Політика

За словами Сап’ян, для перевірки діагнозів посадовців створять робочу групу
…

The war in Ukraine is reshaping the strategic landscape of Europe. While Western and Eastern European nations within the NATO alliance recognize the Russian threat, each day, NATO nations bordering Belarus and Russia feel the immediacy of the threat.

In an exclusive interview with VOA’s Eastern Europe Bureau Chief Myroslava Gongadze, Lieutenant General Charles Costanza, commander of the U.S. Army’s V Corps (also known as the Fifth Corps) in Poland, discusses how NATO adapts to Russia’s evolving tactics while defending its members’ borders.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

VOA: Can you explain the different threat assessments from Eastern and Western European partners of NATO regarding Russia?

Charles Costanza, commanding general of the U.S. Army’s V Corps: Clearly, in the eastern flank of Europe, the threat is real. They’re on the border with Belarus and Russia, and so, they see that threat every day differently. You see recent open-source reporting on the Russian UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones] coming over Romanian territory and Lithuanian territory. Those incursions have increased. You see the sabotage operations going on throughout eastern flank countries and Eastern European countries. So, Russia is increasing that, short of … challenges and interference [that would trigger the NATO mutual defense clause].

VOA: Do you think Russia is doing it deliberately?

Costanza: Of course, they are. They weaponize immigration — I say “weaponize” deliberately. This weaponized immigration is happening in Poland, it’s all been driven from Russia to interfere in Eastern Europe. Moldova is a near-term example with their elections. Russia is actively interfering in those elections to try and shape them in a pro-Russian way. So, all that is going on right now. So, that’s part of this threat assessment piece that isn’t necessarily impacting the Western European countries as much as Eastern Europe.

VOA: How threatening is Russia’s military?

Costanza: I think there’s a view that Russia is going to take three to 10 years to reconstitute, and I think that we need to look at that a little differently. Russian armed forces, ground forces right now, are actually bigger than they were before the war with Ukraine started 2½ years ago, despite the losses of open-source reporting [of] 600,000 casualties that they’ve incurred during the course of the war.

They may not be as well trained, but they’re bigger. Their industrial base is on a wartime footing. Their mobilization base is on a wartime footing. They know they’re fighting a Western-trained, West-equipped country with Ukraine. They’re learning how to defeat those capabilities and those systems over the last 2½ years. So, they’re modernizing their force based on the lessons that they’re learning, and I think that’s something we should be concerned about. They’re modernizing their equipment. They’re changing the way that they fight based on learning how to fight against Western-trained forces in Ukraine. And I think that should be a concern for all of us. It clearly is to our Eastern European allies.

VOA: How are you preparing to defend and deter?

Costanza: First of all, to maintain a high stance on readiness from a U.S. forces standpoint but also the NATO standpoint. At the Fifth Corps, one of the key things we do as partners with our multinational corps and multinational divisions across the eastern flank of Europe [is] just to help build their war-fighting capability as they field new capabilities. HIMARS [High Mobility Artillery Rocket System], for example. Apaches [helicopters] — with Poland just purchasing 96 Apaches from the United States. So, we help them to employ those things, those capabilities. But how you employ them at the corps level, and how you employ them at the division level, we can help, and we do.

VOA: General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former commander in chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and now ambassador to the United Kingdom, recently gave a speech at Chatham House in London in which he talked about the technological advancements of this war, and how this is a different war than NATO was prepared to fight. How would you assess NATO’s capabilities today?

Costanza: I think you’re exactly right. And those are some of the comments that were made by our NATO partners in this event. I think that the United States is kind of setting the standard on that with a new program that our chief of staff of the Army [General Randy George] has talked about, which is transformation in contact. So, for the U.S. forces that are rotating over here to Europe, we’re modernizing them with equipment that’s available right now. So, instead of going through our normal four-year acquisition process to get new equipment, we’re taking things that are available based on what we’re watching happen in Ukraine. … So maybe that can be a model for our partners and allies.

VOA: We talked about NATO capabilities. Now I want to go back to Russian capabilities. How advanced do you think they are right now?

Costanza: I think the biggest concern is what I said before: They know they’re fighting Western-trained and -equipped forces. And so, as they modernize based on the lessons that they’re learning — not just their equipment, but how they fight — they’re really sharpening their ability to fight us in the future. And I think that’s something we need to be concerned about.

So, those things I just talked about that we’re trying to rapidly introduce into our brigade to execute the transformation, contact — the UAS [Unmanned Aircraft Systems, or drones], the border, ammunition, the counter UAS, the EW [electronic warfare] capability. And how do you synchronize all of that capability so that you can really, rapidly strike and kill targets? They’ve learned how to do that. And so, we need to be able to do that and do it better than they do.

VOA: Russia is gaining support from China and North Korea right now. Are we ready to face this threat?

Costanza: The lessons that I was talking about, the reasons we should be concerned about Russia — they’re sharing those lessons with China, with Iran, and vice versa, the capabilities that Iran and China are providing. And now you see the North Koreans, as well. North Korea is now providing, I think it’s an initial batch [of] open-source reporting, of 4,000 North Korean soldiers. I think that could potentially just be a starting point for what they provide in terms of manpower to Russia. And I think that’s a problem near-term here in Eastern Europe, because as we talked about before we started, the challenge for Ukrainians is people. It’s the amount of people that they have to put into this fight. And Russia doesn’t care how many losses it takes. I mean, 600,000 [casualties], and they’re still throwing more manpower at it and don’t even blink. Ukrainians can’t afford to take those losses. I think that’s going to be the limiting factor for that as we move forward, watch this war continue into this third period.

VOA: There are different assessments of threats between, let’s say, the political part of the NATO alliance and the military part of the alliance. How are you finding that common ground?

Costanza: Yeah, I think it’s just constant dialogue, right? And so, I know we do that at different levels. So, the combatant commander, the U.S. combat commander, has those discussions at the national levels with our NATO partners and allies. We all live in Eastern Europe, including myself — in Poland. We all see that threat the same way. It can be near term.

VOA: What do you mean by the near term?

Costanza: I think, one year, two years, three years.

VOA: And you’re trying to be ready for that?

Costanza: U.S. forces are ready, and I can tell you, our NATO partners and allies are ready. And we’re just continuing to build capabilities.
…

WASHINGTON — As the United States presidential election enters its final phase, more and more voters are expressing support for their favored candidate by wearing election merchandise.

What they may not realize is that the “Make America Great Again” Trump hat or “Childless Cat Lady for Harris” T-shirt they’re wearing quite possibly was made in China.

With the help of e-commerce platforms, Chinese traders are flooding the market for U.S. election merchandise with cheap goods. Anecdotal evidence suggests U.S. makers of these products are struggling to compete.

“I think the amount of stuff on Amazon and Etsy that’s coming from China and other countries in cargo ships and unloaded on American shores is drastically impacting American manufacturers’, like myself, ability to compete and grow our own business. I think it’s dramatic,” said Ben Waxman, founder and co-owner of American Roots, an American apparel company.

Waxman wouldn’t share production or profit figures with VOA Mandarin Service because of privacy concerns, but he did say his U.S.-made campaign T-shirts, for example, sell for about $15 each, while those on Chinese online retailer Temu can sell for as little as $3.

“It’s more expensive when you pay higher wages, living wages, and abide by environmental standards,” Waxman said, referring to long-standing criticisms of China’s manufacturing practices.

His unionized company has been producing campaign merchandise for presidential candidates since 2016, mainly T-shirts and sweatshirts, with all raw materials and production sourced within the U.S.

Flooding the market

VOA Mandarin Service was unable to find total sales figures for made-in-America election merchandise versus made-in-China ones. But the massive number of Chinese-made election products for sale on e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and eBay, show they are flooding the market.

On Temu alone, tens of thousands of election-themed items have been sold at a fraction of the price of the official campaigns’ versions.

Among them, a “Make America Great Again” hat costs less than $4, while the official Trump campaign store website, which boasts “All Products Made in the USA,” sells them for 10 times that price at $40 each.

Likewise, Temu’s “Kamala Harris 2024” hats can sell for less than $3 each, while the official Kamala Harris campaign store website sells “Kamala” hats for $47 each.

The Harris campaign also vowed to only sell products made in the U.S. on its official websites.

VOA asked both campaigns for comment but didn’t receive a response by the time of publication.

The stark contrast in prices highlights the challenges the U.S. faces in reducing its dependence on Chinese products and closing a trade loophole, known as the de minimis loophole, that allows Chinese companies to ship goods worth less than $800 to the U.S. without paying import duties.

Kim Glas, president and CEO of the National Council of Textile Organizations, a labor union-aligned organization, said abuse of the de minimis loophole is rampant, adding that her group “lost 21 manufacturing operations over the last 18 months.”

Glas said some of NCTO’s member manufacturers found sales of campaign products are slower this year than in any previous U.S. election cycle.

VOA Mandarin reached out to Amazon and eBay for comments on the volume of presidential campaign merchandise imported from China on their websites and their regulations of the Chinese vendors but didn’t receive a response by the time of publication.

Temu didn’t comment on election product sales in the U.S., but the company’s spokesperson replied in an email to VOA Mandarin, “Temu’s growth isn’t dependent on the de minimis policy. The primary drivers behind our rapid expansion and market acceptance are the supply-chain efficiencies and operational proficiencies we’ve cultivated over the years.”

The spokesperson added, “We are open to and supportive of any policy adjustments made by legislators that align with consumer interests.”

U.S. textile industry representatives note the irony of the two U.S. presidential candidates talking tough on trade with China while their own followers are buying China-made products to show their support for them.

“If someone is supporting a candidate because of that candidate’s economic policy and their position toward improving our economy and improving our environment and improving our labor conditions, and doing so by increasing the amount of domestic manufacturing, and then they’re supporting a candidate by buying a product that’s made in a country that stands for the opposite of that, they’re actually doing themselves and the candidate and the economy a disservice,” said Mitch Cahn, president of Unionwear, a New York-based apparel company that has supplied more than 300,000 baseball caps to Harris’ campaign.

‘Anybody can make the product’

Cahn notes that anyone can produce campaign products because the campaigns don’t control their intellectual property. They think “it’s more valuable for them to have a person wear the campaign’s name on their head than it is to make money from selling the merchandise.”

“When anybody can make the product and sell it, a lot of the products are going to end up being made in China because there’s just not a lot of manufacturers here,” he told VOA Mandarin.

The Associated Press reported on October 18 that thousands of Donald Trump’s “God Bless America” Bibles were printed in China. The AP also noted that most Bibles, not just the Trump-backed one, are made in China.

Critics note Trump’s promotion of Made in the USA products could be undermined by the revelation.

“In past [election] years, this would’ve been a scandal,” says Marc Zdanow, a political consultant and CEO of Engage Voters U.S. “I think Trump voters just don’t care. … I guess the question is whether or not this rises to the top for those voters who are still undecided. This issue is certainly one that could be enough to push this group away from Trump.”

Chris Tang, a business administration and global management professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management, told VOA Mandarin the impact of merchandise made in China on the U.S. economy is not simply about one-sided manufacturing job losses. Consumers also get these products at low prices.

“While there are job losses in manufacturing, it creates opportunities for small businesses to import small quantities quickly using [online Chinese sellers like] Alibaba to find suppliers to produce election merchandise quickly and sell them online quickly.”

Tang said the U.S. should develop a manufacturing sector that focuses on high-value products, not cheap ones such as U.S. election merchandise.
…

Зафіксовані влучання в Холодногірському, Салтівському та Київському районах
…

WASHINGTON — The FBI is investigating the public disclosure of a pair of highly classified intelligence documents describing Israel’s preparations for a retaliatory strike on Iran, the bureau said on Tuesday. 

“The FBI is investigating the alleged leak of classified documents and working closely with our partners in the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community,” it said in a statement. 

White House national security spokesman John Kirby said on Monday that it has not been determined whether the disclosure was a hack or a leak. President Joe Biden was watching the results of the investigation closely, he added. 

“We’re not exactly sure how these documents found their way into the public domain,” Kirby told reporters. 

“The president remains deeply concerned about any leakage of classified information into the public domain. That is not supposed to happen, and it’s unacceptable when it does,” he said. 

The documents appear to have been prepared by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, describing U.S. interpretations of Israeli Air Force and Navy planning based on satellite imagery from Oct. 15-16. 

They began circulating last week on the Telegram messaging app. Israel has been planning a response to a ballistic-missile barrage carried out by Iran on Oct. 1, Tehran’s second direct attack on Israel in six months. Israel has intensified its offensive in Gaza and Lebanon, days after the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. 

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday said an investigation was under way.
…

NEW YORK — Former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Michael Jeffries and two other men have been arrested on sex trafficking and interstate prostitution charges, a spokesperson for federal prosecutors said Tuesday.

Details of the criminal charges weren’t immediately available. They come after years of sexual misconduct allegations, made in civil lawsuits and the media, from young people who said Jeffries lured them with promises of modeling work and then pressed them into sex acts.

A message seeking comment was left for Brian Bieber, an attorney who has represented Jeffries. Information on attorneys for the other defendants wasn’t immediately available.

Brooklyn-based U.S. Attorney Breon Peace and FBI and police officials were set to hold a news conference later Monday.

Jeffries left New Albany, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch in 2014.

One civil lawsuit filed in New York last year accused Abercrombie of allowing Jeffries to run a sex-trafficking organization during his 22-year tenure. It said that Jeffries had modeling scouts scouring the internet for victims, and that some prospective models became sex-trafficking victims.

Abercrombie last year said it had hired an outside law firm to conduct an independent investigation after a report on similar allegations was aired by the BBC.

The BBC investigation included a dozen men who described being at events involving sex acts they said were staged by Jeffries and his partner, Matthew Smith, often at his home in New York and hotels in London, Paris and elsewhere.

When the civil lawsuit was filed in New York last year, Bieber declined to comment on the allegations.
…

За словами дружини Бекірова, останній лист він написав 2 жовтня, а дзвінків сім’я не отримувала від нього понад два з половиною місяці
…

Зокрема, низку випадків злочинної діяльності зафіксували у Харківській, Рівненській, Закарпатській областях та Миколаєві
…

Dissent is thriving this fall at American colleges, and not just among student activists. With student protests limited by new restrictions, faculty have taken up the cause.  

To faculty, new protest rules threaten freedom of speech — and the freedom to think, both central to university life. This semester, some of the most visible demonstrations have involved professors speaking up for the right to protest itself.  

Last spring, pro-Palestinian tent encampments crowded schools and disrupted commencement plans, drawing accusations of antisemitism and prompting new limits.  

At Indiana University, an “expressive activity policy” rolled out in August prohibits protests after 11 p.m., bans camping on campus, and requires pre-approval for signs. In defiance, each Sunday a group of faculty members, students and community members gather on campus for candlelight vigils that extend past the 11 p.m. deadline.  

Russ Skiba, a professor emeritus who has attended the vigils, said the new restrictions are part of a larger movement to limit academic freedom on campuses.  

In Indiana, the Republican governor in March signed a law increasing state oversight of public universities. The law, sponsored by a lawmaker who said colleges suffer from “monolithic thinking,” subjects faculty to post-tenure reviews over whether they are fostering diversity of thought and keeping their political views out of the classroom. Skiba and other Indiana professors widely opposed the bill, which they criticized as vague and subject to interpretation.  

“Universities are bastions of free speech, but when you have a movement that is anti-democratic, one of the places that is most attacked is freedom of speech,” Skiba said.  

Faculty members at colleges elsewhere around the country have pushed back on the new rules with protests, vigils and demands for explanation.  

A group of Harvard University professors held a “study-in” at a campus library on Oct. 16 in support of pro-Palestinian students who were temporarily banned from the library for holding a similar demonstration. In September, a group representing University of California faculty filed a complaint alleging the system sought to chill their academic freedom and keep from teaching about the Israel-Hamas war “in a way that does not align with the University’s own position.”  

To some professors, the protest restrictions are also a labor issue.  

Colleges have been granting tenure to fewer professors, and facing pressure in some areas to do away with it altogether. Legislatures in several states have taken an interest in how topics around race, gender and history are taught. Protest guidelines handed down by administrators are another way the faculty’s say in university affairs is being diminished, some professors say.  

“We have to, as faculty, organize and demand the sort of shared governance that gives us a right to review and challenge these policies,” said Todd Wolfson, a journalism and media studies professor at Rutgers University and the president of the American Association of University Professors. “They’re not made by people coming out of the academic arm of our institutions.” 

Tensions on campuses nationwide have been high since the war began over a year ago, when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting around 250. Israel’s offensive has killed over 42,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not say how many were fighters.

Colleges have been under tremendous pressure, including from Republicans in Congress, to protect students from discrimination while upholding free speech. Demonstrations last spring blocked foot traffic in parts of some campuses and included instances of antisemitic imagery and rhetoric. Some Jewish faculty members and students have said the protests made them feel unsafe.  

In a message announcing new guidelines at the start of the semester, Northwestern University President Michael Schill said it needs to make sure everyone on campus feels safe and supported.  

“Activities that lead to intimidation and impede an environment where dialogue and education can flourish cannot occur again,” he said.  

Shirin Vossoughi, a Northwestern professor, was among 52 faculty members who signed an open letter opposing the school’s new demonstration policy as caving to political pressure to silence certain types of activism. She said the rules crack down not just on free speech, but pro-Palestinian voices in particular.  

During the protests last spring, some faculty members joined ranks with demonstrators. Others acted as mediators for students they see as under their care and protection. Faculty voted no confidence against leaders of schools including Columbia University, the University of Massachusetts, Brandeis University, and Cal Poly Humboldt over their handling of the protests.  

At Northwestern University, Steven Thrasher was among three faculty members charged by university police for obstructing law enforcement during last spring’s protests. He was suspended and removed from teaching this fall while under investigation by the university.

“The way that I saw my role was as a protector of the students’ safety and of their ability to express themselves,” Thrasher said this fall. “I knew as soon as I started seeing violence happening towards students that I would do what I could.”  

While schools say the rules are meant to limit disruptions, faculty members say they have the effect of neutralizing dissent.  

“The whole point of a protest is to be seen and heard,” said Michael Thaddeus, a mathematics professor at Columbia University, where new rules require advance notice and prevent demonstrations that “substantially inhibit the primary purposes” of an area of campus. “Free speech rights aren’t served if you can only speak into the void and not have anybody hear you, and that includes the right to be seen and heard by people who don’t like what you have to say.”  

Professors also drew a connection to the growing percentage of lecturers, adjuncts and professors who do not have tenure protections. Professors increasingly see the issue of speech and academic freedom as a labor issue as a result of the crackdowns, said Risa Lieberwitz, AAUP’s general counsel.

“We’re seeing unionization growing and increasing,” she said. “I think to some extent it’s because it’s so important to organize, to claim democratic rights.”  

Wolfson said professors must stand up for students’ rights to demonstrate and speak freely.  

“Their freedom of speech rights are the lifeblood of the university,” Wolfson said. “We cannot have a university based on critical thinking and exploring questions if we’re going to clamp down on students’ rights to protest something they think is a massive problem, and if they see a way for the university to actually engage in it productively.”
…

Washington — The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday upgraded its economic outlook for the United States this year, while lowering its expectations for growth in Europe and China. It left its forecast for global growth unchanged at a relatively lackluster 3.2% for 2024. 

The IMF expects the U.S. economy — the world’s largest — to expand 2.8% this year, down slightly from 2.9% in 2023 but an improvement on the 2.6% it had forecast for 2024 back in July. Growth in the United States has been led by strong consumer spending, fueled by healthy gains in inflation-adjusted wages. 

Next year, though, the IMF expects the U.S. economy to decelerate to 2.2% growth. With a new presidential administration and Congress in place, the IMF envisions the nation’s job market losing some momentum in 2025 as the government begins seeking to curb huge budget deficits by slowing spending, raising taxes or some combination of both. 

The IMF, a 190-nation lending organization, works to promote economic growth and financial stability and reduce global poverty. In its latest forecast, it expects China’s economic growth to slow from 5.2% last year to 4.8% this year and 4.5% in 2025. The world’s No. 2 economy has been hobbled by a collapse in its housing market and by weak consumer confidence — problems only partly offset by strong exports. 

The 20 European countries that share the euro currency are collectively expected to eke out 0.8% growth this year, twice the 2023 expansion of 0.4% but a slight downgrade from the 0.9% the IMF had forecast three months ago for 2024. The German economy, hurt by a slump in manufacturing and real estate, isn’t expected to grow at all this year. 

Worldwide inflation has been cooling — from 6.7% in 2023 to a forecast 5.8% this year and 4.3% in 2025. It’s falling even faster in the world’s wealthy countries, from 4.6% last year to a forecast 2.6% this year and 2% — the target range for most major central banks — in 2025. The progress against inflation has allowed the Fed and the European Central Bank to finally reduce rates after they had aggressively raised them to combat the post-COVID-19 inflation surge. 

But just as lower borrowing costs aid the world’s economies, the IMF warned, the need to contain enormous government deficits will likely put a brake on growth. The overall world economy is expected to grow 3.2% in both 2024 and 2025, down a tick from 3.3% last year. That’s an unimpressive standard: From 2000 through 2019, before the pandemic upended economic activity, global growth had averaged 3.8% a year. 

The IMF also continues to express concern that geopolitical tension, including antagonism between the United States and China, could make world trade less efficient. The concern is that more countries would increasingly do business with their allies instead of seeking the lowest-priced or best-made foreign goods. Still, global trade, measured by volume, is expected to grow 3.1% this year and 3.4% in 2025, improving on 2023’s anemic 0.8% increase. 

India’s economy is expected to 7% this year and 6.5% in 2025. While still strong, that pace would be down from 8.2% growth last year, a result of consumers slowing their spending after a post-pandemic boom. 

The IMF predicts that Japan’s economy, hurt by production problems in the auto industry and a slowdown in tourism, will expand by a meager 0.3% this year before accelerating to 1.1% growth in 2025. 

The United Kingdom is projected to register 1.1% growth this year, up from a dismal 0.3% in 2023, with falling interest rates helping spur stronger consumer spending.
…

У 70-річного чоловіка – вибухова травма і уламкові поранення обох ніг, його госпіталізували
…

FALL CITY, WASHINGTON — Law enforcement officials found five people killed in a shooting inside a home southeast of Seattle on Monday morning and took a teenager into custody, police said.

Several people called 911 around 5 a.m. to report a shooting in Fall City, Washington, King County Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Mike Mellis said at a media briefing Monday afternoon.

Arriving deputies immediately took one teen into custody while another teenager who had been hurt was taken to a Seattle hospital, Mellis said. Both teens live at the house, Mellis said.

Deputies entering the home found the bodies of five people, he said. Two were adults and three were described by Mellis as young teenagers. No names have been released yet.

“Once bodies were discovered, clearly we understand that this is a hugely significant crime scene,” he said.

Mellis said the shooting appears to involve members of a family, but added that they didn’t yet know how they were related. He also said there was no ongoing threat to the community.

“I have no reason to think that there will be any additional arrests,” he said.

The teen in custody was booked into King County’s juvenile detention facility, according to Mellis. The teen will appear in court for a first hearing on Tuesday or Wednesday, a spokesperson for the county Prosecuting Attorney’s Office said in an email.

A neighbor told KING-TV that a couple and their five children lived in the home.

“I’m just in total shock, I keep bursting into tears,” Lynne Trowern, told the news outlet.

An emailed statement Monday evening from King County Councilmember Sarah Perry said the shooting involved a family of seven people.

Sheriff Patricia Cole-Tindall told KING-TV that she was “very sad, very disturbed” to learn about the shooting.
…

MOSCOW — Russian officials from President Vladimir Putin down say it makes no difference to Moscow who wins the White House on November 5.

Yet anyone watching Kremlin-guided state media coverage of the U.S. election would conclude Donald Trump is strongly favored.

State TV’s main Channel One news program this month showed video of billionaire Elon Musk and TV host Tucker Carlson denigrating Democratic candidate Kamala Harris before zooming in on what it cast as a series of stumbling performances.

Harris’ tendency to burst into fits of laughter, something Putin himself spoke about sarcastically last month, has featured prominently in broadcasts and state TV has played compilations of her least eloquent statements during the campaign.

By contrast, the same Channel One report portrayed Trump and running mate JD Vance as sure-footed and imbued with common sense on everything from transgender politics to immigration, but facing sinister forces as evidenced by assassination plots.

The Kremlin says the choice of who becomes the next U.S. president is a matter exclusively for the American people to decide and that it will work with whoever is elected.

It has denied steering coverage, although some former state media employees have spoken publicly about weekly Kremlin meetings at which guidance on different issues is given.

The state media’s apparent preference for Trump may be no surprise.

Trump has been far less openly supportive of Ukraine in its war against Russia than incumbent President Joe Biden or Harris, raising fears in Kyiv that it could lose its most important ally if he wins.

Trump, who has repeatedly praised Putin over the years and boasted of having a good working relationship, last week blamed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for helping start the war.

This month he declined to confirm reports he had spoken to Putin on several occasions since leaving office in 2021 saying only: “If I did, it’s a smart thing.”

Harris by contrast has called Putin “a murderous dictator,” vowed to continue backing Ukraine, and said that opposition politician Alexei Navalny’s death in prison was “a further sign of Putin’s brutality.” The Kremlin has denied any hand in Navalny’s demise.

State TV has often showcased guest speakers on its prime time geopolitical talk shows who express a preference for Trump, even if their reasons sometimes vary.

Andrei Sidorov, a senior academic at Moscow State University, told a major state TV talk show in October that Trump would be better for Russia because he would stir division that could trigger a long-held fantasy of anti-Western Russian hawks – the disintegration of the United States during infighting between its constituent states.

“I am for Trump. I was always for Trump – he’s a destroyer. If he’s elected … then civil war will really be on the agenda,” Sidorov said, forecasting a Democratic win would see the same “crap” as now, continuing.

“(But) Trump could really lead to our geopolitical adversary collapsing without any missiles being fired.”

A 2017 U.S. intelligence report said Putin had directed a sophisticated influence campaign to denigrate Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and support Trump in the 2016 race for the White House. The Kremlin denied meddling and Trump denied any collusion with Russia during that campaign.

Despite the two current candidates’ different approaches to Moscow, some Russian officials – who are navigating the worst period in U.S.-Russia relations since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis – have expressed wariness of both.

Harris, they say, would mean a continuation of what Moscow sees as Biden’s proxy war with Russia “to the last Ukrainian.”

Trump, who raised hopes in Moscow of better ties before he took office in 2017, is remembered for imposing sanctions when in the White House despite warm words about Putin. In Moscow’s eyes, he appeared boxed in on Russia policy by the wider U.S. political establishment.

“I have no illusions. (When Trump was president) he had several conversations with President Vladimir Putin. He received me at the White House a couple of times. He was friendly,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recalled in September.

“But sanctions against the Russian Federation were imposed under President Trump on a regular basis. As a result, we concluded that we need to rely on ourselves. We will never in our history count on ‘a good guy’ getting into the White House.”

One senior Russian source said there were different views at top levels of the Kremlin about Trump, but confirmed some believed a Trump victory might not go well for Moscow.

“Look what happened last time he became president. Everyone said beforehand that U.S.-Russia relations would benefit, but they ended up even worse. Trump says a lot of things but doesn’t always do what he says,” said the source, who declined to be named given the matter’s sensitivity.

The same source questioned whether Trump’s purported reluctance to keep financing and arming Ukraine and his talk of being able to end the war swiftly would survive lobbying efforts from powerful U.S. factions who argue that Ukraine’s fate is existential for the West and that Kyiv must not lose.

A second senior source, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said Moscow was not expecting much from either candidate. Trump had been “pretty tough” on Moscow when in power, was worryingly impulsive and had tough views on Russia’s ally China, he said.

The source added that he did not expect to see big change in Moscow-Washington relations whoever was elected.

“Neither Trump nor Harris are going to change the relationship with Russia fundamentally. There is not going to be some great new friendship,” said the source.

“The West views Russia and China as bad and the West as good and it is hard to see any leader changing a belief that is now ingrained within the Washington elite.”
…

Across the country, about 14 million voters are members of unions – workers’ organizations formed to protect their rights. But even though union members make up a small part of the American electorate, presidential candidates eagerly seek their endorsement. VOA’s Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from Nevada, where unions have a powerful voice in this year’s presidential election.
…

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government on Monday condemned the weekend killings by gunmen of two Mozambique opposition figures ahead of protests against a disputed election result, with Washington urging “a swift and thorough investigation into the murders.”

Why it’s important

The United States is the largest bilateral donor to Mozambique, providing over $560 million in assistance annually, according to the U.S. State Department website.

Washington joined the European Union and Mozambique’s former colonial ruler Portugal in the condemnation and the call for an investigation into the murders of opposition lawyer Elvino Dias and opposition party official Paulo Guambe on Saturday after multiple rounds were fired at a car in which they were travelling.

Key quotes

“The United States condemns the killings of lawyer Elvino Dias and Podemos parliamentary candidate Paulo Guambe in Mozambique,” the U.S. State Department said in a statement.

“We join the calls made by all four of Mozambique’s national political parties in urging a swift and thorough investigation.”

Context

Mozambique police on Monday fired teargas and bullets at protesters in the capital Maputo who had gathered at the scene where the two opposition party figures were shot dead on Saturday after a disputed election.

The full results of Mozambique’s Oct. 9 national election are expected this week, with early results showing that the ruling party Frelimo is set for another win. Opposition candidates say the poll was rigged.

Frelimo has ruled the southern African country since 1975 and has been accused of electoral fraud by opposition leaders, civil society and election observers. It denies the allegations.

The State Department urged Mozambique’s state institutions, political leaders, citizens and stakeholders to resolve electoral disputes peacefully and lawfully while rejecting violence and inflammatory rhetoric.
…

WASHINGTON — Jill Biden unveiled Monday what she says is a reimagined White House public tour that will engage visitors’ senses to teach them about the mansion’s history and events that happened there. 

New to the tour is the Diplomatic Reception Room, which previously had been off-limits. This ground-floor room is where President Franklin D. Roosevelt recorded his “fireside chats.” Snippets of some of those conversations will now play for visitors. 

Tourists will also be able to go into several other ground-floor rooms that previously were cordoned off at the doorway: the library; the China Room, which houses the collection of presidential place settings; and the Vermeil Room, which houses a collection of gold-plated silver tableware. 

There’s also greater access to the East Room and State Dining Room, and the Red, Blue and Green Rooms, all located on the floor above, known as the State Floor. 

New displays, or reader rails, provide written details about the rooms, their contents and some of the history that happened there, in addition to offering experiences that encourage visitors to touch, see and hear. 

For example, the display in the China Room plays a brief loop of some of the place settings. In the State Dining Room, there’s a replica of a prayer that’s on the mantel beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln so people can now read it because they were kept too far away from it. 

“As a teacher for 40 years, I know that we all learn in different ways,” the first lady, who teaches English and writing at a community college, said Monday at a White House event to mark the unveiling of the updated tour. People use all of their senses to learn, she said. 

“We’ve made replicas so that you can feel the features of some of the sculpture’s faces and touch the shining fabric on the furniture of the Blue Room,” she said. “You can now hear President Roosevelt’s ‘fireside chats’ in the room in which he recorded them, so you can feel as if you are there right beside him.” 

“We’ve added screens and information so you can read about what you see in each of the rooms, for you visual learners,” Jill Biden said. 

After walking the tour route herself, the first lady decided to expand it and add more educational and historical content, according to aides. It had been decades since the tour was last updated. 

“The White House tour now lets visitors touch, hear and see their history up close,” she said Sunday. 

Some 10,000 people tour the White House every week. 

When they enter through the East Wing, Jill Biden will be there on video to welcome them, while President Joe Biden will be on video in the East Room to talk about some of the history that happened there. The next president, who takes office in January, and his — or her — spouse can record their own greetings since the changes are meant to carry over from one administration to the next.  

Collages of printed photos that line the hallway are now digital, making it easier to change them around, while a new vertical 3D model of the 18-acre White House campus explains how the executive mansion was built and expanded over the past 200-plus years. 

The first lady’s office has worked on the project for the past two years with the National Park Service, the White House Curator’s office, the private, nonprofit White House Historical Association, presidential libraries and the History Channel, which partnered with ESI Design on the interactive experiences. 

The project was funded by a $5 million gift from the History Channel to the National Park Service. The White House is a national park.
…

washington — The United States added more than two dozen entities to a trade blacklist Monday over alleged support of weapons and drone development programs in Iran and Pakistan, and for other issues including aiding Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. 

The 26 targets, mostly in Pakistan, China and the United Arab Emirates, were said to have violated export controls, been involved in “weapons programs of concern,” or evaded U.S. sanctions and export controls on Russia and Iran, the Commerce Department said. 

Their addition to the so-called “entity list” restricts them from getting U.S. items and technologies without government authorization. 

“We are vigilant in defending U.S. national security from bad actors,” Alan Estevez, undersecretary of commerce for industry and security, said in a statement. 

“Our actions today send a message to malicious actors that if they violate our controls, they will pay a price,” he added. 

Nine entities in Pakistan were accused of being front companies and procurement agents for the already blacklisted Advanced Engineering Research Organization. 

Since 2010, the group was said to have procured U.S.-origin items by disguising their end users, who include a Pakistani entity responsible for the country’s cruise missile and strategic drone program. 

“This activity is contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States,” the Commerce Department said. 

Six entities in China were added to the list for allegedly acquiring U.S.-origin items to support China’s military modernization or to aid Iran ‘s weapons and drone programs, among other reasons. 

And three entities in the UAE, alongside another in Egypt, were said to have acquired or attempted to obtain U.S. components to avoid sanctions imposed after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the department said. 

On Monday, the Commerce Department also removed Canada-based Sandvine from the entity list, after the company took steps to “to address the misuse of its technology that can undermine human rights.” 

The U.S. had placed Sandvine on the trade restriction list in February 2024 for allegedly helping the Egyptian government target human rights activists and politicians. 

The company had been added “after its products were used to conduct mass web monitoring and censorship and target human rights activists and dissidents, including by enabling the misuse of commercial spyware,” the Commerce Department said. 
…