m gstar28 com
The former Tory chancellor, now chairman of the British Museum, suggested Sir Keir Starmer had contributed to a warmer spirit of the negotiations over the famous ancient artworks. Greece has long called for the return of the Marbles, also known as the Parthenon sculptures, and maintains they were illegally removed from Athens’ acropolis during a period of foreign occupation. The British Museum – where they are currently on display – is forbidden by law from giving away any of its artefacts, and the Government has no plans to change the law to permit a permanent move. But under Mr Osborne’s leadership, the museum is negotiating the possibility of a long-term loan of the sculptures, in exchange for rolling exhibitions of famous artworks. No 10 has indicated the Prime Minister is unlikely to stand in the way of such a deal. Speaking on Political Currency, the podcast he hosts alongside former Labour politician Ed Balls, Mr Osborne said the museum was “looking to see if we can come to some arrangement where at some point some of the sculptures are in Athens, where, of course, they were originally sited”. He added: “And in return, Greece lends us some of its treasures, and we made a lot of progress on that, but we’re still some distance from any kind of agreement.” The Greek government has suggested negotiations with the museum have taken a warmer tone since Labour came to power in the summer. Mr Osborne appeared to concur with this view and praised Sir Keir’s hands-off approach, adding: “It is not the same as Rishi Sunak, who refused to see the Greek prime minister, if you remember, he sort of stood him up. “So it seems to me a more sensible and diplomatic way to proceed.” Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the Greek premier, discussed the Elgin Marbles with Sir Keir when they met on Tuesday morning at Downing Street, he said after returning to Athens. Mr Mitsotakis has signalled his government is awaiting developments on the negotiations. A diplomatic spat between the Greek leader and Mr Sunak emerged last year when the then-prime minister refused to meet his counterpart. Mr Mitsotakis had compared splitting the Elgin Marbles from those still in Athens to cutting the Mona Lisa in half. The marble statues came from friezes on the 2,500-year-old Parthenon temple and have been displayed at the British Museum for more than 200 years. They were removed by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century when he was British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. Some of the remaining temple statues are on display in the purpose-built Acropolis Museum in Athens, and Greece has called for the collections to be reunited.
WASHINGTON — The United States is expected to announce that it will send $1.25 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, U.S. officials said Friday, as the Biden administration pushes to get as much aid to Kyiv as possible before leaving office on Jan. 20. The large package of aid includes a significant amount of munitions, including for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems and the HAWK air defense system. It also will provide Stinger missiles and 155 mm- and 105 mm artillery rounds, officials said. The officials, who said they expect the announcement to be made on Monday, spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The new aid comes as Russia has launched a barrage of attacks against Ukraine’s power facilities in recent days, although Ukraine has said it intercepted a significant number of the missiles and drones. Russian and Ukrainian forces are also still in a bitter battle around the Russian border region of Kursk, where Moscow has sent thousands of North Korean troops to help reclaim territory taken by Ukraine. Earlier this month, senior defense officials acknowledged that that the Defense Department may not be able to send all of the remaining $5.6 billion in Pentagon weapons and equipment stocks passed by Congress for Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in. Trump has talked about getting some type of negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, and spoken about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Many U.S. and European leaders are concerned that it might result in a poor deal for Ukraine and they worry that he won't provide Ukraine with all the weapons funding approved by Congress. The aid in the new package is in presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Pentagon to take weapons off the shelves and send them quickly to Ukraine. This latest assistance would reduce the remaining amount to about $4.35 billion. Officials have said they hope that an influx of aid will help strengthen Ukraine’s hand, should Zelenskyy decide it’s time to negotiate. One senior defense official said that while the U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Ukraine until Jan. 20, there may well be funds remaining that will be available for the incoming Trump administration to spend. According to the Pentagon, there is also about $1.2 billion remaining in longer-term funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is used to pay for weapons contracts that would not be delivered for a year or more. Officials have said the administration anticipates releasing all of that money before the end of the calendar year. If the new package is included, the U.S. has provided more than $64 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022.Ulta Beauty: Beware Of Getting Caught Up In The Relief Rally (Rating Downgrade)
Disagreement between the U.S. and China is increasing across trade and global influence issues. Reports from the recent Asian economic summit show a bitterness in it. Established economies like the U.S. and Australia want to develop a naval base in Papua New Guinea to contain China. The U.S. is cautioning poorer countries from borrowing money from China. Excerpts below from a BBC report show the deep levels of enmity. Apec summit ends without statement over US-China division - BBC News An Asian economic summit has ended without a formal leaders' statement for the first time because of US-China divisions over trade. The US and China revealed competing visions for the region at the summit. The two countries have been engaged in a tit-for-tat trade war this year. During the summit, the US said it would join Australia in developing a naval base in Papua New Guinea, in an apparent move to curb China's growing influence. Mr Pence later said he was prepared to "more than double" the tariffs imposed on Chinese goods. He also criticised China's massive Belt-and-Road infrastructure programme, warning smaller countries that "opaque" Chinese development loans led to "staggering debt". He urged countries to work with the US instead, saying the US did not "coerce, corrupt or compromise your independence". Old economies are never pleased to see emerging economies that are more flexible, energetic, and pro-active in creating new trade models. The Belt and Road Initiative is a development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in Silk Road countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa on both overland and sea routes. Building infrastructure in these countries is a much sounder economic model than locating mobile multi-national enterprises or military bases or occupation. The downside is that it can involve incurring substantial debt which eventually requires getting a countrys finances into better shape to afford repayments in order to own the assets. Beijings multi-billions dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been called a Chinese Marshall Plan, a state-backed campaign for global dominance, a stimulus package for a slowing economy, and a massive marketing campaign for something that was already happening Chinese investment around the world. Between 2014 and 2016, China's total trade volume in the countries along the Belt and Road exceeded $3 trillion, created $1.1 billion revenues, and 180,000 jobs for the countries involved. Is the U.S. losing ground to China? Should countries refrain from borrowing from China? What are the implications for Europe of a prosperous Silk Road economy? The Silk Road really is an attempt to extend Chinese soft power utilising exactly the same free market principles much espoused by the west for much of the last two centuries. Building a base in Papua New Guinea, which I believe is somewhat North of Australia, seems to be out of the strategic plan of drawing new lines further and further back and issuing dire warnings if China dare cross that new line. It was hugely funny watching the Americans in particular warning of China's attempted influence in the South China Sea. The irony was magnificent. It was the equivalent of the Chinese or Russians warning of increased American naval activity off Hawaii. To answer the question- the new Silk Road plans are a solid indicator that Beijing understands exactly what Washington was preaching through World Trade Organisation talks for many decades middleground said: Disagreement between the U.S. and China is increasing across trade and global influence issues. Reports from the recent Asian economic summit show a bitterness in it. Established economies like the U.S. and Australia want to develop a naval base in Papua New Guinea to contain China. The U.S. is cautioning poorer countries from borrowing money from China. Excerpts below from a BBC report show the deep levels of enmity. Apec summit ends without statement over US-China division - BBC News An Asian economic summit has ended without a formal leaders' statement for the first time because of US-China divisions over trade. The US and China revealed competing visions for the region at the summit. The two countries have been engaged in a tit-for-tat trade war this year. During the summit, the US said it would join Australia in developing a naval base in Papua New Guinea, in an apparent move to curb China's growing influence. Mr Pence later said he was prepared to "more than double" the tariffs imposed on Chinese goods. He also criticised China's massive Belt-and-Road infrastructure programme, warning smaller countries that "opaque" Chinese development loans led to "staggering debt". He urged countries to work with the US instead, saying the US did not "coerce, corrupt or compromise your independence". Old economies are never pleased to see emerging economies that are more flexible, energetic, and pro-active in creating new trade models. The Belt and Road Initiative is a development strategy adopted by the Chinese government involving infrastructure development and investments in Silk Road countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa on both overland and sea routes. Building infrastructure in these countries is a much sounder economic model than locating mobile multi-national enterprises or military bases or occupation. The downside is that it can involve incurring substantial debt which eventually requires getting a country’s finances into better shape to afford repayments in order to own the assets. Beijing’s multi-billions dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been called a Chinese Marshall Plan, a state-backed campaign for global dominance, a stimulus package for a slowing economy, and a massive marketing campaign for something that was already happening – Chinese investment around the world. Between 2014 and 2016, China's total trade volume in the countries along the Belt and Road exceeded $3 trillion, created $1.1 billion revenues, and 180,000 jobs for the countries involved. Is the U.S. losing ground to China? Should countries refrain from borrowing from China? What are the implications for Europe of a prosperous Silk Road economy? Click to expand... There are two types of people those who have money and those who don't. Guess who always comes out on top. Lumpy Talbot said: To answer the question- the new Silk Road plans are a solid indicator that Beijing understands exactly what Washington was preaching through World Trade Organisation talks for many decades Click to expand... Agree China has learned well and are developing quickly and quietly. There should be export opportunities for many European countries if their enterprises are willing to do the work required to develop new markets. A strong Asian-European gateway would be welcome. Is there any region that the US hasn't insulted or attacked recently (apart from Saudi Arabia)? Thinking further on the dynamics of the new Silk Road policy it certainly makes sense from the Chinese point of view. The outlay and scope of the project matches a series of Trade Agreements, with such huge amounts of Chinese infrastructure investment they get to influence the voting patterns at the UN with many countries along the route while simultaneously the US is retracting its spend outside the US and becoming more internally focused (the Chinese have the money to spend, the US doesn't). It is clever in that it is a mix of Monopoly and Risk at exactly the right time. If you think back to Reagan's supercharging the US economy in the 80s which effectively drove the Soviet Union into financial collapse the Americans are in no position to get into an economic pissing match with Beijing so it is the right thing for Beijing to do in filling the international vacuum. They have such huge reserves of foreign currency and the Yuan about to emerge as an exchange currency, along with the ability to directly intervene in domestic economics way beyond any level that could be contemplated in the west, that they really are the bankers in the Monopoly game now. And the Silk Road project gives them a strategic spending target allied to both economic and political gains. As for the winners and losers, the countries along the route closest to Chinese interests probably won't feel any different. It gets interesting as you get to Pakistan and India, where India is fuming about the Chinese infrastructure spend in Pakistan and refusing to have anything to do with the Silk Road project accordingly, which doesn't bother China or Pakistan all that much. The western European plans will be interesting- I believe significant infrastructure projects and new links are planned right through to Rotterdam. Might give some European countries a bit more hesitation in following the US line on voting at the UN ultimately. Heh- just remembered that the High Speed Rail Line between London and the Channel Tunnel is already owned by a subsidiary company owned ultimately by Li Ka-Shing, the multibillionaire who is a senior economic advisor to the politburo in Beijing. Socratus O' Pericles said: There are two types of people those who have money and those who don't. Guess who always comes out on top. Click to expand... Those who print it! Socratus O' Pericles said: There are two types of people those who have money and those who don't. Guess who always comes out on top. Click to expand... Yes two types of persons but three types of empire: past, present, and future. It will be future empires that will have the money! Around 90 countries in the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) so it is much different than more recent bilateral engagements by the U.S. Infrastructural projects deliver employment at local level even if it is only housing and feeding the workers. The Belt and Road Initiative: Country Profiles | HKTDC The future will be a bullet train across Europe and Asia. middleground said: Yes two types of persons but three types of empire: past, present, and future. It will be future empires that will have the money! Around 90 countries in the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) so it is much different than more recent bilateral engagements by the U.S. Infrastructural projects deliver employment at local level even if it is only housing and feeding the workers. The Belt and Road Initiative: Country Profiles | HKTDC Click to expand... I agree. The Chinese have money and lots of it and are posseors of a model that will make many trillions more. Exaggeration of THEIR debt problem is nonsense: Most people think of China's growth coming from its burgeoning export sector. But it has a very strong domestic economy and a large public spending program – its called ‘nation building’. ... [T]here is no discussion [in China] about the country drowning in debt and all of that nonsense. [The Chinese] know full well that they are sovereign in their own currency and can deficit spend to further their sense of public purpose." : From "The government really is instrumental in creating growth" by Bill Mitchell, 20 January 2016 Click to expand... Here is the start of the EU strategic response to the Belt Road Initiative: Europes Belt and Road | The Diplomat Reminds me of a man at the post-Christmas sales rush, quietly queueing while all the goods are being snatched up by experienced shoppers Not everyone happy about the possible economic changes that the One Belt Initiative may bring to traditional communities according to a BBC website report: Gunmen have killed at least four people in an attack on the Chinese consulate in the Pakistani port city of Karachi. Gunshots were heard at about 09:30 local time (04:30 GMT) outside the consulate in the upmarket Clifton area. Police shot dead three attackers. Separatist militants who oppose Chinese investment projects in western Pakistan say they carried out the attack. China's ambition widens to include Greenland in the One Belt initiative: How Greenland could become China's Arctic base - BBC News middleground said: Yes two types of persons but three types of empire: past, present, and future. It will be future empires that will have the money! Around 90 countries in the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) so it is much different than more recent bilateral engagements by the U.S. Infrastructural projects deliver employment at local level even if it is only housing and feeding the workers. The Belt and Road Initiative: Country Profiles | HKTDC The future will be a bullet train across Europe and Asia. Click to expand... Except China is a nasty totalitarian dictatorship that eats people up and spits them out. Any comparison between it and western democracies are fraudulent. middleground said: Not everyone happy about the possible economic changes that the One Belt Initiative may bring to traditional communities according to a BBC website report: Gunmen have killed at least four people in an attack on the Chinese consulate in the Pakistani port city of Karachi. Gunshots were heard at about 09:30 local time (04:30 GMT) outside the consulate in the upmarket Clifton area. Police shot dead three attackers. Separatist militants who oppose Chinese investment projects in western Pakistan say they carried out the attack. Click to expand... We have a tale of two ports, 100km apart: Chabahar in Iran, developed with Indian support, and China’s Gwadar port in Pakistan. There are teething troubles with both: https://www.newdelhitimes.com/suicide-bomber-attack-irans-chabahar-port/ Karachi attack: A gunfight in Karachi shakes up Pakistan and China's all-weather alliance - The Economic Times China’s relationship with Pakistan involves a lot more money but also far more resentment. The Pakistanis are well aware of Chinese attitudes to Muslims and South Asians and, given Pakistani levels of paranoia never being much being much below 11/10, we should be in for quite the show. In a way the Belt & Road initiative is really just marketing for what has been going on for a long time. For instance in Africa while the West has long walked away it is China that has stepped in to build infrastructure, power plants, ports, railways and healthcare etc. This has been going on for so long now, that it is what was really behind George W Bush suddenly professing concern over Africa and boosting AIDS spending, if any of you remember that far back. But as usual with the US it was too little, too late, with no strategic long-term commitment and follow-through. In another sense it is an interesting throwback 2000 years to the era of the Roman and Han empires, except with modern technology, telecoms and transport links, which could have interesting and unforeseeable consequences. There's also more than a touch of Mackinder's century-old Heartland/World-Island theory of geo-political dominance. Definitely one to watch - though, as with Mao and the French Revolution, we'll all be long dead before the full implications and consequences of this become obvious. It's way too big and complicated to make specific predictions about the project as a whole. Its success or otherwise will be based on the extent to which the projects service existing demand or create new demand. Chinese infrastructural investment is massively inefficient in some respects and utterly awe-inspiring in other respects. It's hard to apply a hard and fast rule to something that is half-politics and half-economics. However I hope it works out as economic growth on that scale is definitely not a zero sum game. Maybe the U.S. will make it illegal for countries to cooperate together on the Silk road? Congress beating a drum about NOPEC with threat of sanctions against countries that collaborate to work together for a stable oil market: Bill allowing U.S. to sue OPEC drawing renewed interest | Reuters What's next will the EU be sanctioned as an illegal cartel? middleground said: Maybe the U.S. will make it illegal for countries to cooperate together on the Silk road? Congress beating a drum about NOPEC with threat of sanctions against countries that collaborate to work together for a stable oil market: Bill allowing U.S. to sue OPEC drawing renewed interest | Reuters What's next will the EU be sanctioned as an illegal cartel? Click to expand... The US would be outraged by a similar infringement of its own sovereignty.KYIV, Ukraine — NATO and Ukraine will hold emergency talks Tuesday after Russia attacked a central city with an experimental, hypersonic ballistic missile. escalating the nearly 33-month-old war. The conflict is “entering a decisive phase,” Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday, and “taking on very dramatic dimensions.” Ukraine’s parliament canceled a session as security was tightened following Thursday’s Russian strike on a military facility in the city of Dnipro. In a stark warning to the West, President Vladimir Putin said in a nationally televised speech the attack with the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was in retaliation for Kyiv’s use of U.S. and British longer-range missiles capable of striking deeper into Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks Friday during a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense, representatives of the military-industrial complex and developers of missile systems at the Kremlin in Moscow. Putin said Western air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile. Ukrainian military officials said the missile that hit Dnipro reached a speed of Mach 11 and carried six nonnuclear warheads, each releasing six submunitions. Speaking Friday to military and weapons industries officials, Putin said Russia will launch production of the Oreshnik. “No one in the world has such weapons,” he said. “Sooner or later, other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are under development. “We have this system now,” he added. “And this is important.” Putin said that while it isn’t an intercontinental missile, it’s so powerful that the use of several of them fitted with conventional warheads in one attack could be as devastating as a strike with strategic — or nuclear — weapons. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, said the Oreshnik could reach targets across Europe and be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads, echoing Putin’s claim that even with conventional warheads, “the massive use of the weapon would be comparable in effect to the use of nuclear weapons.” In this photo taken from a video released Friday, a Russian serviceman operates at an undisclosed location in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov kept up Russia's bellicose tone on Friday, blaming “the reckless decisions and actions of Western countries” in supplying weapons to Ukraine to strike Russia. "The Russian side has clearly demonstrated its capabilities, and the contours of further retaliatory actions in the event that our concerns were not taken into account have also been quite clearly outlined," he said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely seen as having the warmest relations with the Kremlin in the European Union, echoed Moscow’s talking points, suggesting the use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Ukraine likely requires direct American involvement. “These are rockets that are fired and then guided to a target via an electronic system, which requires the world’s most advanced technology and satellite communications capability,” Orbán said on state radio. “There is a strong assumption ... that these missiles cannot be guided without the assistance of American personnel.” Orbán cautioned against underestimating Russia’s responses, emphasizing that the country’s recent modifications to its nuclear deployment doctrine should not be dismissed as a “bluff.” “It’s not a trick ... there will be consequences,” he said. Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky speaks to journalists Friday during a joint news conference with Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andriiy Sybiha in Kyiv, Ukraine. Separately in Kyiv, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský called Thursday’s missile strike an “escalatory step and an attempt of the Russian dictator to scare the population of Ukraine and to scare the population of Europe.” At a news conference with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Lipavský also expressed his full support for delivering the necessary additional air defense systems to protect Ukrainian civilians from the “heinous attacks.” He said the Czech Republic will impose no limits on the use of its weapons and equipment given to Ukraine. Three lawmakers from Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, confirmed that Friday's previously scheduled session was called off due to the ongoing threat of Russian missiles targeting government buildings in central Kyiv. In addition, there also was a recommendation to limit the work of all commercial offices and nongovernmental organizations "in that perimeter, and local residents were warned of the increased threat,” said lawmaker Mykyta Poturaiev, who said it's not the first time such a threat has been received. Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate said the Oreshnik missile was fired from the Kapustin Yar 4th Missile Test Range in Russia’s Astrakhan region and flew 15 minutes before striking Dnipro. Test launches of a similar missile were conducted in October 2023 and June 2024, the directorate said. The Pentagon confirmed the missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate-range missile based on its RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. Thursday's attack struck the Pivdenmash plant that built ICBMs when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The military facility is located about 4 miles southwest of the center of Dnipro, a city of about 1 million that is Ukraine’s fourth-largest and a key hub for military supplies and humanitarian aid, and is home to one of the country’s largest hospitals for treating wounded soldiers from the front before their transfer to Kyiv or abroad. We're all going to die someday. Still, how it happens—and when—can point to a historical moment defined by the scientific advancements and public health programs available at the time to contain disease and prevent accidents. In the early 1900s, America's efforts to improve sanitation, hygiene, and routine vaccinations were still in their infancy. Maternal and infant mortality rates were high, as were contagious diseases that spread between people and animals. Combined with the devastation of two World Wars—and the Spanish Flu pandemic in between—the leading causes of death changed significantly after this period. So, too, did the way we diagnose and control the spread of disease. Starting with reforms as part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, massive-scale, federal interventions in the U.S. eventually helped stave off disease transmission. It took comprehensive government programs and the establishment of state and local health agencies to educate the public on preventing disease transmission. Seemingly simple behavioral shifts, such as handwashing, were critical in thwarting the spread of germs, much like discoveries in medicine, such as vaccines, and increased access to deliver them across geographies. Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 56% and is estimated to keep increasing slightly, according to an annual summary of vital statistics published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000. Death Records examined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to see how the leading causes of death in America have evolved over time and to pinpoint how some major mortality trends have dropped off. According to a report published in the journal Annual Review of Public Health in 2000, pneumonia was the leading cause of death in the early 1900s, accounting for nearly 1 in 4 deaths. By the time World War I ended in 1918, during which people and animals were housed together for long periods, a new virus emerged: the Spanish Flu. Originating in a bird before spreading to humans, the virus killed 10 times as many Americans as the war. Many died of secondary pneumonia after the initial infection. Pneumonia deaths eventually plummeted throughout the century, partly prevented by increased flu vaccine uptake rates in high-risk groups, particularly older people. Per the CDC, tuberculosis was a close second leading cause of death, killing 194 of every 10,000 people in 1900, mainly concentrated in dense urban areas where the infection could more easily spread. Eventually, public health interventions led to drastic declines in mortality from the disease, such as public education, reducing crowded housing, quarantining people with active disease, improving hygiene, and using antibiotics. Once the death rates lagged, so did the public health infrastructure built to control the disease, leading to a resurgence in the mid-1980s. Diarrhea was the third leading cause of death in 1900, surging every summer among children before the impacts of the pathogen died out in 1930. Adopting water filtration, better nutrition, and improved refrigeration were all associated with its decline. In the 1940s and 1950s, polio outbreaks killed or paralyzed upward of half a million people worldwide every year. Even at its peak, polio wasn't a leading cause of death, it was a much-feared one, particularly among parents of young children, some of whom kept them from crowded public places and interacting with other children. By 1955, when Jonah Salk discovered the polio vaccine, the U.S. had ended the "golden age of medicine." During this period, the causes of mortality shifted dramatically as scientists worldwide began to collaborate on infectious disease control, surgical techniques, vaccines, and other drugs. From the 1950s onward, once quick-spreading deadly contagions weren't prematurely killing American residents en masse, scientists also began to understand better how to diagnose and treat these diseases. As a result, Americans were living longer lives and instead succumbing to noncommunicable diseases, or NCDs. The risk of chronic diseases increased with age and, in some cases, was exacerbated by unhealthy lifestyles. Cancer and heart disease shot up across the century, increasing 90-fold from 1900 to 1998, according to CDC data. Following the post-Spanish Flu years, heart disease killed more Americans than any other cause, peaking in the 1960s and contributing to 1 in 3 deaths. Cigarette smoking rates peaked at the same time, a major risk factor for heart disease. Obesity rates also rose, creating another risk factor for heart disease and many types of cancers. This coincides with the introduction of ultra-processed foods into diets, which plays a more significant role in larger waistlines than the increasing predominance of sedentary work and lifestyles. In the early 1970s, deaths from heart disease began to fall as more Americans prevented and managed their risk factors, like quitting smoking or taking blood pressure medicine. However, the disease remains the biggest killer of Americans. Cancer remains the second leading cause of death and rates still indicate an upward trajectory over time. Only a few types of cancer are detected early by screening, and some treatments for aggressive cancers like glioblastoma—the most common type of brain cancer—have also stalled, unable to improve prognosis much over time. In recent years, early-onset cancers, those diagnosed before age 50 or sometimes even earlier, have seen a drastic rise among younger Americans. While highly processed foods and sedentary lifestyles may contribute to rising rates, a spike in cancer rates among otherwise healthy young individuals has baffled some medical professionals. This follows the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. At its peak, high transmission rates made the virus the third leading cause of death in America. It's often compared to the Spanish Flu of 1918, though COVID-19 had a far larger global impact, spurring international collaborations among scientists who developed a vaccine in an unprecedented time. Public policy around issues of safety and access also influences causes of death, particularly—and tragically—among young Americans. Gun control measures in the U.S. are far less stringent than in peer nations; compared to other nations, however, the U.S. leads in gun violence. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens (around 2 in 3 are homicides, and 1 in 3 are suicides), and deaths from opioids remain a leading cause of death among younger people. Globally, the leading causes of death mirror differences in social and geographic factors. NCDs are primarily associated with socio-economic status and comprise 7 out of 10 leading causes of death, 85% of those occurring in low- and middle-income countries, according to the World Health Organization. However, one of the best health measures is life expectancy at birth. People in the U.S. have been living longer lives since 2000, except for a slight dip in longevity due to COVID-19. According to the most recent CDC estimates, Americans' life expectancy is 77.5 years on average and is expected to increase slightly in the coming decades. Story editing by Alizah Salario. Additional editing by Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick. This story originally appeared on Death Records and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio. Get local news delivered to your inbox!
Merab Dvalishvili names date for Petr Yan world title rematch after his win over Deiveson Figueiredo at UFC MacauWASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is expected to announce that it will send $1.25 billion in military assistance to Ukraine, U.S. officials said Friday, as the Biden administration pushes to get as much aid to Kyiv as possible before leaving office on Jan. 20. The large package of aid includes a significant amount of munitions, including for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems and the HAWK air defense system. It also will provide Stinger missiles and 155 mm- and 105 mm artillery rounds, officials said. The officials, who said they expect the announcement to be made on Monday, spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The new aid comes as Russia has launched a barrage of attacks against Ukraine’s power facilities in recent days, although Ukraine has said it intercepted a significant number of the missiles and drones. Russian and Ukrainian forces are also still in a bitter battle around the Russian border region of Kursk, where Moscow has sent thousands of North Korean troops to help reclaim territory taken by Ukraine. Earlier this month, senior defense officials acknowledged that that the Defense Department may not be able to send all of the remaining $5.6 billion in Pentagon weapons and equipment stocks passed by Congress for Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in. Trump has talked about getting some type of negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia, and spoken about his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Many U.S. and European leaders are concerned that it might result in a poor deal for Ukraine and they worry that he won't provide Ukraine with all the weapons funding approved by Congress. The aid in the new package is in presidential drawdown authority, which allows the Pentagon to take weapons off the shelves and send them quickly to Ukraine. This latest assistance would reduce the remaining amount to about $4.35 billion. Officials have said they hope that an influx of aid will help strengthen Ukraine’s hand, should Zelenskyy decide it’s time to negotiate. One senior defense official said that while the U.S. will continue to provide weapons to Ukraine until Jan. 20, there may well be funds remaining that will be available for the incoming Trump administration to spend. According to the Pentagon, there is also about $1.2 billion remaining in longer-term funding through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which is used to pay for weapons contracts that would not be delivered for a year or more. Officials have said the administration anticipates releasing all of that money before the end of the calendar year. If the new package is included, the U.S. has provided more than $64 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since Russia invaded in February 2022.
KYIV, Ukraine — NATO and Ukraine will hold emergency talks Tuesday after Russia attacked a central city with an experimental, hypersonic ballistic missile. escalating the nearly 33-month-old war. The conflict is “entering a decisive phase,” Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday, and “taking on very dramatic dimensions.” Ukraine’s parliament canceled a session as security was tightened following Thursday’s Russian strike on a military facility in the city of Dnipro. In a stark warning to the West, President Vladimir Putin said in a nationally televised speech the attack with the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile was in retaliation for Kyiv’s use of U.S. and British longer-range missiles capable of striking deeper into Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks Friday during a meeting with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defense, representatives of the military-industrial complex and developers of missile systems at the Kremlin in Moscow. Putin said Western air defense systems would be powerless to stop the new missile. Ukrainian military officials said the missile that hit Dnipro reached a speed of Mach 11 and carried six nonnuclear warheads, each releasing six submunitions. Speaking Friday to military and weapons industries officials, Putin said Russia will launch production of the Oreshnik. “No one in the world has such weapons,” he said. “Sooner or later, other leading countries will also get them. We are aware that they are under development. “We have this system now,” he added. “And this is important.” Putin said that while it isn’t an intercontinental missile, it’s so powerful that the use of several of them fitted with conventional warheads in one attack could be as devastating as a strike with strategic — or nuclear — weapons. Gen. Sergei Karakayev, head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, said the Oreshnik could reach targets across Europe and be fitted with nuclear or conventional warheads, echoing Putin’s claim that even with conventional warheads, “the massive use of the weapon would be comparable in effect to the use of nuclear weapons.” In this photo taken from a video released Friday, a Russian serviceman operates at an undisclosed location in Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov kept up Russia's bellicose tone on Friday, blaming “the reckless decisions and actions of Western countries” in supplying weapons to Ukraine to strike Russia. "The Russian side has clearly demonstrated its capabilities, and the contours of further retaliatory actions in the event that our concerns were not taken into account have also been quite clearly outlined," he said. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely seen as having the warmest relations with the Kremlin in the European Union, echoed Moscow’s talking points, suggesting the use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Ukraine likely requires direct American involvement. “These are rockets that are fired and then guided to a target via an electronic system, which requires the world’s most advanced technology and satellite communications capability,” Orbán said on state radio. “There is a strong assumption ... that these missiles cannot be guided without the assistance of American personnel.” Orbán cautioned against underestimating Russia’s responses, emphasizing that the country’s recent modifications to its nuclear deployment doctrine should not be dismissed as a “bluff.” “It’s not a trick ... there will be consequences,” he said. Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Jan Lipavsky speaks to journalists Friday during a joint news conference with Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andriiy Sybiha in Kyiv, Ukraine. Separately in Kyiv, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský called Thursday’s missile strike an “escalatory step and an attempt of the Russian dictator to scare the population of Ukraine and to scare the population of Europe.” At a news conference with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, Lipavský also expressed his full support for delivering the necessary additional air defense systems to protect Ukrainian civilians from the “heinous attacks.” He said the Czech Republic will impose no limits on the use of its weapons and equipment given to Ukraine. Three lawmakers from Ukraine's parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, confirmed that Friday's previously scheduled session was called off due to the ongoing threat of Russian missiles targeting government buildings in central Kyiv. In addition, there also was a recommendation to limit the work of all commercial offices and nongovernmental organizations "in that perimeter, and local residents were warned of the increased threat,” said lawmaker Mykyta Poturaiev, who said it's not the first time such a threat has been received. Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate said the Oreshnik missile was fired from the Kapustin Yar 4th Missile Test Range in Russia’s Astrakhan region and flew 15 minutes before striking Dnipro. Test launches of a similar missile were conducted in October 2023 and June 2024, the directorate said. The Pentagon confirmed the missile was a new, experimental type of intermediate-range missile based on its RS-26 Rubezh intercontinental ballistic missile. Thursday's attack struck the Pivdenmash plant that built ICBMs when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. The military facility is located about 4 miles southwest of the center of Dnipro, a city of about 1 million that is Ukraine’s fourth-largest and a key hub for military supplies and humanitarian aid, and is home to one of the country’s largest hospitals for treating wounded soldiers from the front before their transfer to Kyiv or abroad. We're all going to die someday. Still, how it happens—and when—can point to a historical moment defined by the scientific advancements and public health programs available at the time to contain disease and prevent accidents. In the early 1900s, America's efforts to improve sanitation, hygiene, and routine vaccinations were still in their infancy. Maternal and infant mortality rates were high, as were contagious diseases that spread between people and animals. Combined with the devastation of two World Wars—and the Spanish Flu pandemic in between—the leading causes of death changed significantly after this period. So, too, did the way we diagnose and control the spread of disease. Starting with reforms as part of Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, massive-scale, federal interventions in the U.S. eventually helped stave off disease transmission. It took comprehensive government programs and the establishment of state and local health agencies to educate the public on preventing disease transmission. Seemingly simple behavioral shifts, such as handwashing, were critical in thwarting the spread of germs, much like discoveries in medicine, such as vaccines, and increased access to deliver them across geographies. Over the course of the 20th century, life expectancy increased by 56% and is estimated to keep increasing slightly, according to an annual summary of vital statistics published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2000. Death Records examined data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to see how the leading causes of death in America have evolved over time and to pinpoint how some major mortality trends have dropped off. According to a report published in the journal Annual Review of Public Health in 2000, pneumonia was the leading cause of death in the early 1900s, accounting for nearly 1 in 4 deaths. By the time World War I ended in 1918, during which people and animals were housed together for long periods, a new virus emerged: the Spanish Flu. Originating in a bird before spreading to humans, the virus killed 10 times as many Americans as the war. Many died of secondary pneumonia after the initial infection. Pneumonia deaths eventually plummeted throughout the century, partly prevented by increased flu vaccine uptake rates in high-risk groups, particularly older people. Per the CDC, tuberculosis was a close second leading cause of death, killing 194 of every 10,000 people in 1900, mainly concentrated in dense urban areas where the infection could more easily spread. Eventually, public health interventions led to drastic declines in mortality from the disease, such as public education, reducing crowded housing, quarantining people with active disease, improving hygiene, and using antibiotics. Once the death rates lagged, so did the public health infrastructure built to control the disease, leading to a resurgence in the mid-1980s. Diarrhea was the third leading cause of death in 1900, surging every summer among children before the impacts of the pathogen died out in 1930. Adopting water filtration, better nutrition, and improved refrigeration were all associated with its decline. In the 1940s and 1950s, polio outbreaks killed or paralyzed upward of half a million people worldwide every year. Even at its peak, polio wasn't a leading cause of death, it was a much-feared one, particularly among parents of young children, some of whom kept them from crowded public places and interacting with other children. By 1955, when Jonah Salk discovered the polio vaccine, the U.S. had ended the "golden age of medicine." During this period, the causes of mortality shifted dramatically as scientists worldwide began to collaborate on infectious disease control, surgical techniques, vaccines, and other drugs. From the 1950s onward, once quick-spreading deadly contagions weren't prematurely killing American residents en masse, scientists also began to understand better how to diagnose and treat these diseases. As a result, Americans were living longer lives and instead succumbing to noncommunicable diseases, or NCDs. The risk of chronic diseases increased with age and, in some cases, was exacerbated by unhealthy lifestyles. Cancer and heart disease shot up across the century, increasing 90-fold from 1900 to 1998, according to CDC data. Following the post-Spanish Flu years, heart disease killed more Americans than any other cause, peaking in the 1960s and contributing to 1 in 3 deaths. Cigarette smoking rates peaked at the same time, a major risk factor for heart disease. Obesity rates also rose, creating another risk factor for heart disease and many types of cancers. This coincides with the introduction of ultra-processed foods into diets, which plays a more significant role in larger waistlines than the increasing predominance of sedentary work and lifestyles. In the early 1970s, deaths from heart disease began to fall as more Americans prevented and managed their risk factors, like quitting smoking or taking blood pressure medicine. However, the disease remains the biggest killer of Americans. Cancer remains the second leading cause of death and rates still indicate an upward trajectory over time. Only a few types of cancer are detected early by screening, and some treatments for aggressive cancers like glioblastoma—the most common type of brain cancer—have also stalled, unable to improve prognosis much over time. In recent years, early-onset cancers, those diagnosed before age 50 or sometimes even earlier, have seen a drastic rise among younger Americans. While highly processed foods and sedentary lifestyles may contribute to rising rates, a spike in cancer rates among otherwise healthy young individuals has baffled some medical professionals. This follows the COVID-19 pandemic that began in 2020. At its peak, high transmission rates made the virus the third leading cause of death in America. It's often compared to the Spanish Flu of 1918, though COVID-19 had a far larger global impact, spurring international collaborations among scientists who developed a vaccine in an unprecedented time. Public policy around issues of safety and access also influences causes of death, particularly—and tragically—among young Americans. Gun control measures in the U.S. are far less stringent than in peer nations; compared to other nations, however, the U.S. leads in gun violence. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children and teens (around 2 in 3 are homicides, and 1 in 3 are suicides), and deaths from opioids remain a leading cause of death among younger people. Globally, the leading causes of death mirror differences in social and geographic factors. NCDs are primarily associated with socio-economic status and comprise 7 out of 10 leading causes of death, 85% of those occurring in low- and middle-income countries, according to the World Health Organization. However, one of the best health measures is life expectancy at birth. People in the U.S. have been living longer lives since 2000, except for a slight dip in longevity due to COVID-19. According to the most recent CDC estimates, Americans' life expectancy is 77.5 years on average and is expected to increase slightly in the coming decades. Story editing by Alizah Salario. Additional editing by Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Paris Close. Photo selection by Lacy Kerrick. This story originally appeared on Death Records and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio. Get local news delivered to your inbox!Arizona WR Tetairoa McMillan to enter 2025 NFL DraftImmigrant rights groups fear harsh policies and potential legal pressure could accelerate in second Trump term. As Donald Trump prepares for his return to the White House on January 20, immigrant rights groups are bracing in anticipation of a crackdown promised by the president-elect and his allies. With hardliners like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan selected for key positions related to immigration, humanitarian groups in both the United States and Mexico say they are determined to press forward with their work, but have no illusions about the challenges ahead. “I’m expecting it to be exponentially worse than the first term,” Erika Pinheiro, director of the immigrant rights group Al Otro Lado, told Al Jazeera. “I think political persecution is going to be supercharged,” she added, saying she believes rights groups will face spurious legal challenges meant to take up time and resources. Interviews, campaign speeches and policies floated by Trump and his advisers suggest an ambition to fundamentally reshape the US immigration landscape, with a blitz campaign of mass deportations as well as potential attacks on longstanding rights such as birthright citizenship. While rights groups say they are prepared to challenge such efforts, they also concede that a second Trump administration will be bolstered by a popular election victory and Republican majorities in Congress, along with experience gained from battles on immigration during Trump’s first term in office. Mass deportations Several immigrant rights groups that spoke with Al Jazeera said that not all of Trump’s plans for a second term are clear, but all agreed that one effort, in particular, would be front and centre come January: a campaign to round up and deport large numbers of undocumented people living in the United States. Advisers such as Miller , an architect of policies such as the ‘ Muslim Ban ’ and a “zero-tolerance policy for criminal illegal entry” – which intentionally separated migrant parents from their children during Trump’s first term – have suggested that the number of undocumented people could be in the millions. “He [Trump] seems far more prepared than in his first term,” Vicki Gaubeca, associate director of US immigration and border policy at Human Rights Watch, told Al Jazeera. “He’s stated over and over again that his day one agenda will be to carry out mass deportations, so we’re fully expecting to see that,” she added, noting that it remains to be seen how the administration will muster the resources necessary to carry out such a large-scale plan. Miller, who was recently named as Trump’s deputy chief of staff, has previously said that such an effort would include using the armed forces and national guard units and will come in the form of a blitz meant to disorient rights groups. Trump himself recently stated that a national emergency would be declared and the military mobilised to help facilitate deportations. “Any activists who doubt President Trump’s resolve in the slightest are making a drastic error,” Miller told The New York Times in November 2023, adding that Trump would use a “vast arsenal” of federal powers to carry out sweeping deportations. “The immigration legal activists won’t know what’s happening,” he added. Legal concerns Several activists and organisations also expressed concern that humanitarian work at the border and assistance for undocumented people could itself come under growing pressure. “We are not terrorists, we are not promoting irregular migration. We’re trying to help people and save lives. Putting water in the desert is not a crime. Humanitarian aid is not a crime. But they can turn it into one, if they choose,” Dora Rodriguez, a humanitarian worker who does work on both sides of the border near Tucson, Arizona, told Al Jazeera. “But these are my morals. These are my duties,” she added. “You have to find the courage.” Others said that a series of investigations launched by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against immigrant rights groups such as the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center could serve as a template for increased prosecution. Paxton also led an effort to shut down a migrant shelter in El Paso, arguing that offering assistance to people suspected of being undocumented was equivalent to human smuggling. “I’m looking to Texas as a premonition of what’s coming,” Pinheiro, the director of Al Otro Lado, said. “Groups that work on both sides of the border are being accused of facilitating migration.” “I expect some of us will face criminal prosecution in the coming years. We’re very careful to follow the letter of the law. But these are bogus lawsuits. What can you do to prepare for that?” she added. Activists in Arizona, one of four US states that share a border with Mexico, say they are also concerned. During the first Trump term, a humanitarian volunteer named Scott Warren with the group No More Deaths faced felony charges for providing assistance to undocumented people at an aid station in the desert. The group sets up such facilities to offer food, water and medical assistance to stranded migrants whose lives are often at risk after travelling through inhospitable terrain for days at a time. Warren was acquitted in 2019, but activists fear that such efforts may soon return. “Under Trump, we expect Border Patrol and [anti-immigrant] militia groups to be more emboldened than ever and to operate with more impunity than ever, as we saw under Trump’s first term,” No More Deaths said in a statement shared with Al Jazeera. “But we will not back down from our mission and our work.” ‘You need to prepare yourselves’ Rights groups are trying to ready themselves for Trump’s return to the White House, and advise members of their communities to do the same. “We’re gearing up for whatever may come,” Father Pat Murphy, director of the Casa Del Migrante shelter in the Mexican border city of Tijuana, told Al Jazeera. He hopes the Mexican government will do more to help humanitarian organisations on the Mexican side of the border overwhelmed by the strain that would accompany mass deportations. “There are always going to be people who are trying to come. They feel they have no alternative but to try to cross into the US,” he added. “Some make it, others don’t.” Rodriguez, the humanitarian worker in Arizona, said she has seen an increase in anxiety among families in the US with undocumented members. In a recent television interview, Homan, the border tsar, was asked if there was any way to conduct mass deportations without splitting up families . Many immigrant families are “mixed status”, meaning that some may have legal status while others may not. “Of course there is,” said Homan. “Families can be deported together.” “There are people who have been here for 20 or 30 years and have no criminal records, and they still feel terrified that they will be taken away from their families,” said Rodriguez. “We are telling people in our communities, ‘You need to know your rights, you need to know what to do if a family member is arrested, you need to prepare yourselves.’”