Robin Roberts was completely taken aback by Michael Strahan’s on-air behavior

In the thrilling upcoming finale of 'Too Hot to Handle', Alex and Elys hint at perplexing moments, facing difficult choices

Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech entrepreneur and anti-woke asset manager turned Republican presidential hopeful, has a plan for ending Russia's year-and-a-half war on Ukraine – sort of. The 38-year-old political newcomer will unveil what he describes as a plan to bring the brutal conflict to a close by halting American support for Kyiv and "negotiating a peace treaty with Russia that achieves a vital US security objective: ceasing Russia's growing military alliance with China". In remarks to be delivered on Friday in New Hampshire to the Belknap County GOP Lincoln Day, Mr Ramaswamy will say his plan is the mirror-image approach of the late US president Richard Nixon's effort to break up the Soviet Union's alliance with the People's Republic of China, citing what he describes as Russian President Vladimir Putin's status as "the new Mao". The Independent obtained a copy of his speech ahead of Friday's event. It cites a two-decade-old treaty between Russia and the PRC, as well as the "no limits" partnership unveiled by Mr Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping as evidence that a Sino-Russian alliance "presents the greatest military risk the US has ever faced" and accuses President Joe Biden of "pushing Russia into a closer military alliance with China which increases the risk of nuclear war" through his quarterbacking of US and Western support for Ukraine's defence. While Mr Ramaswamy's prepared remarks call his solution to the conflict a "peace treaty," what he lays out does not appear to meet the definition of the term. Peace treaties, by and large, represent final settlements to armed conflicts. Famous examples include the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, and the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco that formally brought an end to the Second World War. What he instead proposes is an analogue to United Nations-enforced armistice that has been in force on the Korean Peninsula since 1953. Under the terms of his plan, Kyiv would legitimise Russia's occupation of Ukraine's Donbas region by ceding it to Russia. The US and the West would end all sanctions on Russia, cease defence assistance to Ukraine, and Nato would prohibit Ukraine from ever becoming a member of the 31-nation defensive pact. The alliance would also roll back troop deployments that have taken place on its eastern frontier since 2016 – including closing all bases on Nato territory in Eastern Europe. In return, he proposes that Russia would exit its 2001 treaty with China, end the "no limits" partnership while ceasing any military cooperation with Beijing, rejoin the New START arms control treaty, withdraw any forces deployed in Latin America and remove "all nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities" from Belarus, any Ukrainian territory it has annexed, as well as the Baltic Sea exclave of Kaliningrad, which is Russia's only ice-free port for its Baltic Fleet. His prepared remarks do not offer any evidence that Russia would be willing to cease cooperation with China or give up its military presence in Kaliningrad, which has housed a major naval base since the Soviet era. Nor does he provide any evidence to support his claim that Moscow would be willing to cut off decades of warm relations with Beijing in return for an end to Western sanctions, particularly since the Sino-Russian relationship has existed since the dawn of the 21st century. Despite multiple credible reports from US officials and other Western governments which say Kyiv's defence forces have dealt a major blow to Russia's conventional warfare capability, he plans to say that he believes Ukraine "will not defeat Russia militarily" without "extraordinary intervention" on the part of the United States, which he claims would lessen America's ability to respond to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. "Under my peace plan, Ukraine will still emerge with its sovereignty intact and Russia permanently diminished as a foe. Ukraine's best path to preserving its own security is to accept a US-negotiated agreement backstopped by Russian commitments to the US," he will say. The rollout of his plan for the Ukraine conflict represents the political neophyte's first foray into foreign policy waters since he launched his presidential campaign earlier this year. His opposition to continuing US defence assistance to Kyiv is in line with much of the pro-Trump wing of the GOP, which tends to view Russia far more favourably than the general US population. In a press release, the Democratic National Committee condemned the plan as "siding against our ally as Vladimir Putin wages an unjust and violent war in Ukraine" and derided Mr Ramaswamy as a "MAGA Republican presidential hopeful". "Vivek Ramaswamy is promising to end America's support of Ukraine – posing a threat to our allies on the ground and democracy itself," the DNC said. The DNC also pointed out that Mr Ramaswamy's position syncs up with much of the GOP presidential field, including the two highest-polling candidates: Mr Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Mr Trump, who has long professed an affinity for Mr Putin and has described him in positive terms despite his having ordered an unprovoked invasion of another country, praised the war crime-laden invasion as "savvy" and "genius" just days after Russian tanks crossed over the Ukrainian border. Mr DeSantis, who is a distant runner-up to Mr Trump in most polls of the GOP primary electorate, downplayed war – the largest land-based conflict on the European continent since 1945 – as a "territorial dispute" and a flight over "borderlands". But James Stavridis, a retired four-star US Navy admiral who served as Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe from 2009 to 2013, was far more generous in his reaction to the plan. Mr Stavridis told The Independent in an email that he is "all for creative ideas in international diplomacy" and said he "would love to be able to say that there is a chance of this type of settlement occurring". But he added that he could not say there would be such a chance. For one, the former Nato commander said Mr Putin is "so deeply invested in the relationship with China" that there is "zero chance" he'd abandon his partnership with Mr Xi. He added that in his estimation, Russia would "never" agree to give up Kaliningrad as a base for nuclear-capable forces, and said there is also no chance that Kyiv would agree to cede approximately 20 per cent of its territory to Moscow. "Nor do I think that the west would be willing to completely walk away from Ukraine and deny providing them appropriate security guarantees, or even membership in NATO. The red lines for both sides are significant," he said. But Mr Stavridis did say he believes a "Korean-style armistice" is the most likely outcome of the 14-month-old conflict, with the caveat that "it's too soon to know where those boundary lines might be or where the trade-offs could occur". "Our job in the west is obvious, which is to give the Ukrainians everything they need in terms of material and training, so they can be at the best position when the negotiations ultimately begin," he said, adding later that "one thing [he knows] for sure" is that the Ukraine war presents "deeply complex issues with enormous, competing equities on all sides," with the chances of a simple settlement "within 24 hours" as Mr Trump suggested at a recent CNN town hall "approach[ing] negative infinity". While the ex-Navy admiral was measured in his evaluation of Mr Ramaswamy’s plan, a prominent GOP foreign policy veteran was far less generous when asked to opine on his proposal. Senator Lindsey Graham, a longtime member of the upper’s chamber’s foreign relations committee, told The Independent on Thursday that the anti-woke businessman’s plan amounted to “rewarding aggression” and called him “somebody who really doesn’t understand how the world works”. He added that rewarding Mr Putin for his aggression would result in China feeling empowered to take Taiwan. “You know, I’m glad people don’t think that way when it came to our freedom,” he said. “Go study history and give me an example where aggression was rewarded where you got less of it”. Senior Washington Correspondent Eric Garcia contributed reporting from Capitol Hill Read More Trump's welcome of Scott into 2024 race shows his calculus: The more GOP rivals, the better for him Zelensky salutes ‘powerful support’ from allies at Moldova summit – as he increases pressure over jets A six-year-old Ukrainian girl saved by adoption or a murderous adult imposter: Who really is Natalia Grace? The Body in the Woods | An Independent TV Original Documentary The harrowing discovery at centre of The Independent’s new documentary

Meta rolled out Threads on Wednesday, July 5 in more than 100 countries, including the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia

Disgraced Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes on Tuesday will be moving to her new home —-a federal prison where she has been sentenced to spend the next 11 years for overseeing a blood-testing hoax that became a parable about greed and hubris in Silicon Valley

The family used the hashtag #AmericalovesNasrat for the fundraiser, and users of social media have been sharing it in their posts

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says his country is ready to open a consulate in Shusha, a city that Azerbaijan took from Armenian forces in a war in 2020

By Shashwat Chauhan European shares recouped early losses to edge higher on Friday, as energy and mining stocks

Chris Hemsworth said the alarm was a 'good kick in the a**e and a reminder to do whatever is in my power to give myself the best fighting chance'

Donald Trump has called for the judge in his most recent federal indictment to be removed from the case after she issued a ruling against him. The ex-president launched his attack on District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Sunday morning, days after he appeared before her in court to plead not guilty to four federal charges stemming from a Department of Justice investigation into his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent January 6 attack on the Capitol. The day after the arraignment took to Truth Social with a post seemingly threatening revenge on those pursuing him. “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” the ex-president wrote. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team cited that post in a Friday request for Judge Chutkan to issue a protective order that would limit what discovery evidence Mr Trump and his legal can share publicly. The judge responded by giving Mr Trump’s team until 5pm Monday to respond to the request and pitch amendments to the prosecution’s proposed order. Mr Trump’s team asked for a three-day extension to respond, but that request was denied by Judge Chutkan. Then came another Truth Social post attacking the judge. “THERE IS NO WAY I CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH THE JUDGE ‘ASSIGNED’ TO THE RIDICULOUS FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FAIR ELECTIONS CASE. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, AND SO DOES SHE!” he wrote. “WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS, AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE, OUT IF (sic) D.C.” That post goes to the heart of prosecutors’ argument for why the protective order is needed: Mr Trump’s prolific use of social media. “All the proposed order seeks to prevent is the improper dissemination or use of discovery materials, including to the public,” prosecutors wrote in the protective order request. "Such a restriction is particularly important in this case because the defendant has previously issued public statements on social media regarding witnesses, judges, attorneys, and others associated with legal matters pending against him,” it continued. Mr Trump has continuously attacked prosecutors, judges, witnesses and more involved in his many legal battles to maintain his innocence and discredit their arguments. Before the indictment against the ex-president was made public on 1 August, Mr Trump used Truth Social to inform his followers he expected to be federally indicted at 5pm and called the prosecutor, Jack Smith, “deranged”. The protective order would limit what Mr Trump and his attorneys could publicly say in order to protect the integrity of the case. Mr Trump’s campaign issued a statement regarding the request for the protective order saying, “The Truth post cited is the definition of political speech, and was in response to the RINO, China-loving, dishonest special interest groups and Super PACs, like the ones funded by the Koch brothers and the Club for No Growth.” Mr Trump’s attorneys have publicly used the First Amendment as a defence against the indictment which charges Mr Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against rights and obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding. They have argued that the statements Mr Trump issued claiming there was election fraud and he actually won the 2020 election were only “political speech” and he had a right to say them. The indictment clearly mentions that while Mr Trump had the right to say what he wanted he unlawfully took steps to try and change election results in his favour. Read More Trump attacks indictment, ‘deranged’ Jack Smith and long showers in South Carolina speech - latest news DoJ requests protective order after Trump threatens revenge in Truth Social post Defiant Trump claims ‘we need one more indictment’ before 2024 race in first speech since federal charges Federal judge wants Giuliani to clarify ‘incongruous’ and ‘puzzling’ court filing in Georgia defamation case Justice Department faces biggest test in its history with election conspiracy case against Trump

Paige Spiranac's sweepstakes contest is worth thousands of dollars

MEXICO CITY Mexico's headline inflation likely eased in the first half of July to its lowest level in