MOSCOW: Russian authorities said Tuesday they have detained a suspect in last week’s shooting that wounded a senior military officer, the latest in a series of attacks on personnel and figures linked to the war in Ukraine.
The Federal Security Service said a 21-year-old Moldovan national was detained for being allegedly “involved in an assassination attempt on a senior military officer of the Russian Defense Ministry” at the behest of Ukrainian intelligence services. He faced charges of attempted murder and illegal arms trafficking, it said.
The officer was shot at least six times on Sept. 3 in the Probuzhdenie settlement on the outskirts of Engels, a city in the Saratov region, said Svetlana Petrenko, a spokeswoman for Russia’s Investigative Committee, which is also involved in the case.
The region is home to a large air force base that hosts Russia’s strategic bombers and has carried out attacks on Ukraine.
The victim, who has not been identified by Russian authorities, survived the shooting and remains hospitalized.
The FSB alleged that the suspect was recruited by Ukrainian intelligence services in 2025 and arrived in Russia in June. He was detained in the southern Astrakhan region as he was trying to leave the country and return to Moldova, the agency said.
Petrenko said he was allegedly offered $70,000 for carrying out the attack.
There was no immediate comment from either Ukrainian or Moldovan officials. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky alluded to the attack on the day it happened, saying: “Wherever Russian criminals hide, they will be found, and today there is further confirmation of this fact – confirmation in the Saratov region.”
Last week’s attack follows a series of bombings in Russia targeting people involved in the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has blamed Kyiv for some of the blasts.
In late August, a serviceman was killed and his wife was injured by a car bomb on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. Three weeks before that, the director of a factory supplying drones to the Russian military was badly injured and his driver was killed when their car exploded just outside Yekaterinburg, 1,400 kilometers (about 870 miles) east of Moscow.
In those cases, the authorities did not immediately say who they believed carried out the attacks.
Earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin directed the FSB and other agencies to tighten security around military and government officials.
Kyiv has claimed responsibility for some attacks inside Russia. Ukraine’s SBU security service said in 2024 that it had organized the killing of Lt. Gen. Igor Kirillov, who headed the Russian military’s nuclear, biological and chemical protection forces.
Kirillov was killed by a bomb hidden in a scooter outside his apartment building in Moscow, a day after Ukraine’s security service leveled criminal charges against him.
This week, three newborns died in an NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) fire at a government hospital in Amravati, in the western Indian state of Maharashtra. Two days later, 14 newborns were killed in a fire that broke out in the maternity ward at one of Pakistan’s most prominent state hospitals. The reported causes of the fire were different – a faulty ventilator in Amravati and an exploding air conditioner in Islamabad – but the harrowing stories of the parents on both sides of the border are identical.
On both sides, parents stand outside a government hospital, trying to make sense of this state-inflicted cruelty. In Amravati, one father was still distributing sweets to celebrate the birth; he had not yet seen the baby’s face. In Islamabad, a family was celebrating the first baby boy in years. The circumstances are different, but the institutional failures and official response followed a familiar pattern. Rescue teams arrived late, while emergency evacuation was hampered by basic fire-safety failures. Politicians were quick to express their sorrow. High-level inquiries were announced, along with financial compensation and fire safety audits. As the dust settles, the two tragedies expose the same indecent truth: lives of poor, vulnerable families are expendable in both nations.
The two countries are rivals in cricket, military posturing and diplomatic rhetoric, but united when it comes to spending lives of ordinary citizens like pocket change.
Over the past 26 years, as a health reporter, I have watched hospital fires in India and Pakistan result in significant and frequent loss of life, without a jot of difference in regulating these institutions. In India, the AMRI Hospital fire of 2011 in which 89 people died and the SUM Hospital fire in Bhubaneswar in 2016 in which 24 people died were traumatising to write about. Not a single person was convicted.
In Pakistan too, a fire at Services Hospital in Lahore killed 10 newborns in 2012 and another 11 infants died at Sahiwal Teaching Hospital in 2024.
I dredge these memories because the latest fires – in Amravati and Islamabad – cannot be reduced to stories about faulty equipment or individual negligence. The hospital fires did not happen in the boondocks, but in India’s wealthiest state and Pakistan’s capital. They are stories about government priorities.
The longer you look at government data, the more grisly it gets. Year on year, both nations sacrifice their citizens to fire like medieval societies trying to appease indifferent gods. India and Pakistan are not poor or war-torn countries without knowledge or wealth to do what is needed. The refusal to make any meaningful improvements is a political choice. An unforgivable one at that.
India and Pakistan have spent decades convincing their citizens that the highest form of security is protection from each other. The truth is that the greatest co-morbidity citizens of both nations live with is our own careless governments.
Fires in large buildings such as factories, shopping centres and hospitals are frequent in India and Pakistan, often due to poor compliance with safety laws and lax enforcement of building codes. These repeated incidents raise questions about our political system, the judiciary, our newsrooms and civil society all in one sweep. What they expose is the very core of these two democracies – what they prioritise and who they value. And all the questions raised are being answered in one voice – not the vulnerable or the sick or the poor.
Earlier this month, both nations marked 79 years of independence. Both have, for 79 years, reminded each other of the pride they take in their complicated histories and their fabled cultures, languages and cuisines. Yet, on both sides of the border, we are governed with careless barbarity. What we have right now are nations that have the trappings of procedural democracies but refuse to concern themselves with bringing change to the poorest. We are taught to sacrifice – wealth, family members, dignity – everything in the service of our nation, and must forage for our own safety without expecting anything from the governments.
This week, as I watched newborns utterly unable to protect themselves die in an inferno on both sides of the border, I wondered if the men leading both states are filled with some shame. Shame over the fact that women who had just given birth had to run down several flights of stairs and climb out of windows and down ladders to escape. Or that families found to their horror that the ward’s water spray system failed to function when the fire broke out. Or that these families will spend the rest of their lives recovering from the horror of seeing charred babies, their bodies covered in black ash.
I wondered what the military might and nuclear arsenal mean to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif as they stand facing a mother crying outside a neonatal ward. This is not polemic or rhetoric, simply a sober assessment of our incompetent leadership that has no love for its own people. Because countries that can spend billions preparing for war cannot plausibly claim that a functioning sprinkler system or fire safety regulation in a hospital is an unreasonable expectation.
Fire safety is not a luxury. It is not a Western or colonial aspiration. It is not even an infrastructure of affluence – like, say, bullet trains – that a country acquires once it has become sufficiently rich, sufficiently modern or sufficiently powerful. It is the floor. The floor beneath which a government cannot allow its people to fall repeatedly and remain shamelessly indifferent every single time.
Seventy-nine years is a long time for a country to become itself. Long enough to build armies, send satellites into space, build a nuclear arsenal and to flex them at neighbours. But what good is national security if a newborn cannot survive the building in which she was born? Or does security only mean the ability of the state to protect itself from another state – while its citizens die like insects in unpredictable ways.
The parents in Amravati and Islamabad did not need a nuclear arsenal to defend their babies. They needed the fire alarm to work and emergency exits to not be blocked. Nations that cannot guarantee such a basic amenity must have no right to national pride.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the United States. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would likely face legal challenges.
Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials. The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.
“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.
He declined to comment on the number of visas that might be revoked, saying “as the process will be ongoing, the number of revocations remains dynamic and will be done on a rolling basis.”
The revocations would not necessarily result in their immediate deportation, the officials said. Most of those with asylum cases currently pending would be recategorized but would lose their status as business or tourism travelers, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the revocations are not final yet.
Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term last year, his administration has steadily ramped up restrictions on visa applicants — demanding more information about their social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds for the processing of visas, and outright banning the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries.
In a social media post on Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called out people who he said try to use tourist and business visas to get into the United States and then apply for asylum.
“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote on X. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.” Landau cited the case of a Colombian citizen who came to the U.S. in 2015 on a tourist visa and then applied for asylum.
B1 visas are generally issued for business trips and B2 visas are generally issued for tourism, family visits or medical care. It was not immediately clear from the documents or the officials how many of these visa holders are seeking or have sought asylum in the United States and would be affected by the revocations.
Current applicants for B1 and B2 visas are asked to affirm that they will not apply for asylum in the United States and prove that they intend to return to their home countries.
In the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked about 175,000 visas for people who have been convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drunken driving to rape and robbery, as well as for people who have spoken out publicly against U.S. policies, particularly in the Middle East.
The administration has also moved to crack down on so-called birth tourism, a practice the administration claims is used by foreign pregnant women to come to the United States to give birth so that their child will benefit from birthright citizenship. Trump has tried several times to end birthright citizenship, but those challenges have been rejected by courts, including the Supreme Court.
The State Department documents obtained by the AP suggest screening of current B1 and B2 visa holders began after the State Department received information about asylum requests from the Citizen and Immigration Service.
A judge in a Northern California county that has become a poster child for election skepticism has halted a voter-approved measure that would dramatically reshape elections there, including by eliminating most voting by mail and requiring ballots to be hand-counted.
Shasta County Superior Court Judge Benjamin L. Hanna on Friday issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks Measure B, a citizens’ initiative approved by 56% of voters in the June primary.
None of the measure’s sweeping changes will be implemented for the November general election, and all active registered voters in Shasta County will receive ballots by mail, as mandated by state law, the county said in a statement.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the state’s top elections official, sued Shasta County in mid-June, days after the primary, arguing that Measure B violates multiple state election laws and must be struck down before the November election.
The case initially was filed in California’s 3rd District Court of Appeal, but judges there declined to review it, saying the case first should proceed through the trial court.
In his ruling last week, Hanna wrote that he was halting implementation of Measure B while the case proceeds because allowing it to go into effect now “would likely result in the disenfranchisement of many Shasta County voters who would be clearly eligible to vote under state law, but would not meet the improperly narrow criteria to vote under Measure B.”
The measure, Hanna wrote, “seeks to create a whole new electoral system that would require creation of new voter rolls and re-registration of existing voters.” Doing so “would be “difficult under normal time frames, let alone three months before the November general election.”
Hanna cited the state’s “high likelihood” of success in the lawsuit.
Weber said in a statement that the judge’s decision “made clear what we already know — creating unnecessary barriers does not strengthen our democracy, it weakens it.”
The new public observation room at the Shasta County elections office.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
The Shasta Election Task Force, the citizens’ group that wrote the initiative and collected thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot, said in a statement that Measure B “was enacted by the voters” and that they do not believe the state has established a lawful basis for blocking it “merely because Sacramento objects to the election reforms they adopted.”
Measure B gained popularity amid Trump’s baseless claims of cheating. California’s anticipated but painfully slow vote count after the June primary — largely the result of the labor-intensive process for tallying millions of mailed ballots — only fueled such claims. But it also prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic state lawmakers this summer to allocate $40 million to help counties speed up the process.
The citizens’ initiative approved in Shasta County would limit voting by mail, the method used by an overwhelming majority of Californians, to only “the infirm, military, and U.S. citizens living overseas.”
Measure B would require elections to be held in person on a single day and create a separate county voter registration system disconnected from the state’s uniform system. It also would require residents to present government-issued photo identification to cast a ballot (as would a statewide ballot measure that voters will decide upon in November).
The measure drew steep opposition from numerous civil and voting rights organizations — including the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Disability Rights California, the Asian Law Caucus, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California — who said it would disenfranchise voters.
One prominent supporter of Measure B told The Times in May that he expected the county to be sued if voters approved it.
“We don’t like the state laws,” said Richard Gallardo, a leader of Save Shasta Elections. “We want to enact our own local election reform. … There’s a lot in there, so, yes, we do expect the state to sue us.”
Gallardo, an election integrity activist who once tried, unsuccessfully, to place all of the county supervisors under citizen’s arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic, is among the “real parties in interest” named in the state’s lawsuit. He said he believed the onus was on the county to “fully and fervently” defend Measure B in court because it’s “the will of the voters.”
Richard Gallardo, a leader of the citizens’ group that wrote Shasta County’s Measure B, is blocked by a guard in November 2022 after attempting to go into a restricted area to observe ballots at the elections office in Redding. At right is then-assistant county registrar Joanna Francescut.
(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)
In recent years, the election skepticism movement bolstered by Trump has found a strong foothold in Shasta County.
In 2023, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, swept up in unfounded election fraud allegations promoted by the president, ditched Dominion voting machines and opted to hand-count ballots for the county’s more than 110,000 registered voters — quickly prompting a new state law that banned them from doing so.
Last year, the supervisors appointed Clint Curtis — a Florida-based attorney whose claims about rigged voting machines stretch back to the early 2000s — to be the Shasta County registrar of voters, a position vacated by two previous registrars who resigned for health reasons, saying they were exacerbated by the stress of the job.
Curtis promptly eliminated nine of the vast county’s 13 ballot drop boxes. He accused his predecessors in the registrar’s office, without evidence, of stuffing ballots to sabotage conservative Republicans. And he called for federal authorities to raid his office and seize ballots.
Curtis — a vocal proponent of hand-counting ballots who has worked with MyPillow Chief Executive and pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell — advocated for Measure B and is named as a defendant in the state’s lawsuit.
He was voted out of office in June and will be replaced in January by Joanna Francescut, the former longtime assistant registrar, whom he fired.
