Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Monday that Kyiv is nearly ready to present a refined peace plan to the United States after days of talks with European partners, even as he maintains that Ukraine cannot give up any territory to Russia.

Zelenskyy said he reviewed the results of negotiations held in London with European national security advisors and that Ukraine and its European partners had further developed their components of potential steps toward ending the war. He said Kyiv is prepared to share the updated documents with Washington and is in ‘constant contact’ with the United States as the process moves forward.

‘We are working very actively on all components of potential steps toward ending the war,’  Zelenskyy posted on X. ‘The Ukrainian and European components are now more developed, and we are ready to present them to our partners in the U.S. Together with the American side, we expect to swiftly make the potential steps as doable as possible.’ 

‘We are committed to a real peace and remain in constant contact with the United States,’ he wrote. ‘And, as our partners in the negotiating teams rightly note, everything depends on whether Russia is ready to take effective steps to stop the bloodshed and prevent the war from reigniting. In the near future, we will be ready to send the refined documents to the United States.’

The update came one day after Zelenskyy insisted his country cannot cede territory to Russia, complicating earlier peace proposals. 

‘Under our laws, under international law — and under moral law — we have no right to give anything away,’ Zelenskyy told reporters Monday, per The Washington Post. ‘That is what we are fighting for.’

Zelenskyy on Tuesday is in Brussels to meet with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, after meeting in London with British, French and German leaders.

The Ukrainian leader is under growing pressure from the U.S. to accept a framework to end the war after close to four years of fighting with Russia.

An initial draft of the 28-point plan, brokered by White House envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, spooked Ukrainian and European leaders who said it was too deferential to Russia’s demands. Ukrainian officials met with Witkoff and whittled the plan down. 

Zelenskyy told reporters that in European talks the ‘obvious anti-Ukrainian points were removed.’ 

Trump on Sunday accused Zelenskyy of not keeping up with the latest on peace talks.

‘I’m a little bit disappointed that President Zelenskyy hasn’t yet read the proposal, that was as of a few hours ago,’ Trump told reporters at the Kennedy Center in D.C. Sunday. ‘His people love it, but he hasn’t.’

‘Russia, I guess, would rather have the whole country when you think of it, but Russia is, I believe, fine with it, but I’m not sure that Zelenskyy is fine with it,’ Trump added.

Leaked versions of the initial deal had offered Russia swaths of Ukrainian territory, both lands it has occupied throughout the war and the Donbas region, which it has yet to seize in full.

It offered Ukraine no path to NATO but Europe and U.S.-backed security guarantees that were not definitive. 

Ukraine views NATO membership as essential to preventing a Russian attack — seeking a path to NATO is enshrined in its constitution. 

Ukraine is entering one of the hardest stretches of the nearly four-year war, giving new urgency to the negotiations. Russian troops are pushing forward in the east as Kyiv struggles with shortages of ammunition and manpower. Meanwhile, Moscow’s continued strikes on Ukraine’s power grid have left the country facing rolling blackouts and widespread outages at the start of the winter months. 

Zelenskyy said in the past week alone, Russia launched more than 1,600 drones, roughly 1,200 guided aerial bombs, and nearly 70 missiles of various types against Ukraine.

And talks are heating up in tandem with a brewing scandal in Ukraine that has already pushed out Andrii Yermak, Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff and powerful gatekeeper who was leading negotiations, along with his justice and energy ministers. 

Rustem Umerov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, has taken over negotiations, but is rumored to be caught up in the corruption investigation. 

Fox News’ Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report. 

Senate Republicans have finally landed on a plan to tackle expiring Obamacare subsidies to counter Senate Democrats, but both are likely to fail in a vote set for later this week. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Tuesday that Republicans had coalesced around a proposal from Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who chairs the Senate health panel, and Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, to counter Democrats’ legislation. 

The Senate is set to vote on the dueling proposals on Thursday. 

Cassidy and Crapo’s plan was given the thumbs up by the majority of Republicans during the conference’s closed-door meeting Tuesday afternoon, Thune said. 

Their proposal, which was unveiled Monday night but has been in the works for weeks, would abandon the enhanced premium subsidies in favor of health savings accounts (HSAs), funneling the money that has gone directly to insurers through the program to consumers instead.

Thune argued that Senate Democrats’ plan, which was unveiled by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., last week and would extend the subsidies for three years, would do little to curb the cost of healthcare in the country, and instead benefit affluent Americans and insurance companies. 

‘This program desperately needs to be reformed,’ Thune said. ‘The Democrats have decided we’re not going to do anything to reform it. And so we’ll see where the votes are on Thursday. But we will have an alternative that we will put up that reflects the views of the Republicans here in the United States Senate about how to make health insurance more affordable in this country, how to ensure that it’s not the insurance companies that are getting enriched, that it’s actually benefiting the patient.’

Republicans’ decision comes as more and more proposals were pitched among their ranks, reaching nearly half a dozen plans on the table for lawmakers to choose from. 

Cassidy and Crapo’s plan would seed HSAs with $1,000 for people ages 18 to 49 and $1,500 for those 50 to 65 for people earning up to 700% of the poverty level. In order to get the pre-funded HSA, people would have to buy a bronze or catastrophic plan on an Obamacare exchange.

The bill also includes provisions reducing federal Medicaid funding to states that cover illegal immigrants, requirements that states verify citizenship or eligible immigration status before someone can get Medicaid, a ban on federal Medicaid funding for gender transition services and nixing those services from ‘essential health benefits’ for ACA exchange plans, and inclusion of Hyde Amendment provisions to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions through the new HSAs.

Both plans are likely to fail, however, given that Senate Democrats have rejected doing away with the subsidies in favor of HSAs, and Republicans contend that reforms to the credits — like income caps and more stringent enforcement on taxpayer dollars funding abortions — are must-haves for their support. 

Schumer argued that the ‘only realist path’ to preventing premiums from hiking ahead of the end of the year deadline to extend the subsidies would be for Republicans to cross the aisle and vote for their plan. He charged that the GOP’s plan was a ‘phony proposal’ that did nothing to extend the sunsetting subsidies. 

‘That’s what’s driving the price up, and they’re doing nothing about it,’ Schumer said. ‘The bill not only fails to extend the tax credits, it increases costs, adds tons of new abortion restrictions for women, expands junk fees, and permanently funds the cost-sharing reductions. Their bill is junk insurance. It’s been repudiated in the past.’

Both sides face a math problem in mustering bipartisan support for their respective proposals. And it’s unlikely that lawmakers break ranks from their party’s position, meaning both bills are doomed to fail. For some, the debate has devolved into a finger-pointing contest on which side was actually serious about addressing the growing healthcare affordability issue. 

‘It’s not a realistic plan that the Democrats have,’ Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said. ‘If the Democrats were actually coming to the table, I’d say, yes, we need to, but what they’re doing isn’t realistic.’ 

Before Thune’s announcement, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said that Republicans were in charge, not Democrats. 

‘They’re in charge of putting together the votes to pass something,’ Murphy said. ‘And so far, they have done zero outreach on this issue of any significance to Democrats, as far as I can tell.’ 

When the South Korean boy band/K-pop sensation BTS takes the stage in Seoul this June, ending a four-year touring hiatus, it will mark more than just a comeback — it will validate one of the shrewdest soft-power decisions in recent memory.  

In 2022, at the absolute apex of their global dominance, the group’s seven members chose to fulfill their mandatory military service rather than seek exemptions, which would almost certainly been granted. Their management company, HYBE, supported the decision. The world got a masterclass in how cultural power is created. 

The cynics predicted career suicide. Instead, BTS demonstrated that soft power isn’t built on avoiding obligations — it’s built on embracing them. When they reunite on stage, they’ll do so with enhanced credibility, having proven their success didn’t exempt them from the responsibilities of ordinary citizens. Americans remember Elvis taking a similar course at the height of his fame.  

The great thing about soft power is that, while generated by creative individuals and companies, it’s to the entire nation’s benefit. Like economic and martial power, soft power generates influence that can be used to bolster a nation’s standing. Examples of soft power abound from Britain’s cricket legacy and rock ’n’ roll ‘invasion’ of the 1960s to French and Italian cinema to America’s NBA, jazz music and Hollywood’s entertainment machine. Now, South Korea is stepping up.

Thus, it is almost tragic that while BTS was serving in the military, the ecosystem that made the band possible faces mounting scrutiny. South Korea has become expert at creating cultural phenomena that captivate the world — and equally expert at treating the architects of that success with suspicion once they achieve scale. This is a pattern South Korea cannot afford.   

South Korea’s cultural preeminence did not emerge from a government plan. It sprang from creative ambition, commercial ruthlessness, and just enough regulatory space for experimentation. The K-pop system requires massive capital investment, sophisticated global distribution and executives willing to bet nine figures on whether teenagers in Jakarta and São Paulo will stream the same songs. 

Yet, there’s a reflex in South Korean public life that treats popularity itself as evidence of wrongdoing. Bang Si-hyuk, the producer who built HYBE and shaped BTS into a global phenomenon, now faces legal scrutiny over stock transactions — the kind of corporate governance questions that seem to emerge almost inevitably once South Korean companies achieve sufficient scale.   

The particulars matter less than the pattern: bold risk-taking generates soft power, then invites investigation once it succeeds. 

Executives who might build the next BTS or international TV steaming sensation like, ‘Crash Landing on You,’ watch what happens to those who came before and recalibrate their ambition accordingly. In cultural soft power, this reflex is potentially fatal. 

South Korea’s competitors are watching. China has spent billions trying to manufacture soft power through state-directed enterprises. The PRC has largely failed — because audiences smell propaganda. South Korean free enterprise is succeeding in creating cultural exports that are simultaneously local and universal, specific enough to feel authentic in Seoul and accessible enough to travel across the globe.  

This is South Korea’s opportunity. Japan was given a similar window in the 1990s with anime and video games, but largely failed to capitalize on the trend because of governmental missteps. South Korea could easily repeat that mistake and lose the global influence that comes with serious national soft power. 

South Korea needs to recognize soft-power assets as strategic resources. France protects its luxury brands because Paris recognizes these companies project French taste globally in ways no government agency could. South Korea should ask: What institutional arrangements allow us to maintain standards while protecting our champions? 

South Korea’s cultural preeminence did not emerge from a government plan. It sprang from creative ambition, commercial ruthlessness, and just enough regulatory space for experimentation. 

BTS’s decision to fulfill their national military service obligations demonstrates what’s possible when artists, companies and national interest align voluntarily. HYBE supported that choice. But South Korea can’t count on such choices being made repeatedly if the system treats success as inherently suspect.

In June 2026, when BTS embarks on a global tour generating billions in economic impact and incalculable goodwill toward South Korea, remember this moment almost didn’t happen. The members could have sought exemptions. Instead, they chose service and came back stronger. 

But South Korea can’t count on such choices if the message to cultural entrepreneurs is that success invites scrutiny. The next generation is watching, deciding whether to aim for global impact or settle for domestic safety.

South Korea stumbled into becoming a cultural superpower. It doesn’t have to stumble out of it. But that requires recognizing that the bold, imperfect figures who build global cultural enterprises are assets to be protected, not problems to be managed. 

BTS made their choice — they bet on their country. Now, South Korea needs to decide if it’s going to bet on the people who create the next BTS, or put them under investigation instead. 

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky announced on Tuesday that he had introduced a measure to remove the U.S. from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, arguing that the decades-old alliance is obsolete, has been costly for American taxpayers and puts the nation at risk of engagement in foreign wars.

‘NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries. Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership,’ Massie said in a post on X.

GOP Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida shared Massie’s post and wrote, ‘Co-sponsoring this.’

‘NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk U.S. involvement in foreign wars. Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket—especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense,’ Massie said, according to a press release.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the ‘Not a Trusted Organization Act,’ or ‘NATO Act’ in the Senate earlier this year — Massie is now fielding companion legislation in the House.

Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty stipulates that ‘After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.’

The proposal advanced by Lee and Massie would use this escape hatch to extract the U.S. from the longstanding NATO alliance.

‘Consistent with Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington April 4, 1949, not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall give notice of denunciation of the North Atlantic Treaty for purposes of withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,’ the proposal declares.

‘No funds authorized to be appropriated, appropriated, or otherwise made available by any Act may be used to fund, directly or indirectly, United States contributions to the common-funded budgets of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including the civil budget, the military budget, or the Security Investment Program,’ the text of the measure stipulates.