ЦЕНЗОРА.NET

У повітрі підвищена концентрація пилу, повідомили у КМДА
…

Pentagon — U.S. Africa Command chief Gen. Michael Langley is starting to reshape the U.S. military presence on the continent following the U.S. military withdrawal from Niger.

Uncertainty about the next phase of the counter-terror fight in West Africa stems from America’s lost access to two critical counter-terror bases in Niger. In the east, international participants and troop numbers for the new African Union Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM) have yet to be finalized less than three months before the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) ends on December 31.

In an exclusive interview at the VOA on Thursday, Langley said the Islamic State in Somalia had grown about twofold and explained how al-Qaida affiliate al-Shabab had taken advantage of tensions between Ethiopia and Somalia to increase recruitment.

Below are highlights from his discussion with VOA Pentagon correspondent Carla Babb, edited for brevity and clarity:

On the growing U.S. partnership with Angola:

AFRICOM Chief General Michael Langley: Angola has displayed their leadership across southern Africa … I’m very encouraged by the actions of Angola.

With Angola and all the countries across the periphery, you have over 38 countries in Africa that have a shoreline. Economic viability is heavily dependent upon their economic exclusive zones … In the maritime and maritime awareness of some of these countries, we have a number of engagements, whether it be Exercise Obangame Express in Gabon this past summer … We have shared type objectives. They want to be able to stabilize and grow their economy through their fishing industries, but it’s hampered by other countries that are going across their economic exclusive economic zones.

On Chinese aspirations for a second military base in Africa:

Langley: I think they do have, in my best military opinion, aspirations for another military base… We’re actively watching.

On Russia’s Africa Corps:

Langley: As you can see, they’re already in Mali. They’re already in Burkina Faso and, to some degree, in Niger. They’ve been in CAR for a while, Central African Republic, and also in Libya. … (Wagner) has transitioned to the Russian MOD and the introduction of the Africa Corps, trying to replicate what we do best in partnering with these countries and trying to say that their security construct is better. It has proven not to be … I don’t have particular numbers that they’ve introduced to Mali, limited numbers in Burkina Faso and also in Libya. It’s in the hundreds. I’ll just put it that way. It’s not extensive just yet.

On how the disputes between Ethiopia, Somalia and others in east Africa are affecting the war against al-Shabab:

Langley: Well, it comes down to troop-contributing countries: who’s going to play and who’s going to be a troop contributing country in the transition from ATMIS to AUSSOM, and that starts at the end of the year. The sunset of ATMIS is 31 December, and then AUSSOM is supposed to take effect. The unknowns are who are going to be the troop-contributing countries to the AUSSOM construct…It is not finalized yet. That’s the UN, that’s the AU and that’s the government of Somalia doing that. We’re not in those discussions, but it’s going to be revealed soon. I hope so. So, in the ATMIS construct, one of the anchor and frontline countries was Ethiopia. So that’s what has me concerned. Ethiopia, especially in the South West State and their contributions to the liberation and stabilization, has been valuable … So time will tell if they can settle their differences and coalesce into a force that’s very effective, because when they do work together, they’re very, very effective at clearing out al-Shabab … There’re limited operations with the Ethiopians at this time.…Al-Shabaab leadership will try to exploit those disagreements and use that as a recruiting mechanism.

VOA: We’ve heard that they’ve had a stronger recruitment because of that situation. Would you agree with that?

Langley: Yes, I will agree with that. They have used that to their advantage.

On whether U.S. forces may be needed during that transition from ATMIS to AUSSOM to try to supplement security:

Langley: That’s not what we’re there for. We’re there … helping President Hassan Mohamud be able to build his army. He’s going through the force generation … all of our initiatives and our approach on the African continent, with our African partners, will be Africa-led and U.S.-enabled. So our piece of enabling is not our boots on the ground. We’re there to advise and assist, and assist in the training, but the fight is theirs… That’s not my mission… President Sheik Mohammed does not ask for our boots on the ground.

On June comments from senior U.S. defense officials who told VOA that al-Shabab had reversed Somali National Army gains in central Somalia:

Langley: I will say it ebbs and flows…They’re still building the Somali National Army. So as they go on offensive operations, it is stress on the force. As they clear and liberate a region, you have to have a credible holding force there so stabilization activities and efforts can initiate and turn the populace and faith in the federal government of Somalia with the services they provide. So that’s a very, that’s a very fragile period. And if they can’t sustain that, because they’re moving to the next region or next district, it ebbs.

VOA: So that was what was happening in this instance. They couldn’t hold the territory that they had gained?

Langley: Right.

VOA: And that’s where your training is coming in, to try to get them ready to be able to hold that territory?

Langley: Exactly. It takes time. It’s an investment to build an army … so they have staying power, and they can also close the military and civilian divide, where the local populace will have faith in the federal government of Somalia and the national army that is there trying to hold.

On why he’s “cautiously optimistic” the Somali forces will be successful against al-Shabab:

Langley: We are at an inflection point. This is unknown territory … However, when I say I’m consciously optimistic, I’m looking at the whole-of-government effort. … Every time I go there, stabilization activities are increasing…Yes, we need a credible holding force because sometimes the shadow governments of al-Shabab try to re-insert themselves back in that region and try to influence some of the local leaders … So it goes back and forth to some of these regions, but they’re being overridden by some of the stabilization activities that USAID, the biggest contributor, has put forth.

On the collaboration between Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militants and al-Shabab:

Langley: There’s probably aspirations. That’s something that we’re watching closely but, you know, I will stay tight lipped on …

We’re concerned, and we’re closely watching that, because this can turn into a bad neighborhood real quick. This is a strategic choke point on the globe…That’s where a lot of our commerce goes through. It could affect our global economy if those waters don’t have free flow of commerce…

With the Houthis and their actions, and al-Shabab and their actions and (Somali President) HSM trying to keep them from coalescing, that can interdict the free flow of commerce across those waters of the Gulf of Aden, Bab-el-Mandeb, the Red Sea, and through the Suez Canal.

On reports Islamic State in Somalia leader Abdulqadir Mumin is now the leader of Islamic State:

Langley: We have to take it as credible … As far as who is the overall leader–and ISIS professes that–sometimes you’ve got to take that seriously, because that person may have an act or aspirations or put forth operations that can affect our homeland. So yes, we’ve got to take that seriously.

On Islamic State in Somalia’s growth:

Langley: I am concerned about the northern part of Somalia and ISIS growing in numbers, and also the possibility of foreign fighters growing there.

Oh, wow … In the past year, it’s probably grown, probably twofold. Now, I won’t give numbers, but I’d say it’s probably, it’s more than what it was last year.

On whether France, the U.S. and Germany have failed the Sahel:

Langley: If we look at the numbers of the global index for terrorism across the Sahel … 40% of those killed across the globe came from the Sahel. So that’s concerning. It emanated from, the ideology, I would say, emanated down through Syria, through the Maghreb. Arab Spring contributed to it. The fall of Libya contributed to it. That’s how that has grown and metastasized to the numbers you have today…that jihad-type ideology is preying upon the civil society, preying upon the military-aged males.

We are engaging with coastal West African countries because as we look at what direction it’s metastasized, it’s on the northern regions of Cote D’Ivoire, Ghana and Togo and Benin. …They understand the enduring solution for terrorism …. it’s not about kinetics. So that’s why I don’t just go see the militaries. I get with USAID, and we sit down with these, with these administrators that go out in the field.

On the possibility of southern Libya providing a solution to the U.S. bases challenge in the fight against terror in the Sahel:

Langley: We’ve affected the conversation… I went in and talked to both sides, the GNU and the LNA leadership, but also I want to say that this is very much in the diplomatic realm. …We need to affect unity to move forward. They are at an impasse, a political impasse, because, for us to fully be able to support building their capacity to fight terrorism, anything emanating from the Sahel, we do need them in agreement, in concert, working together as a joint force.

But I will tell you, you know, there is another elephant in the room–elephant in that country–and it’s the Russian Federation. And so their activities are irrespective of the law of armed conflict, irrespective of rules-based order, irrespective to human rights. So we want to be the preferred partner. We don’t tell them to choose. We don’t give them ultimatums, but through our actions and whatever we offer in a value proposition that protects human rights, that’s mindful of the laws of armed conflict, protects the civil society … both the GNU and LNA understand that, and they have made overtures that they do want to work with us. So we’re in the nascent stages, but they need to address the political impasse that they have between the east and the west. And so our State Department is working that effort.
…

Загалом кількість врятованих сягнула 508, з них 115 – це діти-сироти
…

Детальні свідчення про катування або жорстоке поводження під час тримання під вартою в РФ надали 169 зі 174 українських військовополонених
…

…

…

…

За зведенням, російські загарбники активізувалися на Оріхівському напрямку: здійснили 3 безуспішні атаки поблизу Новоданилівки і Малих Щербаків
…

«Вже наступний рейс із прибуттям завтра вранці доїде до Миколаєва та Херсона»
…

washington — As a tight presidential election looms in the United States, journalist safety in the home of the First Amendment is no longer guaranteed, according to a report published Tuesday.

Journalists in the United States are facing a slew of threats, including attacks by police, online harassment, violence and legal challenges, according to the report by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The report primarily analyzes developments since 2020.

“There was a hope at the beginning of the Biden administration that things would get better for journalists. And what we’ve seen, actually, is that things haven’t really gotten better. They’ve stayed the same or worsened in some situations,” Katherine Jacobsen, CPJ’s U.S., Canada and Caribbean program coordinator, told VOA.

The numbers paint a concerning picture. As of September 2024, assaults on journalists in the United States in relation to their work have risen by more than 50% compared to last year — from 45 to 68 assaults — according to data from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

‘Enemies of the people’

Even though former President Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, the report points to his legacy as a driving factor behind the hostile environment continuing to face journalists around the country.

During Trump’s presidency, he regularly referred to journalists as “corrupt,” “dishonest” and “enemies of the people.” Those kinds of attacks took place — and continue to take place — within the context of record-low trust in the media in the United States, according to a 2023 Gallup poll.

“Donald Trump’s treatment of the media still matters because it’s very much still an issue,” said Jacobsen, who authored the report. “It’s a really effective political tactic for changing the narrative and undermining the credibility of the media.”

Trump’s administration also escalated prosecution of news sources, interfered in the business of media owners, and harassed journalists crossing U.S. borders, according to a 2020 CPJ report.

Trump’s office and presidential campaign did not immediately reply to VOA’s emails requesting comment for this story. Karoline Leavitt, the Trump campaign’s national press secretary, also did not immediately reply to VOA’s request for comment.

Meanwhile, CPJ reached out to both the Trump and Kamala Harris campaigns, asking them to sign the organization’s pledge to affirm their support for press freedom. Trump’s campaign did not reply, and Harris’ campaign acknowledged receipt but did not sign the pledge.

Consequences continue

Trump hasn’t been in office for nearly four years, but his tenure in the White House continues to have consequences for journalists in the United States, according to Jacobsen.

“If Donald Trump’s anti-media rhetoric did not find resonance among the broader American public, then we wouldn’t even be talking about it,” Jacobsen said.

President Joe Biden’s administration has been markedly friendlier to the press, according to the report, but Jacobsen said that hasn’t translated to an improved media environment around the country.

A top threat facing journalists is violence, which has steadily increased against the media over the past decade in the United States, the report said.

Among the most prominent recent cases is the 2022 killing of Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter Jeff German, who was found stabbed to death outside his home. Robert Telles, a former local Nevada official, was found guilty of murdering German in late August.

Although journalist killings are rare in the United States, they can have a chilling effect on the media community, according to Jacobsen. Reporters told CPJ that hostility toward journalists makes them feel less safe working in their home environments.

“The killing of journalists, especially local journalists where the reporters are working in the community, going to the same grocery stores as the people that they’re writing about, creates this sense that nowhere is safe,” Jacobsen said.

Incidents involving police are another issue for journalists.

In a recent case, Chicago police arrested three photojournalists while they covered a pro-Palestinian protest during the Democratic National Convention in August.

And four years ago, at least 459 journalists were assaulted while covering the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, including at least 273 cases in which police targeted journalists, according to the Tracker.

“The press serves as the public’s eyes and ears, and if the press is removed completely from the scene, the public’s blind to what’s happening on the ground,” Gabe Rottman, a senior attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in the CPJ report.

Physical threats against journalists are exacerbated by online harassment against them, according to the report. A 2022 survey by Pew Research Center found that one-third of journalists surveyed reported being harassed on social media in the previous year.

With the election just over a month away, Jacobsen said it’s also important to remember the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol in Washington.

Journalists were among the targets during the riots, with at least 18 journalists assaulted that day, according to the Tracker. But there hasn’t been much accountability in those cases, according to Jacobsen, and large swaths of the American public still don’t agree on what happened that day.

Some journalists who were present during the insurrection say grappling with the subsequent trauma has been difficult, according to the report.

“I really do think that January 6th was a warning shot,” Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, a freelance photojournalist who was on assignment at the Capitol during the riots, said in the CPJ report. “It was a wake-up call to the fragility of our democracy and trust in institutions — like journalism, like the government — that’s been eroding for a very long time.”

Jacobsen said she’s worried about ramifications for the media landscape if the results of the presidential election are contested. Trump has previously said that Democrats will cheat in the election and suggested that any election in which he does not win is likely to be fraudulent.

“It’s really important for journalists across the country to prepare themselves for the worst-case scenario and hope for the best,” Jacobsen said.
…

Washington — China has been one of the most-discussed international topics during the U.S. presidential campaign.

VOA spoke with Rick Waters, former head of the Office of China Coordination at the State Department and deputy assistant secretary of state for China and Taiwan, about the Biden administration’s China policy.

Waters spoke about his experience dealing with his Chinese counterparts, and how he thinks Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump would handle China, if elected.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

VOA: How do you evaluate the progress made in U.S.-China relations after U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in California last year, and do you see real, meaningful results coming from the meeting?

Rick Waters: I think we have to look at this Woodside summit as the culmination of a number of things that happened in the administration.

The first is that for the first period, Biden was focused on rebuilding the U.S. domestic strength and reinvigorating partnerships and alliances globally, and then from that position, dealing with China from a position of relative strength. So during that first two-year period, the U.S. China relationship was, in some ways, arguably, not the priority. It was important, but it was managed largely through leader level diplomacy, which, in China’s current political configuration is the most important channel.

And then we know what happened in 2022 circumstances around the visit of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi [to Taiwan] led to a downward spiral, and Biden and Xi made an initial effort to stabilize relations that fall at their summit in Bali, but it only made it a few months, and then the surveillance balloon knocked things sideways again.

So, I think what we have now is a little bit more stable floor built around the leader level channels, a few modest areas where there is some common work underway, and a web of senior, empowered channels at the Cabinet level, including Jake Sullivan, who try to manage conflict and competition rather within bounds, within guardrails, to avoid the scenario of unmitigated downward spiral we saw in 2022.

VOA: Do you think a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is inevitable, or what should the U.S. do to deter that invasion?

Waters: I don’t think that conflict is inevitable, and I think at its core the U.S.’s interest is peace and stability. That’s what’s anchored the prosperity in the Indo-Pacific over the past couple of decades. The ability for commerce, for trade, for people-to-people flows regionally to thrive in an environment where there is no war.

And so, I think if we take that as our starting point, I don’t think that conflict is inevitable, but I do think that the U.S. and Taiwan are focused very much on the question of how to ensure that the leadership in Beijing never believe they have a viable military option and an acceptable cost. And if that condition holds, then I think it will fall to the diplomats and to the channels that exist between the parties to manage this issue carefully.

VOA: During your career as a U.S. diplomat, what’s your experience dealing with your Chinese counterparts? What are some striking and most challenging aspects or moments that left an impression on you?

Waters: I’ve been fortunate to deal with Chinese diplomats for the better part of 30 years. And what I will say is irrespective of what you think of China’s policy or political system, they do have a very professional diplomatic corps. They’ve got very talented people in the system. What I think has changed over the past few decades is it’s a much more disciplined system. So, it’s very difficult, especially in official meetings, for Chinese diplomats to move too far off of the established line.

So, I don’t think that we should misunderstand the level of talent in the system when we look at it through its structural constraints. But I do think that as China’s overall foreign policy has become more assertive, as you know, the leadership has talked about China playing a greater role on the international stage. It has gone through periods where the wolf warriorism, the change in tone from the podium, has characterized a different era of Chinese diplomacy than what we saw before.

But I actually think, in some ways, there are plenty in the system who understand the counterproductive nature of those tactics, and I’ve seen a little bit of a tactical recalibration over recent years in how they express their foreign policy views publicly.

VOA: In this election season, the Biden administration’s China policy has often been criticized by the Republican campaign for being too weak. What is your take on that?

Waters: We’re in an election campaign, so obviously you’re never going to hear anyone say that someone’s policy is too tough. I think that the honest reality is that this election is not really, in my view, about China. It’s about other issues. China is present, but if you look at how much it’s featured in the speeches at the Republican and Democratic conventions, there are issues related to China that are important, but I think we have to maintain that perspective.

Second, I think that the issues that, in my view, matter most to voters center around trade and a perception of unfairness, a lack of reciprocity, and fentanyl, which for a number of years is a problem that has had a direct relationship to the producers of these precursor chemicals in China, and so I think those types of issues do matter on the margins, but they’re not central to U.S. voters, particularly in the swing states that will decide this election.

VOA: For the observers in China who are looking at this election, how is Harris’ China policy going to be different than President Biden’s, and what awaits China if Trump regains power?

Waters: I think how this is playing in China is a very different story. But I think what we have to say at this point is that we’re in the midst of a campaign. So, to be fair to both candidates, what we should judge is, once they form their Cabinets next spring, how will they translate political positions into new policy? I think Harris’s team has expressed a general view that her policy will be consistent with Biden’s. The Trump team and President Trump himself have talked about aspects of the relationship, particularly trade, where they feel that things are out of balance.

VOA: Biden and Xi are likely to meet and sit down again later this year. So, what are the prospects and expectations for this meeting?

Waters: It’ll be a critical moment, because this meeting — which will be either on the margins of the G20 [Group of 20 largest economies] summit in Brazil [November 18-19], or the APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] summit in Lima, Peru [November 10-16], depending on where it takes place — these meetings on the margins of summits are consequential during a presidential transition. I think they can use it as a chance to help bridge between the two administrations. That will be easier if it’s a Biden-to-Harris transition, because Democrat-to-Democrat is more likely to be able to talk about how the bridging will work. But if it’s, you know, Biden-to-Trump, I still think it’s consequential.

President Biden can give his advice about how to avoid returning to the events of 2022 [and] how they can reflect on the lessons of what has been achieved since the Woodside [California] Summit [in November 2023]. And I think you probably go into it with fairly modest expectations.
…

WASHINGTON — The United States on Tuesday imposed sanctions on Hilltop Youth, a group of extremist settlers in the Israeli -occupied West Bank who attack Palestinians and their property.

In addition, the State Department placed diplomatic sanctions on two men — Israeli settler Eitan Yardeni, for his connection to violence targeting West Bank civilians, and Avichai Suissa, the leader of Hashomer Yosh, a sanctioned group that brings young volunteers to settler farms across the territory, including small farming outposts that rights groups say are the primary drivers of settler violence across the territory.

The sanctions, which expose people to asset freezes and travel and visa bans, come as violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has exploded since the start of the Israel-Hamas war following the deadly terrorist attacks of October 7.

Palestinians report verbal and physical harassment and restriction of movement, and they face intimidation by settlers circling their properties on motorbikes, cars or horses and spying via drones.

The Treasury Department said Hilltop Youth has carried out killings and mass arson, while rights groups and Palestinians say the group is behind “price tag” attacks — attacks on Palestinian villages in retaliation for perceived efforts to hamper settlement construction.

The group may prove difficult to effectively sanction, as it is loosely organized and decentralized. In addition, Israel’s finance minister has previously vowed to intervene on sanctioned settlers’ behalf.

In the past, sanctioned settlers said that the measures had little impact on their finances.

Hilltop Youth has already faced sanctions from the EU and U.K.

The Biden administration has been criticized for imposing relatively few sanctions on Israeli extremists. According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, 27 extremists and entities have been sanctioned by the U.S. under President Joe Biden ‘s February 2024 Executive Order related to maintaining West Bank stability.

Treasury Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Bradley T. Smith said that the U.S. “will continue to hold accountable the individuals, groups and organizations that facilitate these hateful and destabilizing acts.”

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “The actions of these individuals have contributed to creating an environment where violence and instability thrive. Their actions, collectively and individually, undermine peace, security and stability in the West Bank.”
…

«Вбивства та катування полонених – не випадковість, а цілеспрямована політика російського керівництва», заявив генпрокурор Костін
…

У цей час зупинили рух в центрі столиці
…

A new exhibit in Washington sheds some light on a little-known layer of the sea and the strange creatures that live there. Artechouse art center and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution collaborated on the spectacle, called Twilight Zone: Hidden Wonders of the Ocean. Maxim Adams has the story.
…

Джуса» називали голосом української авіації, бо був одним з тих, хто лобіював важливість надання Україні сучасного озброєння, зокрема, літаків F-16
…

Президент зазначив, що вже 951 день, коли  українські військові «пишуть історію на полі бою та віддають себе аби не віддати Україну»
…