内容摘要：The US State Department website also released a press statement, titled “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China”.

The US State Department website also released a press statement, titled “New Visa Policies Put America First, Not China”.

L’Occitane’s former Russian subsidiary now belongs to local management. But the subsidiary has pledged shares to L’Occitane International as collateral and L’Occitane International has a call-option to buy the subsidiary back during a five-year period starting in June 2025.L'Occitane's former subsidiary receives its cosmetics almost exclusively via one company, Smart Beauty LLC - a contrast from the typical scenario involving parallel imports, where numerous small suppliers are involved.

Smart Beauty LLC was registered in Dubai in June 2022 - the same month L’Occitane announced its exit from Russia - and has shipped more than 900 tonnes of cosmetics to Russia, according to customs data.Dubai’s business registry does not show the identity of Smart Beauty’s owner. L’Occitane did not reply to Al Jazeera’s questions about whether it was aware of the importation of its products by its former subsidiary.Tracing the supply chains of goods from a factory where they are produced to the shelf in Russia can be challenging as importers may use numerous intermediary companies across multiple countries.

The owner of a Russian wholesale supplier of electronics who spoke on condition of anonymity told Al Jazeera that many front companies have been established in third countries specifically to organise parallel imports, sometimes by Russian importers and sometimes even by the brands themselves.“Front companies established by brands would hardly speak to a new player whom they don’t know or answer an email inquiry,” he said.

“But the relationships between brands and retailers have been developed through years. It’s very tempting to use proxies and continue business.”

Western brands that have distanced themselves from Russia can be broadly categorised into three groups, said Mikhail Burmistrov, the director of the Russian think tank Infoline Analytics.Three days later, Pakistan struck back. Operation Bunyan Marsoos — Arabic for “iron wall” — was declared. The name alone tells you everything. This wasn’t just a retaliatory strike; it was a theological assertion, a national sermon. The enemy had dared to trespass. The response would be divine.

Pakistani missiles reportedly rained down on Indian military sites: brigade headquarters, an S-400 system, and military installations in Punjab and Jammu.Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif

proclaimed that Pakistan had “avenged the 1971 war”, in which it had capitulated and allowed Bangladesh to secede. That’s not battlefield strategy. That’s myth-making.The media in Pakistan amplified this narrative with patriotic zeal. Indian strikes were framed as war crimes, mosques hit, civilians killed. Photographs of rubble and blood were paired with captions about martyrdom. The response, by contrast, was precise, moral, and inevitable.