Tag: news

Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

UN officials have pointed to a study that reveals lockdowns and school closures are doing more harm to children than the coronavirus itself, with many more deaths expected to come from the reaction to the outbreak, rather than the pandemic itself.

In a presentation seeking extra funding for coronavirus efforts, UNICEF director Henrietta H Fore said Monday, “The repercussions of the pandemic are causing more harm to children than the disease itself.”

UNICEF nutrition program chief Victor Aguayo noted that the most harm is being done “by having schools closed, by having primary health care services disrupted, by having nutritional programs dysfunctional.”

The officials pointed to a study published in The Lancet that notes “physical distancing, school closures, trade restrictions, and country lockdowns” are worsening global child malnutrition.

The study estimates that an extra 6.7 million children will be at risk, and that lockdowns and other coronavirus responses could lead to more than 10,000 additional child deaths every month.

The UNICEF officials noted that would mean 128,000 more deaths among children within the next year.

Study: Global Lockdowns Killing 10,000 Children Per Monthhttps://t.co/GG9DWHZpeY

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) July 28, 2020

The study complies research from the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

It concludes that shut down strategies could lead to “life-long impacts on education, chronic disease risks, and overall human capital formation,” in addition to “intergenerational consequences for child growth and development.”

The estimates are said to “likely to be conservative, given that the duration of this crisis is unknown, and its full impacts on food, health, and social protection systems are yet to be realized.”

The study dovetails with other research that has concluded lockdowns will conservatively “destroy at least seven times more years of human life” than they save.

The German government has concluded that the impact of the country’s lockdown could end up killing more people than the coronavirus due to victims of other serious illnesses not receiving treatment.

As we have previously highlighted, in the UK there have already been up to 10,000 excess deaths as a result of seriously ill people avoiding hospitals due to COVID-19 or not having their hospital treatments cancelled.

A data analyst consortium in South Africa also found that the economic consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more people dying than the coronavirus itself.

Hundreds of doctors are also on record as opposing lockdown measures, warning that they will cause more death than the coronavirus itself.

While globalists have urged that lockdowns need to continue, medical and economic experts across the board in multiple countries are warning that the loss of life will be much greater than that caused directly by the virus itself, if lockdowns are not scrapped.

The latter half of Trump’s first term has witnessed the unraveling of late Cold War-era deals and treaties meant to prevent the US and Russia from ever stumbling toward nuclear standoff and war, including the collapse of both the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) and Open Skies after US withdrawal from both, and even New START has remained hanging in the balance. 

The most significant nuclear arms reduction treaty, New START, will expire in February 2021 if the two sides don’t agree to renew it. So far ongoing talks between Moscow and Washington have failed to extend it by up to five years, despite pressure to strike an extension by America’s allies. 

Currently less than a year remains for a breakthrough. The last talks in late June reportedly led nowhere. “The Wall Street Journal on June 23 quoted an unnamed U.S. official who said that the topics for the working groups would be nuclear warheads, especially Russia’s unconstrained stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, and doctrine; verification; and space systems. But a June 24 report in Kommersant cited Russian officials saying Moscow did not necessarily agree to discuss nuclear warheads,” wrote the Arms Control Association.

However, the US and Russia have returned to the negotiating table in Vienna on this week. At least three days of negotiations are expected to run through the end of the week.

Washington’s position has remained that New START and others remain somewhat obsolete given they fail to account for new leaps in missile technology, but especially because China is not involved. Pompeo’s State Department has been pushing for a new treaty that accounts for China, something increasingly looking to be unrealizable given US-China relations this summer have fallen off a cliff. 

While it’s as yet unclear if current Vienna talks have resulted in any progress, there are other “new” issues to be dealt with apart from whether it can include China, namely space security, after both sides have lately charged the other with turning space into “a war-fighting domain”. 

Both Russia and China have signaled they would like to see an agreement that would prevent the militarization of space. At least one entire day in Vienna is to be focused on space. 

Washington has condemned the Kremlin’s anti-satellite weapons testing over the past years, while the Kremlin issued a statement this week that, “Russia has always been and remains a country that is committed to the aim of fully demilitarising outer space and non-deployment of any kinds of arms in outer space,” according to TASS.

ViaAlmasdarNews.com,

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) fired ballistic missiles from underground platforms during the second day of the massive ‘Great Prophet-14’ military drills in the southwestern part of the country on Wednesday.

The successful firing of ballistic missiles fully hidden in camouflage deep under the ground is an “important achievement” that could “pose serious challenges” to enemy intelligence agencies, the Fars News Agency reported.

In the final stage of the IRGC’s drills, which took place in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the IRGC Aerospace Force’s drones attacked a mock enemy aircraft carrier and targeted its command tower and bridge.

Also, the IRGC’s Sukhoi-22 fighters bombed and destroyed pre-determined targets in Faror Islands with winged bombs.

Wednesday’s hugely provocative test launch of an underground ballistic missile:

The IRGC Aerospace and Naval Forces’ joint exercises played an important part of the drills and demonstrated surprising tactics, including the establishment of joint command systems, joint control, combined tactics and combat methods.

Successful missile combat operations were carried out by firing two surface-to-surface Hurmoz and Fateh missiles, and a ballistic missile at specific targets, as well as launching precision-striking air defense missiles.

Iran Touts Vast Underground “Missile Cities” Along Coast As “Nightmare For Enemies” https://t.co/0gpFJS56uL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 6, 2020

Also, Shahed 181, Mohajer and Bavar drones successfully attacked and destroyed hypothetical enemy targets and positions at this stage of the drills.

Iran’s state media has over the past few years touted that it has vast ‘underground missile cities’ prepared in the event of an Israeli or US attack:

Video shows missiles being prepared in an unknown Iranian underground missile city before their launch against U.S. military bases in #Iraq.#DecisiveResponse #Iran #SoleimaniAssassination pic.twitter.com/8p4iGujggZ

— Press TV (@PressTV) January 8, 2020

Meanwhile, Iran’s air and naval military drills in the strait have put US forces in the region on high alert. A US Navy statement on Tuesday slammed the drills as “irresponsible and reckless”. 

Much of the basis for concern pushed by climate change alarmists has hinged on estimates of the global population (and its corresponding carbon footprint) expanding to between 9.4 billion and 12.7 billion by the year 2100. These estimates were based on the 2019 United Nations World Population Prospects report.

Now, a new study published in The Lancet on July 14, 2020 flips those population estimates – and the corresponding climate change alarmism – on its head. According to the study, highlighted in a WSJ op-ed called “Snooze The Climate Alarms”, the global population is now being estimated to be as low as 6.29 billion by 2100; about 33% lower than current U.N. projections.

The new study suggests that the global population will peak at 9.7 billion in 2064 and will then fall to as low as 6.29 billion, if the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals for education and contraceptive are met in full. If those goals are not met, the study suggests the population could still drop to 8.8 billion by 2100. 

Even under the 8.8 billion population scenario, the difference is profound. China would fall to third in world population rankings behind India and Nigeria. Places like Japan, South Korea, Italy, Portugal and Spain could all see their populations decline 50% from their highs. America would be estimated to have a population of 336 million, only slightly more than today.

The economic growth that is expected to take place globally would be a positive in keeping the population under control, the report says, as it would drive future improvements in health care and education for women around the world – including information about contraception and urbanization – and would result in declining fertility rates. 

The impact on climate emissions, from the same economic growth and population declines, would also be profound. More important, the study shows a link between economic progress and combating climate change that most parts of the “green” movement ignore.

The WSJ op-ed then talks about the importance of policy makers in realizing these links. “Conventional strategies for combating climate change are too narrowly conceived,” author Walter Mead writes. “A focused global effort to ensure that the education and contraceptive SDG targets are fully met could have a significantly greater long-term impact on emissions than more-expensive and unpopular policy choices like carbon taxes or the mandated use of expensive renewables.”

Reproduction is put into focus as one of several human behaviors that changes with greater wealth and better education. Those with access to both also are more inclined to preserve their natural surroundings, Mead says. Poor countries may be more likely to cash in on the natural resources they have available to them, but rich countries invest in repairing such damage, he argues.

Mead also argues in favor of factory farming, which often draws the ire of the “green” movement:

The transition from traditional agriculture to more-intensive “factory farms” offends green sensibilities but can achieve green goals. Factory farms produce more food on less land and are often more carbon-efficient than the small-scale organic farms beloved by hipsters. The U.S. today produces far more food than in the 19th century, but as marginal land is taken out of production, the forests return. In America, forests have been expanding for more than 50 years, and even though population has more than tripled, there is more forested land in the country today than there was in 1910. In Europe, forested land expanded by an area the size of Portugal between 1990 and 2015.

He concludes: “If economic development spreads the blessings of greater freedom and greater education to more of the world, popular demands for cleaner air, cleaner water and the protection of nature will only grow.”

Via GEFIRA,

If we were to paint the current situation with a broad brush, we would receive the following simplified picture.

• The European Union is split into two camps: the old and new member states.

• The West is split across the Atlantic: it is – roughly – Washington against Paris and Berlin.

• The world is split into three rivalling superpowers: the United States (strong military and strong economy), Russia (strong military, weak economy) and China (weak military, strong economy).

Western Europe gravitates more to Russia than Eastern Europe does; Eastern Europe in turn gravitates more to the United States than Western Europe does.

The state of affairs on the Old Continent is as follows.

[1] Germany wants a stable energy supply in the form of natural gas and from among a number of providers it has decided on Russia because

[2] Russia has large natural gas deposits and being in need of hard currency is willing to sell its energy resources to any bidder.

[3] Germany and Russia countries entered a commercial agreement which resulted in the construction and completion of one pipeline laid on the bottom of the Baltic: NordStream 1.

[4] Since the capacity of one pipeline was not sufficient to satisfy the needs of Germany and other West European states, another agreement was concluded to build a second pipe along the bottom of the Baltic – NordStream 2 – which is now near completion.

[5] Both pipelines sidetrack eastern European countries – Ukraine, Poland, Czechia and Slovakia – which makes them alarmed because soon Russia will be able to cut off its gas supplies to and through those countries – the Yamal (Poland, Belarus) and Brotherhood (Czechia, Slovakia, Ukraine) pipelines – while continuing the provision of gas to Western Europe, thus breaking the economic solidarity of the European Union.

[6] The United States helped Western Europe out of trouble during (a) the First World War (against Germany), (b) The Second World War (against Germany) and – (c) the Cold War (against the Soviet Union) and so feels entitled to continue in this role.

[7] The United States perceives itself as the equivalent of the ancient Roman Empire in guarding the Pax Americana (its national and imperial interests) throughout the world but especially Europe; like the Roman Empire it has its military bases (legions) deployed to many parts of the world, including Europe and in particular Germany. Washington feels threatened by Russian economic inroads in Europe.

[8] Western Europe has long striven to emancipate itself from American guardianship, while Eastern Europe (in particular Poland as of now) has been looking to the United States for protection against Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, because some Eastern European countries have had bitter historical experiences connected with Russia and the Soviet Union: (a) Poland (where anti-Russian sentiment is the strongest) was under Russian rule throughout the 19th century and under Soviet dominance for almost half a century after the Second World War; (b) two Hungarian national uprisings were suppressed respectively by Russia in 1849 and the Soviet Union in 1956; (c) Romania lost to the Soviet Union the whole north-eastern province of Moldova (whose inhabitants are Romanians) in 1940. The United States can therefore rely on Eastern European countries and use them as bridgeheads against Western Europe (Germany in particular) and its dealings with Russia.

[9] The European Union is split over the issue of the two pipelines connecting Russia and Germany. This split resulted in passing Directive 2009/73/EC, which is aimed against Russian commercial dominance as it requires the so called ownership unbundling, which means that (a) energy generation, (b) energy supply and (c) energy transmission must belong to different legal persons. This measure is said to have been designed to (a) guard against Europe’s dependence on one external supplier of energy, (b) counteract monopoly and (c) provide European customers with a choice. The requirement of split ownership of energy generation, supply and transmission is going to make life difficult for Russia or – to be precise – Russian Gazprom.

[10] In turn the United States in a glaringly patronising way passed the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act, which envisages punitive sanctions against any entity taking part in the construction of NordStream 2. The act is supposed to protect Western Europe – obviously against its will – against Russian dominance and ensure for the United States customers for its natural gas.

Source: BiznesAlert.pl.

The question arises why the United States wants to defend Western Europe and especially Germany against its will? Is it possible that German leaders do not see that the two pipelines pose a threat to the independence of their country?

The answer is many-faceted.

• It may be that the German leaders prefer Russian rather than American dependence.

• It may be that they have no choice: the North Sea sources are for one reason or another not an option, nor is the gas from the Middle East.

• It may also be that the German elites are much more interested in their own income than in the condition of their country, still less their nation to which they feel little commitment. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, for one, was very much involved with the NordStream project.

• The German investors may view both NordStream pipelines as sources of private and corporate stable income. To this end they may be playing a double game: on the one hand encouraging Russians to continue with the construction of the pipe, while on the other shedding crocodile tears over Europe’s growing dependence on the eastern gas provider and thus allowing for the European Union to pass the said directive that will also enable them – if they create energy transmission companies that will take over some of the income from Gazprom – to draw larger benefits from the NordStream project.

Some Eastern European countries, while remaining ardent member-states of the Union, are doing their best to disrupt the German-Russian deal, which overlaps with Washington’s plans. This does not mean that we are facing any new exits from the European Union: far from it. The eastern member-states are firmly committed to their participation in it. Rather, the Union is going to be somewhat weakened because it is divided against itself, so to say. The eastern EU member-states are perhaps oversensitive when it comes to their dependence on Russia. Their leaders tend to think that it is Russia which wants to have control over them. They seem to be overlooking the fact that the NordStream deal has two parts to it: Russia and Germany. If Berlin cared about the sovereignty of the eastern member-states, it would not have entered into the agreement with Moscow. Yes, bypassing Poland, Ukraine, Czechia and Slovakia Russia can exert economic pressure on these countries by curtailing gas supplies to them without at the same time having to endanger its relations with Germany, the Netherlands or Great Britain. Yet, the two NordStream pipelines are as much an advantage to the Western members of the Union because they do without transit money that would otherwise have to be paid to Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, Slovakia and Czechia, thus making the gas cheaper and because – if the ownership unbundling principle is effected – the West may also have a larger share in the gas supply.

New member states seem to be left to their own devices by their older partners. Washington is their only hope, but Washington is merely acting in defence of its own interests, eying suspiciously Berlin and Moscow. Germany has built the present equivalent of the old project of Mitteleuropa – Middle Europe Project – which meant creating a ring of economically dependent states in Central Europe. At present Berlin to a larger degree than Moscow controls the destiny of its eastern and southern, close and farther neighbours. Germany’s agents of influence operating in Eastern Europe will make every endeavour to eventually bring to power in Warsaw, Prague, Bratislava, Budapest, Bucharest and Kiev people who will take into account German interests. American agents of influence with do the same. If Berlin prevails, then Germany will strengthen its grip on the European Union; if America prevails, then the EU is going to be weakened.