News Desk

KATIE Price has launched a fresh attack on ex Dwight Yorke, as son Harvey chants his name and wears Man United kit in a new video. 

The former footie star, the father of Katie Price’s son Harvey, now 23, has had little to do with his first-born child, who has autism, Prada-Willi syndrome and septo-optic dysplasia.

Katie has repeatedly criticized Dwight for his lack of involvement in Harvey’s life, claiming he “didn’t give a s**t.”

And she says the last time he saw Harvey was in 2012, and he told her he didn’t want to be in his life.

Now, in a new attack, Katie has shared a video of Harvey on her Instagram Stories, with him dressed in Man United kit. 

Katie tells her son “go,” which leads him to start chanting:“oi oi yorkey.” 

PUPPY PUNT?

Horrifying moment Katie Price seems to KICK new puppy in shocking new video

KATIE’S PAIN

Katie Price makes cryptic comment after Kieran Hayler charged with raping girl

And the star has tagged both Man United and her ex Dwight in the new clip. 

Dwight played for Manchester United, joining the club in 1998 and leaving in 2002.

In a 2023 interview, Katie said her mum contacts Dwight’s manager every year and asks if he wants to see Harvey for his birthday and she is always told “no”.

Back in May, Katie took a swipe at her ex in an interview saying that he cheated on her and was never around for Harvey.

“I was with Dwight Yorke, but he cheated on me and that ended anyway and he wasn’t around for Harv,” she said on podcast Outlet Ten Discussion.

“So, that’s a different thing. I fended for myself, for me and Harv.

“Even though Dwight is very welcome, any time, to come into Harvey’s life, because I’m not that kind of person.”

Dwight initially denied he was Harvey’s father after his birth but a DNA test showed he was.

In a 2009 book, Born to Score, Dwight denied claims he had abandoned Harvey saying: “From the moment I set eyes on the little fella, I have loved my son like I could never ever have imagined possible. I am not going to hear any more that I did not care for Harvey, or have any understanding of his needs or that I was not interested in his welfare.”

HARVEY’S HEARTBREAK

However, Katie says that Harvey has only seen his dad about nine times in his entire life.

Katie has made countless public appeals to Dwight to be part of Harvey’s life.

She says the situation “confuses” Harvey who doesn’t understand why other people get to see their dad and he doesn’t.

In 2019, Katie made a heart-wrenching plea to Dwight, in which Harvey himself said  in a video: “Daddy Dwight. I love you Daddy Dwight. You look beautiful.”

Alongside the post, Katie wrote: “Anyone who knows Dwight Yorke please get him to contact his son. Harvey doesn’t deserve this.

FOOTBALLER GONE

Football League star tragically dies aged just 42 after cancer battle

CHA-CHA-CHAOS

Strictly’s Amber Davies breaks silence after pro Nikita pictured kissing her

“He sees his other son Tiger, so I don’t understand! He does charity work for different kids charities, yet doesn’t see or support his own son. I don’t get it!”

A rep for Dwight declined to comment when approached by The Sun. We also reached out to a rep for Katie.

Oct. 30 (UPI) — The centrist liberal Democrats 66 surged in Wednesday’s Dutch elections, finishing in a virtual tie with the far-right Party for Freedom for most seats in parliament, according to reports.

The PVV and D66 were poised to win 26 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, The NL Times and Dutch News reported.

D66 had received several thousand votes more than PVV, though vote counting was ongoing. About 98% of the votes had been counted. Turnout was 78.4%.

The vote is being viewed as a refutation of the PVV and its leader, Geert Wilders, as they lost 11 seats. The party had 37 seats from the 2023 general election.

D66 picked up 17, from the nine seats it held following the last election.

With no party winning a majority, a coalition government will need to be formed, the leader of which is currently uncertain, though D66’s leader, Rob Jetten, appears a likely candidate.

If Jetten is named prime minister, he would not only he the country’s youngest prime minister in modern history at 38 years of age but the first to be openly gay.

“The positive forces have won!” Jetten said on X.

“I want to get to work for all Dutch people, because this is the land of us all!”

Wilders took to social media to declare: “The voter has spoken.”

“We had hoped for a different outcome but we kept our backs straight,” he said.

“We are more determined to fight than ever and still the second and perhaps even largest party of the Netherlands.”

The D66 ran on a platform of “freedom for everyone, but nobody left behind” that emphasized housing and education, climate and energy issues and healthcare with an emphasis on strengthening democracy.

“We are social liberals,” an English-language party report states. “This means that for us, freedom is only real when everyone has the opportunity to truly be free.”

On the other side of the political aisle, the anti-Islam PVV took a hardline stance on most issues, including immigration, such as tightening asylum rules and strengthening border policies.

“Islam, without exception, is the greatest existential threat to our freedom,” the PVV said in a report on its policies. “Worldwide, Islam is the breeding ground for extremism, oppression and terror.”

The party is ultranationalist and stands against funding asylum, developing nations, Ukraine‘s defense, the European Union and the fight against climate change.

“A shopping cart full of groceries at a normal price, being able to turn on the heater without fainting at the energy bill, a roof over your head, affordable healthcare where visiting a doctor or dentist isn’t punished financially, a decent old-age pension — that is the Netherlands of the PVV,” it said.

The right-leaning People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy was poised to pick up the third-most seats in the election with 22 seats followed by the Christian Democratic Appeal party with 18.

As the number of arrests climbs to seven, none of the priceless Napoleonic-era jewellery has been recovered.

Paris police have arrested five new suspects in the Louvre crown jewel heist, the Paris prosecutor has confirmed, a day after prosecutors said two other suspects had “partially” admitted to charges of theft and conspiracy.

The group includes one “main” suspect, according to Paris Public Prosecutor Laure Beccuau, the AFP news agency reported on Thursday. Quoting judiciary sources, radio station RTL said the arrests unfolded simultaneously throughout the Paris area late on Wednesday evening.

“We had him in our sights,” Beccuau said of the prime suspect.

Details of the five Thursday arrests, including the suspects’ identities, were not immediately available.

On the morning of October 19, as visitors roamed the halls of the world’s most-visited museum, a group of intruders broke into the Apollo Gallery through an upstairs window and snatched eight pieces of priceless jewellery in a four-minute heist that has reverberated through the art world.

The stolen jewels, which have not been recovered, included 19th-century tiaras, necklaces, earrings and a brooch belonging to the wives of French Emperor Napoleon I and Napoleon III.

Since then, investigators have raced to locate the thieves, initially believed to include at least four people.

On Wednesday, Beccuau said two suspects would be brought before magistrates to be charged with organised theft, which carries a 15-year prison sentence, and criminal conspiracy, punishable by 10 years.

The duo – a 34-year-old Algerian national and a 39-year-old who were arrested in the northern Paris suburb of Aubervilliers on Saturday – had “partially admitt[ed] to the charges”, Beccuau told a news conference.

Last week, the Louvre director told the French Senate the museum’s security operations “did not detect the arrival of the thieves soon enough”.

The Louvre curator has estimated the jewels amount to about 88 million euros ($102m) in value.

“Today we are experiencing a terrible failure at the Louvre, which I take my share of responsibility in,” the director said, adding that she submitted her resignation to the culture minister, who turned it down.

PARIS — Two suspects in the Louvre jewel heist on Wednesday were handed preliminary charges of criminal conspiracy and theft committed by an organized gang, according to the Paris prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor said they admitted their involvement.

Prosecutor Laure Beccuau said at a news conference that the two are believed to be the men who forced their way into the world’s most visited museum Oct. 19, and that at least two other accomplices are at large. The jewels remain missing.

The two were given preliminary charges and ordered held in custody pending further investigation, the prosecutor’s office said in a statement.

They have “partially” admitted their participation in the robbery, Beccuau said. She declined to provide details about the suspects’ statements to investigators because accomplices were still being sought.

It took thieves less than eight minutes to steal the jewels valued at $102 million on Oct. 19, shocking the world. The robbers forced open a window, cut into cases with power tools and fled with eight pieces of the French crown jewels.

Suspects’ DNA was found

The two men arrested on Saturday night “are suspected of being the ones who broke into the Apollo Gallery to steal the jewels,” Beccuau said.

One is a 34-year-old Algerian national who has been living in France since 2010, Beccuau said. He was arrested at Charles de Gaulle airport as he was about to fly to Algeria with no return ticket. He was living in a suburb north of Paris, Aubervilliers, and was known to police mostly for road traffic offenses. His DNA was found on one of the scooters used by robbers to leave the scene, she said.

The other suspect, 39, was arrested at his home in Aubervilliers. “There is no evidence to suggest that he was about to leave the country,” Beccuau said. The man was known to police for several thefts, and his DNA was found on one of the glass cases where the jewels were displayed and on items the thieves left behind, she added.

Video surveillance cameras showed there were at least four criminals involved, Beccuau said.

The four suspected robbers arrived onboard a truck equipped with a freight lift that two of them used to climb up to the museum’s window. The four left on two motor scooters along the Seine River toward eastern Paris, where they had some other vehicles parked, she said.

Beccuau said nothing suggests that the robbers had any accomplices within the museum’s staff.

The jewels are still missing

The jewels have not been recovered, Beccuau said.

“These jewels are now, of course, unsellable … Anyone who buys them would be guilty of concealment of stolen goods,” she warned. “There’s still time to give them back.”

Earlier Wednesday, French police acknowledged major gaps in the Louvre’s defenses — turning the dazzling daylight theft into a national reckoning over how France protects its treasures.

Paris Police Chief Patrice Faure told Senate lawmakers that aging systems and slow-moving fixes left weak seams in the museum.

“A technological step has not been taken,” he said, noting that parts of the video network are still analog, producing lower-quality images that are slow to share in real time.

A long-promised revamp — a $93-million project requiring roughly 37 miles of new cabling — “will not be finished before 2029-2030,” he said.

Faure also disclosed that the Louvre’s authorization to operate its security cameras quietly expired in July and wasn’t renewed — a paperwork lapse that some see as a symbol of broader negligence.

The police chief said officers “arrived extremely fast” after the theft, but added the lag in response occurred earlier in the chain — from first detection, to museum security, to the emergency line, to police command.

Faure and his team said the first alert to police came not from the Louvre’s alarms but from a cyclist outside who dialed the emergency line after seeing helmeted men with a basket lift.

Faure urged lawmakers to authorize tools currently off-limits: AI-based anomaly detection and object tracking (not facial recognition) to flag suspicious movements and follow scooters or gear across city cameras in real time.

Former bank robber David Desclos has told the AP the theft was textbook and vulnerabilities were glaringly obvious in the layout of the gallery.

Museum and culture officials under pressure

Culture Minister Rachida Dati, under pressure, has refused the Louvre director’s resignation and insisted that alarms worked, while acknowledging “security gaps did exist.”

The museum was already under strain. In June, the Louvre shut in a spontaneous staff strike — including security agents — over unmanageable crowds, chronic understaffing and “untenable” conditions. Unions say mass tourism and construction pinch points create blind spots, a vulnerability underscored by the thieves who rolled a basket lift to the Seine-facing façade.

Faure said police will now track surveillance-permit deadlines across institutions to prevent repeats of the July lapse. But he stressed the larger fix is disruptive and slow: ripping out and rebuilding core systems while the palace stays open, and updating the law so police can act on suspicious movement in real time.

Experts fear that the stolen pieces may already be broken down and stones recut to erase their past.

Adamson and Corbet write for the Associated Press.

Ben Rhodes, a former United States deputy national security adviser under President Barack Obama, famously called Washington’s foreign policy establishment “the Blob” to describe its entrenched ecosystem of think tanks, former officials, journalists and funders that perpetuate a narrow vision of power, global order and legitimate actors. This apparatus not only sustains conservative inertia but also defines the limits of what is considered possible in policy. In Sudan’s two-and-a-half-year conflict, these self-imposed boundaries are proving fatal.

A particularly insidious practice within the Blob is the invocation of moral and rhetorical equivalence, portraying the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese armed forces (SAF) as comparable adversaries. This ostensibly balanced US stance, evident in establishment analyses and diplomatic statements, represents not an impartial default but a deliberate political construct. By equating a criminalised, externally backed militia with a national army tasked with state duties, it sanitises RSF atrocities, recasting them as mere wartime exigencies rather than orchestrated campaigns of ethnic cleansing, urban sieges and terror.

Reports from Human Rights Watch on ethnic cleansing in West Darfur, civilian killings, rape and unlawful detentions in Gezira and Khartoum and United Nations fact-finding missions confirm the RSF’s deliberate targeting of civilians. Furthermore, a report by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED) monitor from late 2024 attributed roughly 77 percent of violent incidents against civilians to the RSF, underscoring this asymmetry, yet the Blob’s discourse frequently obscures it.

This notion has dominated US and international discourse on Sudan’s war since its outbreak when the then-US ambassador to Khartoum, John Godfrey, tweeted in the first month of the war a condemnation of RSF sexual violence but vaguely attributed it to unspecified “armed actors”. By refraining from explicitly identifying the perpetrators despite extensive documentation of the RSF’s responsibility for systematic rapes, gang rapes and sexual slavery, his wording essentially dispersed accountability across the warring parties and contributed to a climate of institutional impunity. RSF militiamen carry out their atrocities with confidence, knowing that responsibility will be blurred and its burden scattered across the parties.

What drives this equivalence? The Blob’s institutions often prioritise access over veracity. Framing the conflict symmetrically safeguards diplomatic ties with regional allies, particularly the RSF’s patrons in the United Arab Emirates while projecting an aura of neutrality. However, neutrality amid asymmetric criminality is not objectivity; it is tacit complicity. Elevating an internationally enabled militia to parity with a sovereign military confers undue legitimacy on the RSF, whose methods – including the besieging and starving of cities such as el-Fasher, the systematic use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war, the deployment of drones against mosques and markets, and acts of genocide – are demonstrably systematic, as corroborated by investigative journalism and human rights documentation. To subsume these under “actions by both parties” distorts empirical reality and erodes mechanisms for accountability.

Compounding this is the Blob’s uncritical assimilation of RSF propaganda into its interpretive frameworks. The RSF has strategically positioned itself as a vanguard against “Islamists”, a veneer that conceals its historical criminal nature, patronage networks, illicit resource extraction and foreign sponsorship.

In a similar vein, the RSF has publicly expressed sympathy and strong support for Israel, even offering to resettle displaced Palestinians from Gaza in a bid to align with US interests. This discourse serves as an overture to the Blob, leveraging shared geopolitical priorities to portray the RSF as a pragmatic partner in regional stability.

Certain establishment pundits and diplomats have echoed this narrative, casting the RSF as a viable bulwark against an “Islamist resurgence”, thereby endowing a force implicated in war crimes with strategic and ethical credibility. When the Blob internalises this “anti-Islamist” trope as analytical shorthand, it legitimises an insurgent militia’s rationalisations as geopolitical truths, marginalising the reality of the war and the Sudanese who repudiate militarised binaries and sectarian lenses.

Contrast this with the recurrent accusations of external backing for the SAF from an ideologically disparate coalition, including Egypt, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Iran. These claims, often amplified in mainstream media narratives and aligning with RSF discourse, expose profound inconsistencies: Egypt’s secular anti-Islamist state, Turkiye’s Islamist-leaning government, Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Wahhabi monarchy and Iran’s Shia theocracy embody clashing regional rivalries, evident in proxy wars from Yemen to Libya, rendering their purported unified support for the SAF implausible unless opportunistic pragmatism overrides ideology.

Moreover, the evidentiary threshold falls short of the robust, independent documentation implicating the UAE in RSF operations, relying instead on partisan assertions and circumstantial reports that appear designed to muddy asymmetries. Critically, any verified SAF assistance typically involves conventional arms transactions with Sudan’s internationally recognised government in Port Sudan, a sovereign authority, as opposed to the unchecked provisioning extended to the RSF, a nonstate actor formally designated by the US as genocidal. This fundamental distinction highlights the Blob’s contrived equivalence, conflating legitimate state-to-state engagements with the illicit empowerment of atrocity perpetrators.

Even more corrosive is the Blob’s propensity to credential “pseudo-civilian” entities aligned with the RSF and its external sponsors, particularly those bolstered by UAE influence, such as Somoud, led by former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, who also chairs the Emirati business-promotion organisation, the Centre for Africa’s Development and Investment (CADI). These networks are often presented in Blob forums as “civilian stakeholders” or “pragmatic moderates”, sidelining authentic grassroots entities inside Sudan.

This curation of externally amenable proxies transforms mediation into theatre, channelling international validation towards RSF-aligned gains and ignoring Sudanese agency rather than supporting any real civic architects of Sudan’s democratic aspirations. Documented UAE-RSF logistical and political linkages alongside Gulf-orchestrated narrative amplification should serve as a warning against endorsing such fabricated authority.

These lapses are not merely intellectual; they yield tangible harms. Legitimising the RSF through equivalence or narrative cooption dilutes legal and political tools for redress, confining policy options to performative ceasefires and superficial stability blueprints that preserve war economies and armament flows. It defers genuine deterrence, such as targeted interdictions, robust arms embargoes and the exposure of enablers until atrocities become irreversible.

The repercussions do not end there. They deepen, fuelling the militia’s authoritarian ambitions in alliance with its civilian partners. Drawing on this contrived equivalence, they have recently declared Ta’asis, parallel governing structures in western Sudan, claiming a layer of legitimacy while, at least rhetorically, brandishing the threat of partition despite the clear international consensus against recognising such authority.

To counter the Blob’s pathologies, a paradigm shift is imperative. Analysts and policymakers must abjure false symmetry, distinguishing symmetric warfare from asymmetric atrocity campaigns. Where evidence is found of systematic rights abuses, international rhetoric and actions should reflect this imbalance through targeted sanctions and disruptions while avoiding generic “both-sides” statements.

They must also repudiate RSF narratives. The “anti-Islamist” rhetoric is partisan sloganeering, not objective analysis. US engagement should centre on civilian protection, privileging authentic civil society testimonies over manufactured proxies. The question of who governs Sudan is, first and foremost, the prerogative of the Sudanese people themselves, who in April 2019 demonstrated their sovereign agency by toppling Omar al-Bashir’s Islamist regime without soliciting or relying on external assistance.

Equally important is to withhold recognition from contrived civilians. Mediation roles should hinge on verifiable grassroots mandates. Entities tethered to foreign patrons or militias merit no elevation as Sudan’s representatives.

Finally, policymakers must dismantle enablers. Rhetorical and legal measures must be matched by enforcement through transparent embargo oversight, flight interdictions and sanctions on supply chains. Justice without implementation offers only solace to victims.

Should the Blob prove intransigent, alternative forces must intervene. Sudanese civic coalitions, diaspora advocates, independent media and ethical policy networks can amass evidence and exert pressure to compel a recalibration of global approaches. A diplomacy that cloaks complicity in neutrality perpetuates atrocity machinery. Only one anchored in Sudanese agency, empirical truth and unyielding accountability can forge a viable peace.

Sudanese seek no sympathy, only a recalibration among the influential: Cease equating aggressors with guardians, amplifying perpetrator propaganda and supplanting vibrant civic realities with orchestrated facades. Until Washington’s elite perceives Sudanese not as geopolitical subjects but as rights-bearing citizens demanding justice, its epistemic maze will continue to license carnage over conciliation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

BBC Springwatch presenter Chris Packham has shared a health update with fans after visiting hospital this week

Beloved Springwatch host Chris Packham has opened up about a worrying health scare that saw him rushed to Southampton hospital after spotting an alarming symptom, which led to an invasive procedure to obtain a biopsy.

This comes after his co-star Michaela Strachan was supported by fans after sharing baby news.

The BBC naturalist admitted the medical emergency required immediate investigation, telling supporters he’d anticipated the experience would be “a bit unpleasant and uncomfortable”.

He underwent both a gastroscopy and colonoscopy following the discovery of a polyp, and revealed the ordeal proved far less daunting than he’d feared.

The wildlife campaigner updated his numerous Instagram followers from the hospital café as he documented the journey online.

He admitted: “I got to watch it all… it was better than everything I saw on Netflix last night.”

A gastroscopy, alternatively termed an upper endoscopy, involves a physician using an extended, bendable tube equipped with a camera to inspect the upper digestive tract, encompassing the oesophagus, stomach, and duodenum.

A colonoscopy, meanwhile, is a diagnostic examination of the large intestine’s lining utilising an elongated, flexible tube fitted with a camera, known as a colonoscope.

The procedure is carried out to explore symptoms such as stomach pain or bleeding, to check for bowel cancer, or to keep track of pre-existing health issues.

Chris verified that doctors had extracted a small polyp and that he’s currently awaiting the biopsy findings, reports the Express.

Despite facing uncertainty, he stayed positive and took the opportunity to commend the team caring for him. “I just want to say a massive thank you to all of the staff and volunteers working at this hospital and, of course, to the NHS,” he said.

“Whatever happens going forward, we’ve got to protect our NHS.”

However, the wildlife presenter’s hospital experience took an unexpected turn when he encountered one of the hospital’s cuddliest guests, Tinker the poodle. The adorable dog was visiting alongside charity volunteer Carmella, collecting donations for the Muscle Help Foundation.

The organisation delivers life-transforming “Muscle Dream Experiences” for youngsters living with muscular dystrophy. Chris was deeply touched by their cause and promised to promote their donation link, encouraging anyone able to contribute even a modest sum to support them.

“I know it’s tough times,” he said, “but anything you can afford would be most welcome.”

He remarked that the duo had been given a “fantastic welcome” at the hospital, before adding with humour: “What a place – sensational. And finishing off with a poodle… that’s what you call service!”.

This marks Chris ‘most recent health disclosure, with the broadcaster being remarkably candid about his wellbeing on social media, discussing extensively his experiences living with Asperger’s Syndrome, which he was diagnosed with aged 40 following years of feeling unlike others around him.

People were quick to comment on the post with one person saying: “Great sharing your experience of undergoing a colonoscopy Chris! Super important for men to make sure they get checked out if ever concerned!”

Someone else wrote: “Sending so much love and so pleased all went well and it’s over.” As another added: “I hope all goes well for you…take care of yourself you have spent your life dedicating to others.”

The Los Angeles Lakers guard continues his hot start to the NBA season with a 12ft game-winner against Minnesota Timberwolves.

Austin Reaves has made a driving jump shot at the buzzer to lift the Los Angeles Lakers to a 116-115 win over the Minnesota Timberwolves in Minneapolis.

Reaves finished Wednesday night with 28 points and 16 assists to lead Los Angeles, which won despite playing without injured stars LeBron James and Luka Doncic. Jake LaRavia finished with 27 points on 10-for-11 shooting, including 5-for-6 success from beyond the three-point arc.

Julius Randle amassed 33 points, five rebounds and six assists to lead Minnesota. Jaden McDaniels added 30 points on 11-for-19 shooting, going 3-for-4 from deep.

The Timberwolves led by one point as the Lakers lined up for an inbounds pass from just inside half-court with 6.6 seconds to go.

LaRavia fed the pass to Reaves, who dribbled for a moment as McDaniels defended him. Reaves weaved between McDaniels and Timberwolves big man Rudy Gobert to drive towards the paint and lifted for a jump shot from inside the free-throw line.

The shot fell as time expired, and Reaves’s teammates rushed to celebrate with him.

“To have that opportunity for a big road win, especially with a lot of people out, is special,” Reaves said, reflecting on his missed shot from the corner at the buzzer on the same court in the first-round NBA playoff series last spring that would have tied it only to watch the Wolves hold on and eliminate the Lakers in Game 5. “We kept hooping, and they kept encouraging me to go do what I do.”

Injury-hit Lakers hold on

The Timberwolves nearly staged an incredible comeback before Reaves rescued the Lakers. Minnesota trailed 114-106 with 2:30 remaining but went on a 9-0 run to seize a one-point lead.

Randle punctuated the run by making a go-ahead basket with 10.2 seconds left. McDaniels had a three-pointer and a dunk during the Timberwolves’ rally.

The Lakers led 62-58 at the half.

In addition to playing without James (sciatica) and Doncic (left finger sprain, lower left leg contusion), the Lakers also were missing Marcus Smart (right quad contusion), Gabe Vincent (left ankle sprain) and Maxi Kleber (abdominal muscle strain).

Los Angeles’s Jaxson Hayes returned after missing his previous three games because of a knee injury. Hayes finished with two points, two rebounds, three assists, one block and one steal in 13 minutes.

The Timberwolves remained without top scorer Anthony Edwards, who missed his second consecutive game because of tightness in his right hamstring. Edwards is expected to miss about two weeks because of the injury.

Timberwolves forward Jaylen Clark also remained out for his second game in a row because of a left calf strain. Clark was listed as questionable on the injury report before he was ruled out.

Satellite imagery shows China has been building at least two facilities featuring hardened shelters with retractable roofs along its heavily disputed border with India. These look to be examples of a new pattern of air defense site, with the shelters allowing for surface-to-air missiles to be fired from transporter-erector-launchers situated within. The shelters, which offer added protection against various threats and create complexities for enemy forces, reflect larger trends when it comes to hardening of military infrastructure in China and elsewhere globally.

Geospatial intelligence firm AllSource Analysis was the first to call attention to the two sites in western China, which it assessed using satellite images from Planet Labs taken between August and September. Additional satellite imagery captured in September from Vantor (formerly Maxar Technologies), first obtained by India Today, offers further insights.

One of the sites is situated within Gar County, while the other is near the eastern end of Pangong Lake (also known as Pangong Tso). Both are located inside China’s Tibet Autonomous Region in relatively close proximity to the so-called Line of Actual Control (LAC), which forms the current de facto border with India. Pangong Lake and other areas along the LAC have seen repeated confrontations between Chinese and Indian forces over the years that have sometimes escalated into violent skirmishes. In 2022, TWZ noted an already significant expansion of Chinese military infrastructure on that country’s side of the LAC following the conclusion of a particular serious flare-up in the border dispute that had first erupted two years earlier.

Static surface-to-air missile sites are present at bases across China, especially in border areas and along its coasts, all of which share common circular design patterns. The typical mode of operation at those facilities involves TELs moving out from garages to open positions when ordered.

The facilities in Gar County and near Pangong Lake, which are enclosed inside heavy perimeter walls, have distinctly different configurations from what is typically seen at Chinese air defense sites. Each one has four hardened shelters with retractable roofs, all with the same trapezoidal design. From what can be seen in additional satellite imagery from Vantor, the shelters look to have a reinforced concrete garage-like central section with angled additions, which may just be earthen berms, on three sides.

The Gar County facility also has what appears to be two radars in elevated positions, as well as channels linking them to the shelters and what looks to be the main command center. Communications cables could be laid in those channels.

Similar channels are visible at the facility near Pangong Lake, but there are no apparent radar positions currently. There are signs that construction is still ongoing at both locations to differing degrees.

The facilities in Gar County and along the shore of Pangong Lake also have an array of other structures that look to provide for munitions storage, vehicle maintenance, living spaces for personnel, command and control, and more. Each one also has a pair of basketball courts, a common feature at People’s Liberation Army (PLA) bases, large and small, across China.

Beyond the shelters, many of the other buildings at both locations, including the main command centers, look to have been built to extremely similar, if not identical patterns. This, in turn, points to the sites, which have different overall layouts, having the same core purpose.

As mentioned, the combination of the shelters, radar positions, and other features seen at the Gar Country site, in particular, points to an air defense mission for both facilities. AllSource Analysis assessed that the sites would be sufficient to support an HQ-9 long-range surface-to-air missile system. The HQ-9 is in widespread Chinese service today and is broadly analogous to later models of the Soviet-designed S-300P series. A typical complete HQ-9 system includes a number of 8×8 wheeled transporter-erector-launchers (TEL), each of which can be loaded with up to four interceptors at a time, and offboard search and fire control radars.

The HQ-9 TELs fire their missiles vertically, which aligns with shelters with retractable roofs. One of the Vantor satellite images of the Gar County site shows the roofs of two of the shelters retracted, revealing objects inside that are consistent with HQ-9 TELs in their deployed positions.

Other surface-to-air missile systems that launch their interceptors vertically could also potentially make use of the shelters. It is also possible that they could be used in combination with surface-to-surface missile systems, though this seems far less likely to be the intent with everything else that is visible at both sites.

First and foremost, the ability to fire anti-air interceptors from within hardened shelters offers additional protection for those assets, which could be particularly valuable for Chinese forces arrayed along the LAC with India. The facilities help extend the PLA’s anti-access and area denial bubbles deeper into Indian territory – India Today‘s report noted that there is an Indian air base on the opposite side of the LAC from where the site in Gar County is situated – but are also within range of Indian standoff strikes as a result. Their location also opens them up to the possibility of more direct and shorter-range attacks in the event of a major conflict, including ones involving armed drones or even ground raids. As mentioned, the facilities in Gar County and near Pangong Lake also have fortified perimeters.

The shelters also make it harder for enemy forces to readily determine what is inside, which could lead to opponents expanding valuable resources to destroy empty structures. They also simply provide a way to help shield assets and personnel from extremely low temperatures, harsh weather conditions, and other potentially problematic environmental factors commonly found in this part of the world.

It’s interesting to note here that this is not the first time that structures with retractable roofs that look intended, at least in part, to be used in combination with surface-to-air missile systems, and the HQ-9 specifically, have appeared at Chinese military bases.

In 2017, Reuters reported on the appearance of far less hardened structures with retractable roofs on China’s man-made island outposts in Subi, Mischief, and Fiery Cross reefs, all part of the hotly disputed Spratly Islands chain in the South China Sea. The suggestion, even then, was that those buildings were reflective of a broader trend in Chinese air defense sites.

KATIE Price has shocked fans after appearing to KICK her new puppy in newly surfaced footage.

The reality star, 47, recently added new pup Arlo to her family, posting loving snaps of her new dog with son Harvey on her social media accounts.

But on Tuesday, Katie shared a sponsored post on her Facebook account where fans insisted she appeared to boot Arlo in video promoting a clothing brand.

“Taking my new baby Arlo for walkies [dog emoji]”, she wrote, before adding the link to a grey trench coat she’s wearing in the video.

But eagle-eyed fans were too distracted by a moment in the video, where the reality star appeared to have booted her pup.

One joked: “She just kicked the poor thing [laughing emoji]”.

KATIE’S PAIN

Katie Price makes cryptic comment after Kieran Hayler charged with raping girl

BUMPY PRICEY

Katie Price shares pic of ‘humps’ on forehead after Botox and weight loss woes

While another warned: “Watch your foot”.

Some viewers also joked about the length of the ‘walkies’ in the 20 second clip.

Another quipped: “Great walk.. 8 yards.. lord be with u arlo… may u live to see Xmas”.

Katie‘s new arrival to the family comes against the backdrop of a petition designed at preventing her from being a pet-mum, which has reached more than 37,000 signatures.

It also came after her home life was thrown into chaos last month when her cat Doris had kittens, yet they became seriously unwell.

During her new short clip, Katie was seen wearing a white hoodie and propping herself up against the headboard in her bedroom.

The tiny puppy, with white and grey fur, appeared to be asleep as it sat perched by her side.

Katie did not initially address the new pet as she spoke to the camera and instead said: “This filter is so needed today, I am so tired.”

In another slide, she spoke of her new family member purely to say: “And this little one just does not leave my side.

“I can’t wait for him to meet Rookie, he’s met all of the other animals.

“This is Rookie’s new little friend for when we go horse riding, walks, everything.”

Katie was recently slammed for allegedly putting black dog Rookie in danger as she headed on a horse ride.

It came just weeks after she was called out by an animal charity over a “dangerous” move which saw her dog hanging out of her car window.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate has passed legislation terminating the national emergency declared by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on Canada, a day after it terminated the United States’ tariffs on Brazil.

Republicans Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, joined their Democratic colleagues in a 50-46 vote to pass S.J. Res. 77 on Wednesday evening.

“Tonight, the Senate came together and sent President Trump a clear, bipartisan message: he cannot continue to abuse his power and unilaterally wage a trade war against one of our strongest allies,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said in a statement.

“We cannot afford to keep raising costs, hurting businesses and eliminating jobs by attacking our neighbor and ally.”

The move is mostly symbolic as it is not expected to be taken up by the Republican-controlled House.

Tariffs have been a central mechanism in Trump’s trade and foreign policy, using them to right what he sees as improper trade relations as well as to penalize nations he feels are doing him and the United States wrong.

In February, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canadian imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, attracting retaliatory tariffs from Ottawa.

Then, in August, Trump raised tariffs on Canada to 35%.

Over the weekend, Trump announced a further 10% tariff on Canada over anti-tariff aired by Ontario’s provincial government.

The legislation passed Wednesday seeks to cancel the declared emergency, under which the tariffs were imposed.

“In order to strengthen our weakening economy, we need stability and strong relationships around the world — not chaotic trade wars that raise prices, shut American businesses out of foreign markets and decrease tourism to the U.S.,” Kaine, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

Relations between Canada and the United States, the closest of allies, have greatly soured under the second Trump administration. From tariffs to comments about annexing Canada, Ottawa and its citizens have begun to turn away from the United States in distrust and frustration to strengthen trade and defensive relations with Europe.

On Tuesday, five Republicans joined the Democrats to pass a similar bill seeking to end Trump’s tariffs on Brazil.

In the world of international peacekeeping, a quiet revolution is underway—one that moves beyond counting women to fundamentally transforming how security institutions operate. At the heart of this change is the Elsie Initiative Fund (EIF) at UN Women, whose holistic approach addresses not just recruitment numbers but the very systems that have historically prevented women from thriving in peacekeeping roles.

In an exclusive interview with Modern Diplomacy, Deborah Warren Smith, Manager of the Elsie Initiative Fund, explained why this shift is critical. “If you just focus on numbers alone, you are treating the symptoms and not the cause,” she noted. “We look at systems, the laws, institutional policies, leadership cultures, social expectations, all of which can either enable or prevent women from deploying and becoming valued members of security institutions.”

The Root Cause: Why Culture Trumps Quotas

The most entrenched challenge, according to Ms. Smith, is institutional culture. Military and police organizations often operate within masculine norms that value toughness and maintain informal gatekeeping by senior leadership. Women who challenge these norms by questioning or leading may face resistance, isolation, or harassment.

To address this, the EIF employs a scientific, evidence-based methodology called the Measuring Opportunities for Women in Peace Operations (MOIP). This diagnostic tool assesses barriers across ten key areas, interviewing both women and men within security institutions to build a comprehensive picture of the challenges. Countries like Liberia have used these insights to design targeted interventions, such as physical training support for women, resulting in increased recruitment and retention.

This focus on systemic barriers represents a fundamental departure from traditional approaches. Where many initiatives see the lack of women as a recruitment problem to be solved, the Elsie Initiative identifies it as a symptom of institutional failure. By shifting the focus from individual women to the structures that hold them back, the EIF is not just asking for a seat at the table, it is helping to rebuild the table itself, creating a foundation where women can not only enter but truly lead and thrive.

The process is deliberately collaborative, not prescriptive. After a Barrier Assessment is complete, the EIF works with nations to co-design interventions—from reforming parental leave policies in armed forces to ensuring women have access to specialized training and equipment. This ensures that solutions are not imposed from the outside but are owned and sustained by the institutions themselves, turning policy into lasting practice and political will into operational reality.

The Ripple Effect: Creating Institutional Change

The EIF’s “Gender Strong Unit” concept offers a powerful example of their approach in action. These are units where the percentage of women is at least five points above UN parity targets, with women in leadership and technical roles. Senegal, for instance, has deployed a Gender Strong Unit commanded by a woman for the first time, not once, but three times.

The impact is tangible. “The men in those units have reported that the culture is less competitive and more collaborative,” Smith shared. “It enables them to work better together during patrols and engage more effectively with local communities.”

This institutional rewiring creates a virtuous cycle. As more women deploy into leadership roles, they become visible proof of change, directly challenging entrenched stereotypes and inspiring the next generation. This shifts the internal culture from within, making security institutions more attractive and accessible to women not as an exception, but as the norm. The result is a self-reinforcing system where policy, representation, and culture evolve together to create a more professional and effective force.

Beyond culture, the EIF helps countries institutionalize change. In Zambia, the police service is developing and implementing an anti-sexual harassment and abuse policy, moving beyond creating documents to ensuring real accountability and safety.

A Campaign for the Future: “When Women Lead”

This tangible progress sets the stage for the most human element of the Elsie Initiative’s work: spotlighting the leaders who are living this change. Coinciding with the 25th anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, the EIF will launch When Women Lead—a digital campaign featuring a mini-series of interviews with groundbreaking uniformed women from around the world.

Launching in November, the series will include:

• Lieutenant General Cheryl Pearce, Acting UN Military Adviser
• Commissioner Binetou Guisse, Senegal National Police
• Major General Anita Asmah, Ghana Armed Forces

These stories represent the culmination of the EIF’s work, proof that when women lead, peacekeeping becomes more effective, responsive, and grounded in the communities it serves.

The New Peacekeeping: Where Inclusion Means Effectiveness

As we look toward the future of global security, the Elsie Initiative Fund offers more than just a blueprint for gender equality, it presents a compelling case for why inclusive peacekeeping is smarter peacekeeping. The work transcends quotas and tick-box exercises, aiming instead for a fundamental rewiring of how security institutions operate.

“What we would really like to see in five to ten years,” Smith concluded, “is countries embedding women, peace and security into their operational frameworks. The conversation would shift from ‘how many women’ to ‘how effective is our force because it is inclusive.’”

This vision where diverse teams create more collaborative environments, where different perspectives lead to better community engagement, where institutional cultures foster rather than hinder potential, represents the ultimate goal. It’s not about women succeeding in a man’s world, but about building a better, more effective peacekeeping environment for everyone.

As the EIF continues to partner with nations and showcase stories of women leaders, it becomes increasingly clear: the future of global peacekeeping isn’t just about having more women in the room—it’s about ensuring everyone in that room can lead, contribute, and transform what peacekeeping can achieve.

To follow these inspiring stories and learn more about the Elsie Initiative Fund’s work, follow their “When Women Lead” campaign launching this November on their website and social media channels.

An L.A. County Superior Court judge handed a 146-year sentence to Hollywood producer David Brian Pearce on Wednesday for multiple rapes and the 2021 deaths of a model and her architect friend.

Pearce was found guilty in February on two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Christy Giles and Hilda Marcela Cabrales-Arzola, who overdosed on fentanyl. Prosecutors said Pearce supplied them with the drug.

Pearce was also found guilty of crimes against a series of women between 2007 and 2021, including three counts of forcible rape, two counts of sexual penetration with force, one count of rape of an unconscious or sleeping victim and one count of forced sodomy.

“This sentence delivers long-awaited justice for Cabrales-Arzola, Giles, and the courageous sexual assault victims who came forward and testified,” L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan J. Hochman said in a statement.

“Not only were the victims sexually assaulted, but the lives of Cabrales-Arzola and Giles were stolen in one of the most devastating ways — a fentanyl-induced sexual assault by Pearce.”

A call to Pearce’s lawyer was not immediately returned.

Pearce’s co-defendant, 46-year-old Brant Osborn, is headed to a pretrial appointment on Nov. 18; after a mistrial in February, he will probably face a second trial.

In November 2021, Giles and Cabrales-Arzola, as well as Michael Ansbach, who had spent the day filming for a documentary Pearce was supposedly producing, went out with the producer and his roommate, Osborn. The night at an East Los Angeles warehouse rave involved heavy cocaine use.

The group returned to Pearce’s Beverly Hills apartment in the early-morning hours.

That was about all that was agreed upon among the parties.

Pearce provided the two women and Ansbach with gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and fentanyl, causing Giles and Cabrales-Arzola to overdose, according to the district attorney’s office.

Although Cabrales-Arzola called a ride-sharing service, neither she nor Giles left.

About 11 hours later, Pearce dropped off Giles at a hospital; 90 minutes later, he did the same for Cabrales-Arzola, the district attorney’s office said.

Court records showed the car that dropped the women off did not have license plates, which Ansbach said he saw Pearce remove. Though Ansbach was originally arrested in connection with the women’s deaths, he became an important prosecution witness.

Giles was dead by the time she reached the hospital. Cabrales-Arzola survived for 11 days before being pulled off life support by her family.

Pearce maintained during his trial that he found the two women unconscious in his apartment around 5 a.m. near liquor bottles and a powdery substance. He said he didn’t think much of it, at first.

“The lifestyle that I was living at the time was not very conducive to regular behavior, if that makes sense,” Pearce, 43, testified earlier this year. “It was not uncommon for people to use my house as a crash pad, a party house. I know it’s horrible, but at least on a weekly basis friends were passing out at my house.”

Pearce said he grew concerned when neither woman woke up and repeatedly checked on them, eventually taking them to different hospitals.

He said he administered CPR but did not call 911.

Since his arrest in December 2021, seven women came forward to accuse Pearce of raping them.

In testimony that spanned two days, Pearce denied each rape accusation, saying he’d never met at least one of his accusers and dismissing the rest of the encounters as consensual.

Pearce described a booze- and drug-fueled lifestyle and said most of the women came on to him at parties or through dating apps.

“This case is a stark reminder of the devastation caused by fentanyl,” Hochman said. “Fentanyl poisoners who harm and exploit others will be held accountable.”

Times staff writer James Queally contributed to this report.

United States President Donald Trump expects “a lot of problems” will be solved between Washington and Beijing when he meets China’s President Xi Jinping in South Korea for a high-stakes meeting on Thursday, amid growing trade tensions between the two.

Relations between the two world powers have been strained in recent years, with Washington and Beijing imposing tit-for-tat trade tariffs topping 100 percent against each other this year, the US restricting its exports of semiconductors vital for artificial intelligence (AI) development and Beijing restricting exports of critical rare-earth metals which are vital for the defence industry and also the development of AI, among other issues.

Officials from Washington and Beijing have been locked in trade talks since August to de-escalate trade tensions, and they also came up with a framework for a trade deal during meetings in Malaysia over the weekend.

On the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, on Wednesday, Trump said an expected trade deal between China and the US would be good for both countries and “something very exciting for everybody”.

But only a meeting between Trump and Xi can confirm if a trade deal is really in the making.

Expectations for the agreement are modest, with analysts expecting the two world powers to continue to clash over their myriad differences long-term.

When are the two leaders meeting?

Trump is scheduled to meet Xi on Thursday in the port city of Busan in southeastern South Korea. The meeting is expected to start at 11am local time (01:00 GMT).

It will be the first time the leaders have met in person since Trump returned to the White House in January.

The US president last met Xi in 2019, during Trump’s first term, on the sidelines of the Group of 20 (G20) summit in Osaka, Japan.

“I think we’re going to have a great meeting with President Xi of China, and a lot of problems are going to be solved,” Trump told journalists on Wednesday on Air Force One while en route to South Korea.

On Wednesday, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the meeting between Xi and Trump in a statement and said the leaders “will exchange views on bilateral relations and issues of mutual interest”.

What will Trump and Xi talk about?

Discussions are likely to cover:

• Trade tariffs
• Trafficking of fentanyl, a drug responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the US each year
• China’s export controls on critical rare-earth metals and its purchase of US soya beans
• US export controls on semiconductors
• Geopolitical and security issues, particularly Russia’s war in Ukraine and Washington’s position on Taiwan
• Port fees on Chinese ships docking in US ports
• Finalising a deal to buy TikTok, the social media platform, from its Chinese owners

Alejandro Reyes, adjunct professor at the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera that at this meeting, both sides will want to steady an uneasy rivalry – but for different reasons.

“For Washington, the goal is to show that its tough line on China has delivered results. The Trump team is walking into this summit after signing trade pacts with Malaysia, Cambodia and Japan that link market access directly to national security cooperation. These deals require America’s partners to align with US export controls and supply-chain rules – essentially making ‘economic security’ a shared obligation,” he said.

“For Beijing, the priority is to project calm and endurance. The meeting comes just after the fourth plenum, which reaffirmed Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s authority and set the direction for the next five-year plan. China’s message is that it has weathered Western pressure and is back to focusing on growth and domestic stability,” he added.

But discussions on disputes over trade tariffs, critical rare-earth metals, AI technology and geopolitical strategies, the issues that most define the current relationship between the US and China, according to Reyes, are not going to be easy to resolve.

“The mistrust is structural now – it’s built into how both countries think about power and security,” he said.

What are the sticking points?

Fentanyl

A key issue for the Trump administration is stopping the illegal flow of drugs, particularly fentanyl – a powerful synthetic opiate which is 50 times more potent than heroin – from China to the US. In February, Trump slapped a 20 percent trade tariff on all imports from China, citing Beijing’s lack of effort in curbing the flow of the drug into the US.

In a media briefing note sent to Al Jazeera by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Bonnie Glaser, managing director of GMF’s Indo-Pacific programme, said the fentanyl trade has been “a really contentious issue between the US and China”.

“From what I have heard, a criminal money-laundering cooperation supports the fentanyl trade, and this is where China is willing to cooperate, in a way where it will have minimum negative impact on their domestic situation,” she said at a briefing held in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Late on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that during Thursday’s meeting, “China is expected to commit to more controls on the export of so-called precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl.” The newspaper added that if this agreement is reached, Trump would reduce the tariffs imposed because of fentanyl by as much as 10 percent.

Trade tariffs

Following the fentanyl-related tariffs, in March, China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation, triggering a tit-for-tat tariff war.

In April, Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 145 percent, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs of its own.

Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, and agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice, but despite repeated talks, a trade agreement has not been reached.

Rare-earth metals and soya beans

China has restricted exports of 12 critical rare-earth metals this year, as well as of the machinery needed to refine these metals, citing security reasons. Beijing also said its restrictions were in response to US restrictions on the Chinese maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

The first seven metals to be restricted were announced in April, while the remaining five were announced on October 10. These metals are crucial for the defence industry and for developing AI technology.

In October, Trump responded by threatening to impose 100 percent tariffs on China from November 1, citing Beijing’s strict export controls on critical rare earths as the reason for the tariffs.

Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Reyes noted that while the US wants guaranteed access to rare earths and battery materials, it signed a new agreement with Japan and trade clauses with Malaysia this week, which aim to reduce the US dependence on China for these. “Beijing sees this as an effort to contain its influence,” he said.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told many US media outlets this week that he expected China to defer its restrictions on rare earths and that Trump’s 100 percent tariff threat was “effectively off the table”.

Bessent added that the Chinese side would agree to increase purchases of US-grown soya beans.

Dylan Loh, associate professor in public policy and global affairs at Nanyang Technological University, said he anticipates some positive movement on solving these trade disputes but does not believe the fundamental economic tension between the US and China will be resolved at the meeting.

“The competition and mistrust go beyond simply economics,” he told Al Jazeera. “But the problems can be managed and must be managed well. It requires political capital and the ability to move beyond zero-sum thinking.”

Technology and TikTok

In September, Trump signed an executive order to transfer TikTok’s US assets to US investors, citing national security reasons. On Sunday, Bessent told US broadcaster CBS that the US and China had “reached a final deal on TikTok”, which will be finalised at the Trump-Xi meeting.

But, Reyes said, “the deal cools one dispute but doesn’t end the fight over chips, AI and digital control”.

In October, Washington blacklisted hundreds of Chinese tech firms, claiming they posed a risk to national security. The US has also restricted companies such as Nvidia from exporting advanced chips, important to manufacture key equipment used for the development of AI, to China, claiming that Beijing would use it to advance its global power.

Beijing has been irked by Washington’s restrictions and has launched antitrust investigations into Nvidia and Qualcomm, and has also increased its export controls on rare-earth elements.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One en route to South Korea on Wednesday, Trump said he might speak to Xi about Nvidia chips.

“I think we may be talking about that with President Xi,” Trump said.

Geopolitical Issues

According to analysts, Trump is eager to use this meeting with Xi to discuss ways to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Beijing, a close ally of Moscow, has said a prolonged war in Ukraine “serves no one’s interest”. But, in July, according to a report by The South China Morning Post, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union that it can’t afford to have Russia lose the war in Ukraine since the US would then turn its attention to China.

Trump has threatened to slap sanctions and tariffs on countries that buy Moscow’s crude oil in efforts to end the war. It has already imposed an additional 25 percent tariff – bringing the total to 50 percent – on India as a punishment for purchasing Russian oil.

But the US has not yet taken this step with China, which imports about 1.4 million barrels of Russian oil per day by sea.

According to a Reuters report, however, after the US sanctioned two of Moscow’s largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, in October, Chinese national oil companies like PetroChina and Sinopec have said they will refrain from importing seaborne Russian oil for the short term.

“Trump wants a ceasefire and a peace deal in Ukraine. Putin has been unwilling to play ball, and Trump, I think, intends to raise this with Xi Jinping, possibly ask him if he can reach out to Putin and encourage him to come to the negotiating table,” Glaser said.

“We know so far, Xi Jinping has been very, very cautious about getting involved. I think he will be reluctant to pressure Putin to do,” she added.

Besides Ukraine, Beijing will be eager to discuss the US position on Taiwan, according to Glaser.

“Xi Jinping will raise concerns about what Beijing views as the pro-independence policies of Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te, and I think he will want clarification of the US stance and may well press Trump to say that the US opposes Taiwan independence and supports China’s unification,” she said.

“The bottom line is that Trump is not likely to abandon Taiwan because doing so could lead to a PRC [People’s Republic of China] decision to use force, and Trump wants to take credit for ending wars, not starting them,” Glaser added.

Trump, however, told journalists on board Air Force One on Wednesday that he was “not sure” he would discuss Taiwan.

How strong are their negotiating positions?

The balance of power in the respective negotiating positions of China and the US has shifted in the recent past.

Former US President Joe Biden restricted exports of US semiconductors, which are crucial for the development of AI, much to China’s annoyance. Then, early this year, Trump compounded this with 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods.

China retaliated with 125 percent tariffs on US goods, escalating a trade war, until the two sides agreed in May to pause tariffs to allow for trade talks.

But that was not before China placed export restrictions on seven rare-earth metals in April. In October, China restricted exports of five more rare-earth metals, and Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs again in retaliation.

This week, seeking to diversify trade and its supply chains, China strengthened a trade deal with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). But the US also drew up new trade agreements with Japan, Malaysia and Cambodia. On Wednesday, South Korea announced that it too had reached a trade agreement with the US, and was lowering tariffs on imported US goods.

According to Loh, it is unclear who has the upper hand right now between the US and China.

“While the signing of the FTA [with ASEAN] has certainly enhanced China’s position and influence and is indeed quite significant for ASEAN and China, it does not necessarily have a direct bearing on US-China itself,” Loh said.

“US retains considerable political and economic influence in this part of the world still, as evinced by Trump’s trip here,” he added.

According to Reyes, each side has different kinds of leverage.

“The United States has built a new network of allies who have literally signed on to Washington’s playbook,” he said, referring to the deal Washington signed with Malaysia, which obliges Kuala Lumpur to match US trade restrictions. Malaysia has clarified that this deal would only apply to matters of shared concern.

But Reyes said such a deal “gives Trump’s team political and legal momentum going into the China meeting”.

“China, though, has the economic stamina. It still anchors global manufacturing, dominates critical-mineral processing, and has proven that tariffs couldn’t break its model. China used the trade war to build muscles, resistance and resilience – it learned to do everything faster, cheaper and at scale,” he said.

“So the US has the ‘louder’ hand; China has the steadier one. Washington can escalate, but Beijing can outlast,” Reyes added.

So what is likely to come out of these talks?

The stakes are high with Trump announcing that he anticipates a “great” meeting. But expectations of any “great” outcome are low.

Reyes said he expects a truce in their strained ties with photo opportunities rather than any grand bargain.

“Expect both sides to announce small wins: a delay on tariffs, a joint statement on trade stability, maybe a working group on critical minerals cooperation,” he said.

“This summit won’t end the rivalry – it simply marks a new phase: the US building alliances through treaties, and China doing much the same, while consolidating power through endurance building. This meeting isn’t about ending the rivalry – it’s about learning to live with it,” he said.

The White House claimed, without providing evidence, the vessel was operated by a ‘designated terrorist organisation’.

The White House has said United States forces have bombed another alleged drug smuggling vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing four men, just days after confirming it killed 14 people in three separate strikes on vessels in the area.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in a post on X late on Wednesday that the “Department of War”, the new name for the recently rebranded Department of Defense, had “carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel”.

Hegseth said “four male narco-terrorists” were killed aboard the vessel, which was “operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization”. He did not provide an exact location for the attack, but said it was conducted in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

“This vessel, like all the others, was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth said, posting aerial footage of the strike.

None of the victims of Wednesday’s attack have been identified.

Earlier today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO) in the Eastern Pacific.

This vessel, like all the others, was known by our… pic.twitter.com/mBOLA5RYQe

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 29, 2025

The strike occurred at a time when US President Donald Trump was on the last leg of a three-nation trip in Asia. On Thursday, Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, their first summit since 2019. Trump also visited Malaysia and Japan before South Korea.

Earlier this week, Hegseth said US forces carried out three lethal strikes against boats accused of trafficking illegal narcotics on Monday. The attacks, which also took place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, reportedly killed 14 people and left one survivor.

Following the strikes, Hegseth said that “the Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we’re defending our own”.

Since September 2, the US military has carried out at least 14 strikes targeting some 15 maritime vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

At least 61 people have now been confirmed killed by the two-month-long campaign, which has also seen the US bolster its military presence in the Caribbean to unusually high levels.

The White House has yet to provide any evidence to the public for any of the strikes to substantiate its allegations of drug trafficking.

The Trump administration has framed the strikes as a national security measure, claiming the alleged drug traffickers are “unlawful combatants” in a “non-international armed conflict”.

Critics have called the unilateral strikes a form of extrajudicial killing and a violation of international law, which largely prohibits countries from using lethal military force against non-combatants outside a conflict zone.

“We continue to emphasise the need for all efforts to counter transnational organised crime to be conducted in accordance with international law,” Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations’ assistant secretary-general for the Americas, told the UN Security Council this month.

In a major blow to LGBTQIA+ rights, Texas’ Supreme Court has ruled that judges can refuse to marry same-sex couples.

On 24 October, the state’s highest court issued an order adopting comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which focuses on the “judge’s extra-judicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.”

According to the newly implemented comment, effective immediately, judges who “publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon sincerely held religious belief” will not be in violation of the state’s judicial impartiality rules.

According to KERA News, the rule change comes after years of pushback by state legal officials against same-sex marriage and a 2020 lawsuit filed by Jack County judge Brian Umphress.

In the suit, he challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s now-withdrawn 2019 sanction of a Waco, Texas judge who refused to marry gay couples, despite still marrying heterosexual couples.

Umphress’ decision to sue stemmed from his alleged fear that he could face the same sanction.

Shortly after the amendment was announced, Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said the court would not comment on the change in a statement to the aforementioned news outlet.

“The order speaks for itself, and the Court cannot comment on its connection to pending litigation,” he said.

As of this writing, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct have not commented on the aforementioned change.

The recent development in Texas comes a few weeks before the US Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear a case challenging same-sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis — who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will meet in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog noted that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following its meeting on 7 November, an announcement could be released as soon as 10 November.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — The European Union on Wednesday condemned Belarus for “unacceptable” incursions of meteorological balloons into Lithuanian airspace.

“The EU strongly condemns Belarus’ persistent and provocative actions against the EU and its member states which are unacceptable,” the European Council said in a statement, adding that their continued incursions contradict previous declarations by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko seeking to improve relations with the bloc.

The balloons have disrupted hundreds of flights and caused “substantial” losses to Lithuanian airports, which the European Council said risks destabilizing the country. It alleged that the balloons are an attempt to “intimidate” the European country.

While smugglers are thought to use balloons to transport illegal cigarettes into the country, the Lithuanian government and the EU have placed blame on Lukashenko.

On Monday, Lithuanian Prime Minister Inga Ruginienė said the country would close its borders with Belarus except to diplomats and EU nationals leaving Belarus. She also said that the NATO country would shoot down any balloons that enter its airspace.

“These balloons are not merely smuggling tools but occur in the context of a broader targeted hybrid campaign, along with other actions that also include state-sponsored migrant smuggling,” the European Council said in its statement.

“All these actions must stop immediately. We call on the Belarusian regime to adopt without further delay effective measures to control its airspace, state border and territory, and fight and prevent organized criminal activities originating within it.”

The European Council added that the EU has imposed sanctions on Belarus and is prepared to “take further appropriate measures should such actions continue.”

New York City, United States – Sitting in a room of hundreds of Jewish New Yorkers, Zohran Mamdani received cheers and applause at the Erev Rosh Hashanah service of progressive Brooklyn synagogue Kolot Chayeinu on a Monday evening last month.

This was one of the Democratic mayoral nominee’s recent appearances at synagogues and events over the Jewish High Holy Days, and a visible step towards navigating a politically charged line: increasingly engaging the largest concentration of Jewish people in any metropolitan area in the United States, and holding firmly anti-Zionist views before the general election on November 4.

Historically, Mamdani has held a strong stance on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, even founding a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine during his undergraduate days at Bowdoin College. A little more than a decade later, as Mamdani’s name began to gain recognition, his longstanding unapologetically pro-Palestinian stance became a rallying force behind his platform as well as a point of criticism from opponents.

Mamdani received endorsements and canvassing support from progressive Jewish organisations like Bend the Arc, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice (JFREJ), organisations that have each confronted Israel’s role in the war in Gaza through statements on their websites.

Simultaneously, he has sustained attacks from far-right activists, Jewish Democrats on Capitol Hill and Zionist activist groups for his firm support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and refusal to call Israel a Jewish state.

But despite mixed responses, the polls are clear: Mamdani is leading among Jewish voters overall in a multiway race.

‘No group is a monolith’

In July, a publicly released research poll by Zenith Research found that Mamdani led with a 17-point lead among Jews and by Jewish subgroups. In the scenario of Mayor Eric Adams dropping from the race, Mamdani still dominated, 43-33.

“Me being Jewish, I understand that there are many cleavages within the Jewish community,” said Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Research. “As a pollster, one of my big things is that no group is a monolith, and if you have a large enough sample size, you can break it out and glean some nuances … what we found was a better-than-expected result for Mamdani among Jewish voters in New York City.”

Beth Miller, political director of the political advocacy organisation Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and a member of Kolot Chayeinu, shared what it was like to witness a fraction of this support at the Erev Rosh Hashanah that Mamdani attended last month.

“He was basically swarmed at the end because people were so excited that he was there,” said Miller. “And that’s not because he’s a celebrity, it’s because people are excited about what we can all build together if he becomes mayor.”

JVP Action, a day-one endorser of Mamdani, represents one organisation among a growing group of Jewish supporters for Mamdani, like JFREJ, a group that has played a part in spearheading canvassing efforts among the diverse Jewish communities of NYC.

JFREJ’s electoral arm, The Jewish Vote, has supported Mamdani since he was first running for state assembly in 2020. Since then, JFREJ members and Mamdani have worked, canvassed and protested together.

Alicia Singham Goodwin, political director of JFREJ, has personally been arrested at protests alongside Mamdani.

“That’s the kind of thing that gives me faith in his commitments,” Goodwin told Al Jazeera regarding the arrests. “He’s willing to take on big risks for the things that matter.”

JFREJ has played a large role in spreading Mamdani’s message by knocking on doors and phone banking Jewish voters.

“We care about what our neighbours are worried about, excited and hopeful for — what they need for their families, and we’re ready to meet them there with our analysis of how the city needs to move to get to affordable housing, universal childcare, or to combat the real rise in anti-Semitism and hate violence,” said Goodwin. “We believe that Zohran is the strongest candidate for that, as well as for all the other issues we talk about.”

Courting the Jewish vote

While there is no doubt that the canvassing army of 50,000 volunteers has served Mamdani well, the mayoral hopeful has also been strategic in his pursuit of the Jewish vote.

“He has definitely modulated his rhetoric and has made a concerted effort to reach out to liberal congregations,” said Val Vinokur, professor of literary studies and director of the minor in Jewish culture at The New School. “This has made him more palatable to some progressive Zionists, much to the outrage of his anti-Zionist supporters.”

One example of Mamdani’s subdued rhetoric includes his response to continued backlash over the phrase “globalise the intifada”.

The phrase, used by pro-Palestinian activists, sparked tension between Mamdani and parts of the Jewish community. To some, it represents a call for solidarity with Palestinian resistance, while others view it as anti-Semitic and violent.

Mamdani resisted rejecting the phrase before the June election, but The New York Times reported that since then, he said he would “discourage” its use.

On the second anniversary of the Gaza war, Mamdani posted a four-paragraph statement on X where he acknowledged the atrocities of Hamas’s attack, and then called Israel’s response genocide and ended on a note of commitment to human rights.

“It got s*** on from all sides,” said Carlson. “He made nobody happy, which in my mind, is kinda the correct way to go about it … Sometimes, pleasing nobody is the job of the mayor, and I think he’s learning that now. It’s like a microcosm of what he’s about to face as mayor, assuming he wins. Sometimes, you have to piss off everybody a little bit for compromises.”

Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism

As Carlson’s Zenith Research poll reflected, the NYC Jewish community has a wide diversity of opinion about politics and positions on Israel and Palestine. The community most clearly differentiates along lines of age, and secular versus conservative practice, but as Jewish support for Mamdani increases, it is evident that these divides are not always so distinct.

“While it’s true that there are major trends that younger American Jews are more progressive and sympathetic to Palestinians, it’s also true that for as long as Zionism has existed, there have been anti-Zionist Jews,” said Miller. “I learned a lot from elders who were in their 70s, 80s and 90s who have been anti-Zionist since Israel was created because they never felt that what they wanted or needed was an ethnostate to represent them.”

Alternatively, Zionist groups like Betar worldwide are troubled by these trends within the Jewish community of New York.

“It’s heartbreaking to see members of the Jewish community support Zohran Mamdani, who openly opposes Zionism — the national liberation movement of the Jewish people,” said Oren Magnezy, spokesperson of Betar worldwide.

Jonathan Boyarin, American anthropologist and Mann professor of modern Jewish studies at Cornell University, wondered whether anti-Zionism has done much to help Palestinians, but distinguished the line that Mamdani is walking.

“It’s been said that there are two kinds of people who confuse anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism: Zionists and anti-Semites. I don’t think Zohran Mamdani belongs in either of those categories,” said Boyarin.

‘New political moment’

Ultimately, experts like Vinokur predict Mamdani will win, barring a scenario in which Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa drops out. Regardless, Vinokur expects Mamdani to secure the Jewish vote.

“He will win the Jewish vote despite and not because of his anti-Zionist background,” said Vinokur. “Younger Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal, have been galvanised by the dynamism of his campaign, and ultimately want to make the city a more livable, affordable, and equitable place.”

Mamdani’s message and campaign were celebrated at the JFREJ annual gala fundraiser, the Mazals. NYC Comptroller Brad Lander and Mamdani were honoured together during a night filled with music, ritual and tradition with more than 1,000 attendees.

“I would say it was probably the largest single gathering of Jews for Zohran,” said Goodwin. “They cement this new political moment that we’re in, where people like JFREJ members, movements like ours, are not fringe or aspirational, but we are popular among a majority of New Yorkers.”

Jessika Power, an administration officer who was in series six of Married at First Sight Australia, has had tests in hospital to find out what has been causing her stomach pains

A Married at First Sight Australia star has been dashed to hospital with stomach pains.

Jessika Power, 33, has confirmed she has had tests in a bid to work out what has caused her struggle. Posting an Instagram clip from her hospital bed, the administration officer described the pain as “really intense” but, as yet, doctors have been unable to diagnose her.

“I’ve been having really bad problems with my tummy so we’re just doing some more tests, because I’m an older woman now and I’ve got to look after myself. This pain’s really intense… I’ll let you guys know what’s going on when I know. I thought if I was sick and didn’t post for a while you guys would freak out,” the star, who was in series six of Married at First Australia, told her followers.

Jessika broke up with Mick Gould, 35, before the final decision on the TV show. She since dated boat builder Ryan Loveridge but earlier this year, she split with the man, who had previously been on Celebs Go Dating.

READ MORE: MAFS UK star Rebecca dishes shocking home truths and issues warning to Leo in tense sceneREAD MORE: Celebrity Traitors star ‘told off’ by bosses after letting slip spoilers

During her time on MAFS, Jessika received huge backlash after cheating on her groom Mick with fellow contestant Dan Webb, a car broker. Speaking after the series, which aired in 2021, Jessika said: “I’m not a nasty, horrible girl [anymore] and I honestly have to laugh at the trolls.”

The young woman, from Perth, Western Australia, added: “They (the trolls) come to my Instagram to say horrible things and call me a bully – but that makes them bullies.”

READ MORE: Cute pyjama brand the MAFS UK girls all wear as viewers ‘desperate’ to knowREAD MORE: MAFS UK’s Julia-Ruth breaks major show rule as she slams co-stars in brutal post

During this year’s UK Married At First Sight, Rebecca dished out some home truths. Fans of the E4 programme , which sees total strangers ‘marry’ before trying to make a success of their sudden relationship, will know that April and Leo tied the knot relatively late in the new series after being introduced as ‘intruder bride and grooms,’ after all the other participants had already been matched.

And in Wednesday night’s episode, Rebecca, who had had some time apart from her husband Bailey as part of Partner Swap week, caught up with her co-stars over dinner and quickly set about having a candid conversation with Leo about the state of his relationship with April.

Having chatted to Rebecca about how things are going, Leo later claimed she had ‘misinterpreted’ what he said, and she then decided to put her two pence in on camera as well.

Tensions between China and the US have escalated amid Donald Trump’s tariff threats and new restrictions on exports.