this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
64 points (72.2% liked)

World News

48938 readers
2405 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Between 2010 and 2021, unilateral sanctions caused ~564,258 deaths each year – more than five times the number of people killed annually in direct armed combat. This warning comes from a new report published in The Lancet, which contextualizes decades of data on how sanctions affect mortality.

“From a rights-based perspective, evidence that sanctions lead to losses in lives should be sufficient reason to advocate for the suspension of their use,” the study’s authors argue. But that is far from reality. Over the same decade, nearly a quarter of all of the world’s countries were affected by sanctions, driven primarily by a sharp increase in unilateral economic measures imposed by the United States and its European allies.

While Western sanctions “have the claimed aim to end wars, protect human rights, or promote democracy,” the report shows they do the very opposite. By restricting a country’s ability to import essential goods like food, medicine, and medical supplies, and by slashing public budgets, sanctions systematically undermine healthcare systems and other vital services.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dumples@midwest.social 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This may be one of the dumbest takes I have ever seen. Sanctions are done instead of armed combat as a diplomatic tool. So instead of using those we should "checks notes" go to more war? That way war kills more people than sanctions.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Only target the leaders with sanction not the population

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The Lancet, so others can skip the propaganda piece.

It's kind of fascinating that warfare could be so limited that peacetime economics could determine more lives. They also mentioned that UN sanctions have no such effect, so pretty much all the usual suspects wouldn't be contributing.

I don't know, I have to assume there's credibility to this for it to be published, but it just seems impossible.

[–] higgsboson@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

Right, also we should all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Pretty glaring omission of the sanctions on Russia in this blog-post universally condemning sanctions.

Looks like the People's Dispatch is far-left biased, so probably tankies deliberately writing stuff that benefits Russia.

[–] CabbageRelish@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Damn tankies and their checks notes suggestion we not use policy to murder 500k people a year.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First of all, "causing excess death" is not "murder", no matter how much you want to equate them.

But merely lamenting the consequences of sanctions is like lamenting how lives are ruined by imprisoning criminals with no attention given to what would likely happen if crime just went unpunished.

Sanctions are applied in response to something and have to be viewed through that lens. How many more deaths would result if repressive governments felt they had free rein to commit crimes against their own populations and those of their neighbours if they faced no repercussions for doing so?

This is why the article is written irresponsibly, and probably is a propaganda piece: it does not make any attempt to relate the outcome of sanctions to likely alternative situations in which sanctions were not applied. This way of examining sanctions (or anything) can perfectly well be used to criticise sanctions as causing suffering in excess of what they are supposed to be combating.

[–] CabbageRelish@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There’s a case to be made for sanctions in times of war. The point on the left though is sanctions are an act of war and in the past they’d be enforced through something like a blockade or siege. We’ve white-washed it to make it sound like it’s just simple economic policy though.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The problem with this position is that it doesn't make sense to say that countries are obliged to trade with one another. If there's no obligation to trade, then there's no obligation to avoid sanctions. The difference between sanctions and a blockade is that you're not forcing other countries not to trade.

The arguments may differ when there are frozen assets but it comes down to the same thing: we categorise actual use of force differently from harmful acts short of force for a reason.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

No, mate, the parent commenter asserts that the tankies only claim it murders 500,000 people a year because it also economically hurts Russia.

[–] CabbageRelish@midwest.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I am not reading through a fucking 10,000 word podcast transcript to find the relevant two paragraphs. Quote some points if you want.

Edit: I actually underestimated this thing. The transcript is so large that it crashed LibreOffice Writer the first time I tried pasting it in to get the actual word count. The transcript is 16,719 words long.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Exactly man. Stay strong. You're not here for nuance or context. You're the kind of guy that likes having little Snippets hand fed to you. Reading is for nerds. If there ain't a YouTube video saying it while a guy gives shocked reaction faces you don't need to know it.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I am not opposed to reading. I will happily read a 1,000 or 2,000-word article to hear new ideas. What I will not do is listen to a 90-minute podcast or read its transcript, which is so long it crashed LibreOffice Writer when I tried pasting it to get the word count, just to understand what CabbageRelish@midwest.social is talking about with the comment that took them twenty seconds to write.

It's not unreasonable for me to say that if you took less than 60 seconds to write your comment, I'm going to spend a maximum of 5-10 minutes thinking about and writing my response.

[–] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I am not saying tankies wrote the Lancet article.

[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 33 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I suggest to count how many more people would Russians kill without sanctions.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Food and medicine aren't subject to sanctions in the case of Russia. AFAIK agricultural machines also aren't yet, despite evidence that some of its components had been reused for military equipment.

Contrast this with sanction on countries like Iran or until recently Syria, that affect food and medicine.

[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 6 points 3 days ago (14 children)

Yes, the EU and the USA should widen sanctions on Russia to cover food and medicine too.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

We should do the same to israel right?

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago

we should stop sending unlimited bombs and air defense missiles to Israel too

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Alterforlett@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (9 children)

The COVID-19 pandemic brought this dynamic into even harsher focus. Countries like Iran and Venezuela struggled to import critical supplies, including testing kits, vaccine materials, and vaccines themselves.

What an absolute shit article. I doubt anyone will argue we've, historically, treated Iran or Venezuela well, but to not even touch on why the sanctions are in place is awful journalism. The disputes didn't happen in a vacuum and I'd like to hear about what they suggest the sitting regimes are doing to remedy the situation

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] lefixxx@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Did war write this article?

[–] higgsboson@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago

Worse, tankies.

[–] comrade_twisty@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I am pretty sure the upcoming and intensifying wars are accepting the challenge.

[–] Michal@programming.dev -1 points 2 days ago

So, sanctions do work, good to see.

load more comments
view more: next ›