By ILLIA NOVIKOV

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Russian rocket attack targeted the northeastern Ukrainian city of Sumy on Tuesday, killing at least four people and wounding 25, officials said. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy denounced the assault, saying it underscored that Moscow has no intentions of halting the 3-year-old war.

The attack came a day after direct peace talks in Istanbul made no progress on ending the fighting. Local authorities said the barrage of rockets struck apartment buildings and a medical facility in the center of Sumy.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s secret services said they struck inside Russia again, two days after a spectacular Ukrainian drone attack on air bases deep inside the country.

A vital bridge to Crimea

The Ukrainian Security Service, known by its acronym SBU, claimed it damaged the foundations of the Kerch Bridge linking Russia and illegally annexed Crimea — a key artery for Russian military supplies in the war.

The SBU said it detonated 1,100 kilograms (2,400 pounds) of explosives on the seabed overnight, in an operation that took several months to set up. It was the third Ukrainian strike on the bridge since Russia’s invasion of its neighbor in February 2022, the SBU said.

“The bridge is now effectively in an emergency condition,” the SBU claimed.

The agency said no civilians were killed or injured in the operation. It was not possible to independently confirm those claims.

Traffic across the Kerch Bridge was halted for three hours early Tuesday, but it reopened at 9 a.m., official Russian social media channels said. It closed for a second time at 3:20 p.m. and reopened again after two and a half hours.

Zelenskyy appeals for pressure on Moscow

The Ukrainian president called the attack on Sumy a “completely deliberate” strike on civilians.

“That’s all you need to know about Russia’s ‘desire’ to end this war,” the Ukrainian president wrote on social media.

Zelenskyy appealed for global pressure and “decisive action from the United States, Europe and everyone in the world who holds power.” Without it, he said, Russian President Vladimir Putin “will not agree even to a ceasefire.”

The war has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians, according to the United Nations, as well as tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides along the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line where the fighting grinds on despite U.S.-led efforts to broker a peace deal.

A stunning Ukrainian drone attack

Though Russia has a bigger army and more economic resources than Ukraine, the Ukrainian drone attack over the weekend damaged or destroyed more than 40 warplanes at air bases deep inside Russia, Ukrainian officials said, touting it as a serious blow to the Kremlin’s strategic arsenal and military prestige.

The Russian Defense Ministry acknowledged that the Ukrainian attack set several planes ablaze at two air bases but said the military repelled attempted attacks on three other air bases.

Related Articles

Wilders throws Dutch politics into turmoil with new elections now on the horizon

Over 100 inmates escape and 1 is killed as a quake prompts the evacuation of a Pakistan prison

Today in History: June 3, the Zoot Suit Riots begin in Los Angeles

Police to start new search near where toddler Madeleine McCann disappeared in 2007

UN, Iran and Egypt meet to discuss Iran’s nuclear program as enrichment continues

Both Zelenskyy and Putin have been eager to show U.S. President Donald Trump that they share his ambition to end the fighting — and avoid possible punitive measures from Washington. Ukraine has accepted a U.S.-proposed ceasefire, but the Kremlin effectively rejected it. Putin has made it clear that any peace settlement has to be on his terms.

Delegations from the warring sides agreed Monday to swap dead and wounded troops, but their conditions for ending the war remained far apart.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who now serves as deputy head of the country’s Security Council chaired by Putin, indicated on Tuesday that there would be no let-up in Russia’s invasion.

“The Istanbul talks are not for striking a compromise peace on someone else’s delusional terms but for ensuring our swift victory and the complete destruction” of Ukraine’s government, he said.

In an apparent comment on the latest Ukrainian strikes, he declared that “retribution is inevitable.”

A Putin-Zelenskyy-Trump meeting ‘unlikely’ soon, Moscow says

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded to suggestions that a face-to-face meeting between Putin, Trump and Zelenskyy could break the deadlock, saying the possibility was “unlikely in the near future.”

Meanwhile, a senior Ukrainian delegation led by First Deputy Prime Minister and Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko has traveled to Washington for talks about defense, sanctions and postwar recovery, said Andrii Yermak, the head of Ukraine’s presidential office.

The delegation will meet with representatives from both major U.S. political parties, as well as with advisers to Trump, Yermak added.

Ukrainians in Kyiv welcomed the strikes on Russian air bases but were gloomy about prospects for a peace agreement.

“Russia has invested too many resources in this war to just … stop for nothing,” said serviceman Oleh Nikolenko, 43.

His wife, Anastasia Nikolenko, a 38-year-old designer, said diplomacy cannot stop the fighting. “We need to show by force, by physical force, that we cannot be defeated,” she said.

Russia recently expanded its attacks on Sumy and the Kharkiv region following Putin’s promise to create a buffer zone along the border that might prevent long-range Ukrainian attacks from hitting Russian soil. Sumy, about 25 kilometers (15 miles) from the border, had a prewar population of around 250,000.

The Russian Defense Ministry claimed its troops had taken the Ukrainian village of Andriivka, close to the border in the Sumy region. Ukraine made no immediate comment on the claim, which could not be independently verified.

Russia also fired rocket artillery at Chystovodivka village in the Kharkiv region, killing two people and injuring three others, regional Gov. Oleh Syniehubov said.

By THOMAS ADAMSON, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — Brigitte Bardot lounged barefoot on a Saint-Tropez beach, drawing languorous puffs from her cigarette. Another actor, Jean-Paul Belmondo, swaggered down the Champs-Élysées with smoke curling from his defiant lips, capturing a generation’s restless rebellion.

In France, cigarettes were never just cigarettes — they were cinematic statements, flirtations and rebellions wrapped in rolling paper.

FILE – Jury President Jeanne Moreau smokes a cigarette at the Cannes Film Festival in France on May 12, 1975. (AP Photo, File)

Yet beginning July 1, if Bardot and Belmondo’s iconic film scenes were repeated in real life, they would be subject to up to $153 in fines.

After glamorizing tobacco for decades, France is preparing for its most sweeping smoking ban yet. The new restrictions, announced by Health Minister Catherine Vautrin, will outlaw smoking in virtually all outdoor public areas where children may gather, including beaches, parks, gardens, playgrounds, sports venues, school entrances and bus stops.

“Tobacco must disappear where there are children,” Vautrin told French media. The freedom to smoke “stops where children’s right to breathe clean air starts.”

If Vautrin’s law reflects public health priorities, it also signals a deeper cultural shift. Smoking has defined identity, fashion and cinema here for so long that the new measure feels like a quiet French revolution in a country whose relationship with tobacco is famously complex.

A “No smoking” sign is pictured at Gare du Nord train station in Paris, Thursday, May 29 2025. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)

According to France’s League Against Cancer, over 90 percent of French films from 2015 to 2019 featured smoking scenes — more than double the rate in Hollywood productions. Each French movie averaged nearly three minutes of on-screen smoking, effectively the same exposure as six 30-second television ads.

Cinema has been particularly influential. Belmondo’s rebellious smoker in Jean-Luc Godard ’s “Breathless” became shorthand for youthful defiance worldwide. Bardot’s cigarette smoke wafted through “And God Created Woman,” symbolizing unbridled sensuality.

Yet this glamorization has consequences. According to France’s public health authorities, around 75,000 people die from tobacco-related illnesses each year. Although smoking rates have dipped recently — fewer than 25% of French adults now smoke daily, a historic low — the habit remains stubbornly embedded, especially among young people and the urban chic.

France’s relationship with tobacco has long been fraught with contradiction. Air France did not ban smoking on all its flights until 2000, years after major U.S. carriers began phasing it out in the late 1980s and early ’90s. The delay reflected a country slower to sever its cultural romance with cigarettes, even at 35,000 feet.

Strolling through the stylish streets of Le Marais, the trendiest neighborhood in Paris, reactions to the smoking ban ranged from pragmatic acceptance to nostalgic defiance.

Related Articles

Wilders throws Dutch politics into turmoil with new elections now on the horizon

Over 100 inmates escape and 1 is killed as a quake prompts the evacuation of a Pakistan prison

Today in History: June 3, the Zoot Suit Riots begin in Los Angeles

Police to start new search near where toddler Madeleine McCann disappeared in 2007

UN, Iran and Egypt meet to discuss Iran’s nuclear program as enrichment continues

“It’s about time. I don’t want my kids growing up thinking smoke is romantic,” said Clémence Laurent, a 34-year-old fashion buyer, sipping espresso at a crowded café terrace. “Sure, Bardot made cigarettes seem glamorous. But Bardot didn’t worry about today’s warnings on lung cancer.”

At a nearby boutique, vintage dealer Luc Baudry, 53, saw the ban as an attack on something essentially French. “Smoking has always been part of our culture. Take away cigarettes and what do we have left? Kale smoothies?” he scoffed.

Across from him, 72-year-old Jeanne Lévy chuckled throatily, her voice deeply etched — she said — by decades of Gauloises. “I smoked my first cigarette watching Jeanne Moreau,” she confessed, eyes twinkling behind vintage sunglasses. “It was her voice — smoky, sexy, lived-in. Who didn’t want that voice?”

Indeed, Jeanne Moreau’s gravelly, nicotine-scraped voice transformed tobacco into poetry itself, immortalized in classics such as François Truffaut’s “Jules et Jim.” Smoking acquired an existential glamour that made quitting unimaginable for generations of French smokers.

France’s new law mirrors broader European trends. Countries like Britain and Sweden have already tightened smoking regulations in public spaces. Sweden banned smoking on outdoor restaurant terraces, at bus stops and near schoolyards in 2019. Spain, meanwhile, is extending its smoking ban to café and restaurant terraces—spaces that remain exempt in France, at least for now.

In the Paris park Place des Vosges, literature student Thomas Bouchard clutched an electronic cigarette that is still exempt from the new ban and shrugged.

“Maybe vaping’s our compromise,” he said, exhaling gently. “A little less sexy, perhaps. But fewer wrinkles too.”

By JONEL ALECCIA, AP Health Writer

As federal health officials vow to overhaul the U.S. food supply, they’re taking a new look at infant formula.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the nutrients and other ingredients in infant formula, which fills the bottles of millions of American babies. The effort, dubbed “Operation Stork Speed,” is the first deep look at the ingredients since 1998.

“The FDA will use all resources and authorities at its disposal to make sure infant formula products are safe and wholesome for the families and children who rely on them,” Kennedy said.

About three-quarters of U.S. infants consume formula during the first six months of life, with about 40% receiving it as their only source of nutrition, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Formula has been widely used in the U.S. for roughly six decades, feeding generations of infants who have flourished, said Dr. Steven Abrams, a University of Texas infant nutrition expert.

The broader scientific community has been calling for a reevaluation of infant formula for years and is “fully supportive of this idea of a comprehensive look,” he said.

Current formula products in the U.S. continue to be safe and nourishing, he said.

“But there’s been a lot of science and we want the FDA rules to align with the most recent science from around the world,” he said.

Here’s what you need to know about Operation Stork Speed:

What is infant formula and why do so many babies consume it?

Infant formula is a manufactured product, usually made from cow’s milk or soy, that is intended to mimic human breast milk for kids up age 12 months. It may be the sole source of nutrition or supplement breastfeeding.

FDA regulations require that infant formulas contain 30 specific nutrients, with minimum levels for all and maximum levels for 10 of them.

The ingredients vary, but all formulas must have a balance of calories from protein, carbohydrates and fat that mirrors what’s found in human milk.

Federal guidelines recommend that babies be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life and that parents continue breastfeeding for the first year or more while adding new foods to the child’s diet.

Parents use formula when a mother cannot or chooses not to breastfeed for a wide range of reasons, including medical conditions, work conflicts, to allow other family members to help with feedings and other situations.

Why is the government reviewing baby formula now?

Kennedy announced the review of infant formula in March as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda for the U.S. food supply.

The FDA’s review will include increased testing for heavy metals and other contaminants as well as a review of nutrients, the agencies said.

U.S. health officials will hold a two-hour roundtable discussion of infant formula on Wednesday.

What issues will that cover?

The FDA is asking for new scientific data and information about whether required ingredients in infant formula should be added, removed or changed. The deadline for comments is Sept. 11.

Scientists say a review is long overdue regarding the most recent data on the composition of human milk and how babies digest and absorb nutrients in breastmilk and formula.

In addition, they want the FDA to consider how U.S. formulas compare with those made elsewhere, said Bridget Young, who studies infant nutrition at the University of Rochester.

“How do our regulations differ?” she said. “Maybe it’s time for them to relook at their regulations and consider potential international harmonization.”

More international alignment might have eased the U.S. infant formula crisis in 2022, when contamination shut down an Abbott factory, leading to monthslong shortages for American parents, Young said.

What about specific ingredients?

In recent years, some parents have sought out infant formula made in Europe with the belief that products made overseas are healthier options, experts said.

Formula regulations in the U.S. and Europe, including requirements for nutrients and testing, differ somewhat, but are generally similar, Abrams said.

“The differences between the U.S. and Europe should not be considered as ‘higher’ or ‘better’ or ‘greater’ in one vs. the other,” he said.

Related Articles

Air quality alert extended to noon Wednesday throughout Minnesota

All international travelers should get measles vaccinations, CDC says

New MN measles cases confirmed, including Dakota County child who had not traveled

Exercise boosts survival rates in colon cancer patients, study shows

Early detection, constant communication key in dealing with prostate cancers

Still, iron, for instance, is included at higher levels in U.S. formulas than in those in Europe — and Abrams suggested that U.S. officials may consider lowering iron targets.

Other components have been added to formula in recent years. They include docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, an essential omega-3 fatty acid, and human milk oligosaccharides, complex sugars that are found breast milk but not in cow’s milk. Although they may be beneficial, they are not required.

“These have been added to some formulas, but not to other formulas, so we want to take a look,” Abrams explained.

Many parents have raised concerns over formula ingredients such as added sugars and seed oils, which are also being targeted by Kennedy as hazards in the wider food supply.

Recent research suggests that added sugars such as glucose and corn syrup solids in infant formula may be linked to weight gain in children. Young said that most experts agree that lactose, the primary type of sugar found in breast milk, is preferred.

Infant formulas in the U.S. do contain seed oils, Young said. But that’s because there are a finite number of vegetable oils that provide the essential saturated and unsaturated fats that babies require.

“They need to provide the variety of fatty acids that you see in breast milk,” she said.

What are the next steps?

Done properly, the FDA’s infant formula review would take “at least a year,” Abrams said. And it will require broad input from multiple government agencies, formula manufacturers and consumers.

“No shortcuts are possible and no one review, white paper or even committee report will suffice to do it right,” he said.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

“If all else fails, push the start button, look for smoke, and repair what is burning.” During my 15 years working with industry, this was common advice when dealing with troublesome complex electric controls that just would not respond to a more scientific analysis. And it worked. Should we expect a president hellbent on changing the world order to apply the same approach?

Flipping policy switches on and off might not sound scientific, but despite chaos and missteps, there’s at least something to be said for the idea.

Maybe it’s the rush to get things done. Or perhaps it’s the fact that Trump is relying on executive orders rather than on legislation with hearings to mandate much of what he envisions. In any case, the Trump administration is now famous for hitting a policy start button, seeing smoke and then, when alarms go off, reversing position.

How else might we explain the large number of policy reversals that occurred in the president’s first 100 days back in office? Consider a handful of examples.

Just a week into his new term, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a freeze order on all federal loans and grants in an effort to make certain that all funded programs would abide by the new administration’s tamped-down Diversity, Equity and Inclusion guidelines. But the outcry from state and local governments that rely on federal funding for day-to-day operations was so loud that OMB quickly reversed its order.

Then, in February, the Trump administration announced an end of free COVID testing, a mainstay program in fighting the pandemic. When the Department of Health and Human Services indicated that the agency would thus be destroying 160 million unused tests, political alarms went off and the policy was reversed.

More famously, after growing impatient with the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee for not cutting interest rates, Trump decided to hit the start button and blow them out of the water. He called the Fed Chair Jerome Powell a “major loser” and indicated he should be fired… immediately.

When world financial markets sensed that America’s central bank was about to be run by politics, interest rates rose, respect for the dollar fell and the end of American economic exceptionalism was posited. Smoke was everywhere.  Trump backed away, softened the tone of his relationship with Fed Chair Powell and moved on to tilt with other windmills.

Another tilting occurred when Trump took on China by imposing a 145% tariff on all its exports to the United States, the functional equivalent of an embargo. China responded by laying on 125% tariffs on U.S. exports and indicated a willingness to engage in a trade war or any war that became necessary.

Markets shuddered. American retailers cried foul and indicated Santa Claus’s sled would be empty. Apple and other U.S. smart phone producers offered up end-of-world industry forecasts.

In short, the circuits turned red and the smoke was dense. Trump dramatically altered his policy position. The trade war with China suddenly de-intensified, at least for the next 90 days.

Finally, Elon Musk’s DOGE activities brought their own host of circuit tests that generated smoke and reversals. There were sweeping actions taken to fire thousands of federal government workers only to rush to rehire some when it was learned that they filled critical jobs involving nuclear weapons or controlling a raging bird flu epidemic.

Some look squarely at these policy reversals and see evidence that we have the equivalent of Keystone Cops running the federal government — officials who don’t seem to know what they are doing, but they do it anyway. Alternatively, and in at least some of these situations, we might consider the old “push the start button and look for smoke” explanation.

In a rush to bring dramatic change, the Trump administration seems to agree with Ralph Waldo Emerson that “consistency is a hobgoblin of small minds.” When things change, they change. Policy reversals are messy, but some might be a necessary part of Trump’s intended revolution.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, dean emeritus of the Clemson College of Business and Behavioral Sciences and a former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission. He wrote this column for the Chicago Tribune.

Related Articles

David French: Why Trump is mad at ‘sleasebag’ Leonard Leo

Cory Franklin: The lessons of ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson and the MLB’s rewriting of history

Clive Crook: The US is about to discover if deficits don’t matter

Parmy Olson: AI sometimes deceives to survive. Does anybody care?

Maureen Dowd: Dance$ with emolument$