy, and the human cost of security strategies that often prioritize short-term gains over long-term peace. As readers far from these mountains, what do we owe these villages? What does it mean to demand accountability when the mechanisms for it are broken?

Ask yourself: when headlines flicker and move on, who will tell the story of the shoes left at the edge of a crater? Who will remind the world that behind every nationalist slogan and diplomatic communique are children whose lives were small and ordinary and were extinguished in a single violent breath?

For now, the village of Gerbzwo is quieter, not by peace but by loss. The rest of the world must decide whether it will look away or press for answers, for compassion, and for policies that respect the sanctity of civilian life—no matter which side of a porous border someone sleeps on.

Watch Kilauea Volcano Erupt, Spewing Lava Across Hawaii’s Landscapes

By

hanad

-

November 25, 2025

Watch: Hawaii's Kilauea volcano spews lava in eruption

When the Night Turns Orange: Kīlauea’s Latest Breath and the Island That Listens

There’s a particular hush that falls over the Kaʻū coastline when Kīlauea wakes. It is not the empty silence of a town at dawn, but a concentrated hush—part reverence, part apprehension—like a congregation waiting for an old storyteller to speak. Last weekend, the mountain spoke again.

Cameras operated by the United States Geological Survey’s Hawaiian Volcano Observatory captured molten light spilling from Kīlauea’s crater, a living cascade that lit the sky and stitched molten ribbons across the darkness. The observatory, which has been monitoring the volcano through cameras, seismometers, and gas sensors, told the public that another fountaining episode is likely in the near term—meaning more incandescent jets and rivers of lava may be on the way.

Kīlauea sits inside Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, a place of raw contrasts and sacred stories. That section of the park is closed for safety, and for a reason: the mountain has been in intermittent eruption since 23 December 2024. For residents and visitors alike, the closures are a reminder that the island is built on both creation and risk.

Living on the Edge of Creation

Ask anyone in Hilo, Pāhala, or Volcano village and they’ll tell you the same thing: living here means living with the knowledge that the ground beneath you can be both nursery and fury. “It’s how the islands keep growing,” said Mālama Koa, a hawker who has lived for decades on the slopes below the volcano. “My grandmother used to say Pele is always at work—sometimes she’s sewing new land, sometimes she’s reminding us who’s boss.”

Kīlauea is, by any measure, one of the planet’s most active volcanoes. Its eruptions don’t just make headlines; they redraw maps, re-route roads, and rewrite lives. From the summit to the rift zones that radiate outward, this volcanic system has a memory measured in decades—Puʻu ʻŌʻō’s long curtain of lava in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is just one chapter in an epic geological narrative.

Science in Motion

Scientists track Kīlauea closely. The USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) has a battery of instruments constantly recording earthquakes, ground tilt, and volcanic gas emissions. “The webcams gave us an early look at tonight’s activity,” said Dr. Aiko Nakamura, a volcanologist with HVO, when asked about the weekend event. “We monitor for signs—changes in seismicity, the shape of the ground, and gas output—that signal another fountaining episode. Right now, those signals suggest more activity is possible.”

It’s a careful choreography of data and decision-making. When the lava begins to spout and fountains appear, scientists are not just witnessing beauty—they’re calculating hazard. Air quality can decline as sulfur dioxide and other volcanic gases are released. Lava flows can close roads and threaten infrastructure. For everyone’s safety, park authorities keep sections closed while monitoring continues.

The Human Weather: Stories Along the Lava Line

While scientists speak of plumes and pulses, locals speak of everyday reality. “When the glow starts at night, you don’t sleep as you did before,” said Leilani Pua, who runs a small café in Volcano village. “You open your windows and smell the ocean and the mountain, and you think about what could be lost—and what could be gained. It’s not just fear; it’s a kind of fierce respect.”

For many Native Hawaiian families, the eruptions are woven into cultural life. Hula, oli (chants), and stories of Pele—the goddess of fire and volcanoes—anchor the storm of molten rock in meaning and memory. “Pele is family,” said Kumu Hula Nohealani Kalama, who teaches hula and Hawaiian history. “We honor her. We adapt. Our elders taught us how to read the land and listen.”

On the flip side, tourism-dependent businesses feel the pinch when closures come. “We saw bookings cancel right away,” said Jonah Mendes, who manages a small lodge near the park’s entrance. “But our regulars, the ones who love this place, they call and say, ‘Be safe. Keep us posted.’ It’s community. We’re resilient, but eruption seasons test that.”

Practical Realities and Safety

Even for those who live far from the lava’s immediate reach, there are ripples to consider. Volcanic gas can travel with the wind, producing vog (volcanic smog) that affects air quality across large swaths of the island. Farmers, schools, and health officials watch those measurements closely.

Follow official channels: HVO and Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park updates are the best sources for real-time information.
Respect closures: Trails and roadblocks are there to protect you—do not attempt to enter closed areas for a better view.
Air quality matters: Individuals with respiratory conditions should monitor local advisories and have plans to reduce outdoor exposure if vog rises.

Why This Matters to the World

What happens at Kīlauea is local in experience but global in importance. Volcanoes teach us about Earth’s inner furnace—the same force that built continents and drives plate tectonics. They also remind a modern world of an older truth: humans occupy a dynamic planet. In an era of climate crisis and rapid environmental change, living alongside active natural systems requires humility and adaptability.

But there is also a deeper lesson. Each glowing river of lava is a spectacular display of creation-in-motion. New land forms at the edge of these flows, and ecosystems eventually follow. “In a few years, new ʻōhiʻa and ferns will colonize the fresh rock,” noted Dr. Koa Anela, an island ecologist. “It’s dramatic and devastating and miraculous—often all at once.”

Final Thoughts: Watch, Listen, Learn

If the images from the USGS feel like a distant—if magnificent—show, remember this: volcanoes are more than background spectacle. For Islanders, Kīlauea’s rumblings are part of a living relationship with place. They demand caution, invite reverence, and offer a rare chance to witness planet-making in real time.

So, what should you take away if you live here or plan to visit? Observe the rules, listen to scientists and community leaders, and let the experience change you. If you’re watching the feeds from afar, consider the human stories behind each headline. How do we balance wonder and risk? How do our laws and cultures adapt when the ground itself refuses to be still?

In the end, Kīlauea is teaching in its own incandescent language. It humbles and inspires. It closes and creates. It invites us to be both spectators and citizens—present, patient, and profoundly aware of the wild world beneath our feet.

For real-time updates, follow the USGS Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park advisories, and support local communities that carry the daily work of living with Pele.

Beyond Remittances: The Modernization of Somalia’s Financial Frontier

By

Mahad

-

November 25, 2025

After decades of state collapse, Somalia’s financial system is now at a turning point. Even as formal banking remains relatively new, many citizens continue to rely on remittances and informal money transfer systems that, while vital, face significant challenges.

Continue

Federal Court Dismisses Cases Against Comey and James

By

hanad

-

November 25, 2025

Cases against Comey and James dismissed — James Comey was appointed to head the FBI by president Barack Obama in 2013 and was fired by Donald Trump in 2017 (file image)

The Day the Gavel Echoed Through Washington

On a cool weekday in the Eastern District of Virginia, a judge’s gavel landed like a meteor — sharp, sudden, and reshaping the legal landscape in ways that will ripple far beyond the courthouse steps.

US District Judge Cameron McGown Currie threw out criminal indictments against two towering figures of recent American political life — former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — not because a jury found them innocent or a prosecutor conceded weakness, but because the prosecutor who signed the charges had no lawful authority to do so.

“She had no legal authority,” Judge Currie wrote. Three words that, in the sterile geometry of legalese, felt like dynamite. The ruling did not exonerate or find guilt. It struck at process — at the architecture of how power is assigned and checked in a republic that prizes both the rule of law and the separation of powers.

A procedural wrinkle that blew up into a constitutional earthquake

The heart of the matter was an appointment: Lindsey Halligan, a former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, was installed as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September. She was handed two politically charged prosecutions that other career prosecutors in the office had declined to pursue for lack of credible evidence.

Halligan had no previous career as a federal prosecutor. Within weeks, she signed indictments accusing Comey of making false statements and obstructing Congress, and charging Letitia James with bank fraud and lying to a financial institution. Both defendants pleaded not guilty.

Attorneys for Comey and James argued that the appointment violated a federal statute limiting interim US attorney appointments to a single 120-day term, a safeguard Congress included to prevent the indefinite circumvention of Senate confirmation. If that protection is sidestepped repeatedly, critics say, a president could effectively place loyalists into office without the vetting Congress is meant to provide.

“This isn’t just about one person or two cases,” said a retired federal prosecutor I spoke with outside the courthouse. “It’s about the mechanism of accountability. If you can appoint and reappoint without Senate oversight, the balance tilts dangerously toward the executive.”

What the statute says — and why it matters

Under federal law, an interim US attorney can be appointed for 120 days after a vacancy. If the 120 days lapse without a Senate-confirmed successor, the district court may appoint someone. The complainants contended the way Halligan was cycled into the role circumvented that limit, effectively using administrative sleight-of-hand to keep a favored prosecutor in place.

The Justice Department countered that the attorney general has latitude to make interim appointments, and sought to paper over vulnerabilities by simultaneously naming Halligan a “special attorney” and stating that she had ratified the indictments. But Judge Currie saw the appointment as hollow — a prosecutorial hand without constitutional grip.

Politics on the courthouse lawn

To those paying attention, this was never merely a legal proceeding — it was part of a larger political posture. President Donald Trump had publicly pushed for aggressive legal steps against figures who had investigated him or criticized him. According to filings and public reports, Trump ordered then-Attorney General Pam Bondi to install Halligan after Erik Siebert, the office’s previous interim appointee, declined to bring charges.

“It felt like watching the gears of justice get greased in a room with the blinds drawn,” said a local political reporter. “You didn’t have to be cynical to sense the choreography.”

For supporters of the dismissals, the judge’s ruling is a vindication of constitutional form: appointments matter as much as allegations. “No person is above process, and no prosecutor can simply be placed into office to serve political will,” a constitutional law professor told me, leaning forward in the courthouse rotunda as if the marble absorbed every argument.

Dismissed, but not finished: the legal stage is reset

Judge Currie dismissed the cases “without prejudice,” a legal phrase that changes everything for the Department of Justice: the government can refile the charges under a prosecutor who is validly appointed. Critics worry, though, that refiling would only further entangle the Justice Department in partisan theater.

“The door is not closed,” observed one defense attorney. “The judge has given the government a second act. But that second act will need a different lead — and a far clearer commanding of statutory authority.”

Quick facts

120 — days specified by federal law for an interim US attorney appointment before other appointment mechanisms kick in.
Sept. — month in which Lindsey Halligan was appointed as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Nov. 13 — date of a hearing in which Judge Currie raised doubts about the government’s position.

Voices from the courthouse — a collage

A doorman at a nearby restaurant shrugged and said, “You see a lot of suits here, but justice isn’t just suits and books. It’s about how rules protect the quiet from the loud.”

A Trump supporter I met on the courthouse steps said, “If these investigations were valid, they should be won in court. But if they’re political, they should be dismissed. I want fairness — not theatre.”

Meanwhile, a community organizer who has worked in New York politics for years said, “This is a warning sign. The weaponization of legal tools corrodes trust. When people see prosecutions as political scorekeeping, we all lose.”

Why the ruling matters beyond two names

At first glance, this may read as an internal partisan skirmish — a president wielding influence, a DOJ office in disarray, defendants who are household names. But the case taps into deeper, more durable questions about how democracies function: How are power and accountability distributed? How easily can norms be bent into practices? When the machinery of justice is seen to be malleable, public confidence erodes.

Consider a simple thought experiment: if legal appointments can be used as instruments for political outcomes, what does that mean for future investigations into presidents, cabinet members, or other powerful figures? The structural defense Judge Currie invoked is less glamorous than headlines and more consequential in the long run.

Looking ahead: the possible paths forward

The Justice Department may choose to refile the indictments under a different prosecutor who can clear the statutory hurdle. It may walk away. Or Congress could take the opportunity to clarify the law, tightening or loosening the appointment mechanisms depending on political will. Each path would reveal something about how the country prioritizes legal integrity over expediency.

“We’re watching how institutions respond under stress,” the constitutional scholar said. “Do they fortify themselves, or do they yield to politics? That answer will settle into precedent over years, not days.”

Questions for you, the reader

When the legal process clashes with political pressure, whom do you trust — institutions, politicians, or judges? Is the remedy to elect better leaders or to design stricter rules? And how should a democracy balance swift accountability with the slower, steadier cadence of constitutional safeguards?

In the long arc of American history, few moments are decided solely by facts. Many are decided by who holds the pen, who controls the appointments, and whether the public will demand that the rules of the game be kept fair. Today’s ruling did not answer all those questions. It only reminded us that, in a republic, how power is deployed is as important as the power itself.

Ra’iisul wasaare Xamze oo saaka u ambabaxay dalla Marooko

By

aden

-

November 25, 2025

Nov 25(Jowhar)-Ra’iisul Wasaaraha Xukuumadda Jamhuuriyadda Federaalka Soomaaliya, Mudane Xamze Cabdi Barre, ayaa saakay u ambo-baxay dalka Marooko, halkaas oo uu kaga qeybgalayo Madasha sanadlaha ah ee MEdays.

Continue

Six killed in large-scale Russian strike amid U.S. peace push

By

hanad

-

November 25, 2025

Six dead in 'massive' Russian strike amid US peace push — A Russian drone explodes in the sky over Kyiv during a Russian missile and drone strike

Before dawn in Kyiv: sirens, smoke and a fragile pause

There is a particular kind of quiet that settles over a city that has learned to expect thunder. Tonight in Kyiv, it was a brittle hush punctured by the shriek of air‑raid sirens and the distant orange bloom of explosions.

Residents who had fallen into a restless sleep under the hum of generators were hurried awake. They gathered in stairwells and metro stations, hands wrapped around steaming mugs, waiting for the all‑clear. Firefighters battled flames licking at an apartment block in the Dniprovsky quarter; neighbours clambered over shattered glass to pull out charred furniture and photographs. By morning, officials counted at least six dead in the capital and several more wounded.

“You know how we grumble about the heat in summer? This is worse,” said Oksana, a schoolteacher from Svyatoshynsky district, as she clutched a blanket and a small plastic bag of belongings. “You learn to pack a bag in the dark. You learn to listen. But there’s no learning how to lose your home.”

On the edge of diplomacy: a truncated deadline and a turbulent plan

While rescuers measured loss on the ground, diplomats scrambled over a document that could reshape the map of Europe. Washington on Saturday offered Kyiv a 28‑point framework to halt the fighting — and gave Ukraine until 27 November to accept or risk the diplomatic window closing.

The proposal touched off alarm in capitals from Berlin to Brussels. Many European leaders judged the early draft too closely aligned with Moscow’s maximalist demands: territorial concessions in the east, deep cuts to Ukraine’s armed forces and a pledge to never join NATO. For nations that have watched this war from the front row, the idea of ending it on terms that look like capitulation to an invader was unpalatable.

So diplomats retreated to Geneva for emergency talks. There they rebuilt the blueprint, at least partly, with the stated aim of “upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty.” A joint US‑Ukrainian statement heading out of those rooms called the new draft an “updated and refined peace framework,” though the exact text has not been released publicly.

What changed, and what remains contentious

According to people briefed on the meetings, the revised framework softens some of the most unpalatable language from the initial proposal. Kyiv’s delegation said the updated draft “already reflects most of Ukraine’s key priorities,” while the White House hailed the talks as progress. Still, scepticism remains.

“This will be a lengthy, long‑lasting process,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned, expressing doubts that any deal could be forced into being by the U.S. deadline. Across the continent, officials are asking blunt questions: Are we negotiating peace, or negotiating away the principles that have held Europe together since 1945?

On the frontlines: more than a military calculus

Diplomacy is happening alongside artillery. Moscow’s defence ministry claimed it intercepted some 249 Ukrainian drones overnight — one of the largest tallies reported — and Russian regions near the border reported strikes and civilian casualties of their own. In the Rostov region, the acting governor said at least three people were killed. In Krasnodar, the local governor called the shelling “one of the most sustained and massive attacks” from Kyiv’s side.

President Volodymyr Zelensky, sounding every bit the wartime leader he has become, warned that Ukraine was at a “critical moment.” He has framed the talks as existential: accept a deal that amounts to humiliation and territorial loss, and Kyiv risks its dignity; reject it and risk losing the patronage of powerful allies.

“We are not bargaining over the homeland like a commuter haggling for a seat,” said Dmytro, an aid worker who has spent two years ferrying supplies to frontline towns. “This is about whether our children will grow up under someone else’s flag.”

Numbers that matter (and the ones we cannot forget)

Some facts anchor the rising emotional tide. Russia currently occupies around a fifth of Ukraine — a belt of territory that has been scarred by years of fighting and displacement. Since the full‑scale invasion began in February 2022, the human toll has been staggering: tens of thousands killed, countless homes destroyed, and millions uprooted from their lives. The war remains the deadliest and largest conflict on European soil since World War II.

Beyond the battlefield, the conflict has strained global supply chains, sent energy and food markets wobbling, and intensified debates about deterrence, alliance commitments and the future of international law.

Voices from the coalition — and from kitchen tables

Washington has insisted it is trying to bring both sides to the table equally. “The idea that the United States is not engaging with both sides equally… is a complete and total fallacy,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

Yet there is an undercurrent of unease. A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration had pressed Ukraine hard and that Kyiv understood aid could be at risk if it rejected the deal. “We are not threatening,” the official added. “But everyone knows the stakes.”

In small shops and cafes in western Ukraine, people express a mix of fatigue and refusal. “We do not want to trade our homes for a promise,” said Ivan, a shopkeeper in Lviv. “You can offer us peace on paper, but if it comes at the cost of our land, it is not peace.”

Questions for the reader (and for the world)

What does peace look like after years of brutality? Can borders be rewritten without justice? When a powerful nation pushes a timetable, does that help create a durable settlement—or a brittle ceasefire that collapses with the first provocation?

These are not rhetorical games. They are the living logic of millions who will wake tomorrow uncertain whether the truce forged in conference rooms will keep the next missile from striking their street.

Why this moment matters beyond Ukraine

There is something deeply consequential about how this episode ends. If a settlement is reached that trims away sovereignty and rewards territorial conquest, it could alter the norms that have governed Europe since 1945. If talks fail and the fighting continues, the human cost will climb and global polarization will deepen.

Either outcome will reverberate across alliances, fuel domestic politics in capitals, and test the willingness of democracies to back principles with patience and resources. In short: the world is watching not just for Ukraine’s sake, but for what the result says about force, law and order in the 21st century.

What to watch next

The video conference of nations supporting Kyiv — the “coalition of the willing” — due to review the revised peace framework.
Any publication of the updated 28‑point text and how it addresses issues of sovereignty, territory and security guarantees.
On‑the‑ground developments: whether violence escalates or eases in the days after the talks.

As night folds into another day, Kyiv’s residents go back to the slow business of living under the shadow of war — tending wounded buildings, comforting children, bargaining with the impossible. In their eyes you can read a simple, unadorned question: is this the hour we trade freedom for an uneasy calm, or the hour we keep fighting for a future we can claim as our own?

Where do you stand when diplomacy and survival collide? The answer may shape not only Ukraine’s borders, but the architecture of security for generations to come.

Xoogaga RSF oo ku dhawaaqday xabad joojin hal dhinac ah

By

aden

-

November 25, 2025

Nov 25(Jowhar)-Xoogagga Taageerada Degdega ah ee Sudan, ayaa Isniintii ku dhawaaqay xabbad joojin bini’aadantinimo oo saddex bilood ah, maalin ka dib markii taliyaha ciidamada Sudan Abdel Fattah al-Burhan uu diiday hindise xabbad-joojin caalami ah o la soo bandhigay.

Continue

Former UK prime minister David Cameron discloses past prostate cancer diagnosis

By

hanad

-

November 25, 2025

Former UK PM David Cameron reveals he had prostate cancer — David Cameron announced that he was successfully treated for prostate cancer

A private moment, a public plea: Why one man’s diagnosis is pushing Britain to rethink prostate screening

The call came on a morning like any other: coffee, a brief scroll through headlines, and a radio voice cutting through the hum of household routines. For David Cameron and his wife Samantha, it wasn’t a headline that changed everything so much as another person’s story on the airwaves — the founder of Soho House speaking about his own brush with cancer.

“Samantha turned to me and said, ‘Go on, get it checked,’” Cameron later told journalists. What followed was a cascade of tests — a PSA blood test, an MRI, a biopsy — and a diagnosis that is, for many men, whispered before it is even uttered aloud. “You always dread hearing those words,” he said, recalling the instant the doctor spoke them.

That private moment, shared now with a public, has a clarity to it that can be hard to manufacture: an ex-prime minister using the platform he still holds to encourage other men to look after themselves. “I don’t particularly like discussing my personal intimate health issues,” he admitted, “but I feel I ought to.”

From personal scare to national conversation

Prostate cancer is not an obscure ailment. In the UK, around 55,000 men receive the diagnosis each year, making it the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Globally, prostate cancer ranks among the top two cancers affecting men, with over a million new cases reported annually in recent years. Yet despite those numbers, there is no national, routine screening programme in the UK — and that gap is precisely what Cameron wants to prompt a rethink about.

“We’ve been too sanguine about men’s health for too long,” said Dr. Aisha Khan, a consultant urologist in London who has watched diagnostic techniques evolve during her two decades in practice. “There’s genuine progress: multiparametric MRI, better biopsy targeting, and work on biomarkers. We can be smarter than the old PSA-only approach.”

Why screening is complicated

The debate over screening is not a simple tug-of-war between good and bad. At the heart of it lie uncomfortable trade-offs. PSA tests, the main tool historically used to flag potential prostate problems, are sensitive — but not specific. They pick up many abnormalities, including harmless conditions, and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. These interventions, in turn, carry risks: incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and the psychological toll of a cancer label.

“Screening isn’t a slam dunk,” Cameron acknowledged. “You’ve always got to think how many cases we discover and how many misdiagnoses are there and how many people will be treated unnecessarily.”

That caution sits alongside new technologies and trials that could change the calculus. The Transform project, launched in partnership with the NHS and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), has begun inviting men to participate in a large trial comparing modern screening approaches — including MRI-first strategies and refined biopsy methods — against the current NHS diagnostic pathway. NIHR has committed £16 million to the project, with additional funding from Prostate Cancer UK, signalling a major public and charity investment into resolving this question.

New tools, new hope: focal therapy and MRI-led pathways

Cameron’s own treatment offers a glimpse of what the future might look like for some men: a focal therapy that uses electrical pulses to target and destroy cancerous cells while sparing surrounding tissue. Known clinically as irreversible electroporation or similar approaches, these treatments aim to reduce the side effects associated with whole-gland therapy.

“Focal therapy can be life-changing in terms of preserving quality of life,” said Professor Martin Ellis, an oncologist involved in translational research. “If you can accurately map the tumour using MRI, then it’s possible to treat the disease without taking away function.”

It’s exactly this precision that trials like Transform are designed to test: can we find cancers that will cause harm, treat them effectively and minimally, and avoid harming men who would never have needed treatment at all?

Voices from the street

On a chilly afternoon outside a pub in a small town north of Manchester, men of different ages exchanged stories. “You don’t talk about these things in the pub, normally,” one man muttered, but then leaned in. “If someone like him can say it, maybe it’s easier for the rest of us.”

Tom Evans, 62, a retired mechanic, said, “I put things off for ages. You feel proper silly when you do. If a simple test can save me all that worry later, I’d do it.”

Campaigners are urging that the conversation be widened beyond celebrity or political influence. “This is about access and trust,” said Maya Patel, a campaigner with Prostate Cancer UK. “Targeted screening for men at higher risk — older men, those with a family history, men of African or Caribbean descent who are at greater risk — could be a way to balance benefits and harms.”

Questions for a wider world

As you read this from anywhere on the globe, ask yourself: how do we balance the promise of early detection with the real risks of over-treatment? How does culture — the British stiff upper lip, the macho invulnerability celebrated in other societies — shape who gets diagnosed and when?

Systems matter. Where national screening exists or is being piloted, it is usually accompanied by robust counselling, shared decision-making, and state-backed pathways to ensure that a positive test doesn’t automatically mean radical surgery. The UK’s National Screening Committee is currently reviewing evidence and is expected to update its guidance. The outcome could reshape NHS practice for years.

What’s at stake: each year, tens of thousands of UK men are diagnosed with prostate cancer; internationally, the burden is in the millions.
What’s new: MRI-first pathways, better biopsy techniques, and focal therapies that aim to reduce side effects.
What’s unresolved: whether a national screening programme would save lives without causing unacceptable overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Where do we go from here?

David Cameron’s decision to speak out forces a public examination of private fears. It’s a reminder that medical advances often begin with conversations — awkward, intimate, sometimes embarrassing — that get spoken aloud. For many men, the first step is simply acknowledging vulnerability. For policymakers, the step is more technical: weighing data, funding trials, educating clinicians and the public.

“If nothing else,” Dr. Khan said, “this will reduce stigma. Men should feel they can ask questions and that their doctors will listen.”

So, will this moment prompt a shift? Will trials like Transform deliver clear answers? And will communities — across the UK and beyond — change how they talk about men’s health? The path ahead is uncertain, but the conversation has begun. Will you be part of it?

For anyone wondering where to start: speak to your GP, learn your family history, and check the guidance from your local health service or organisations like Prostate Cancer UK. Small steps can open the door to better outcomes — and, sometimes, to another quiet morning at home over coffee, with more life still to live.