In specification 4, for example, US unilateral sanctions were significant for six age groups, whereas EU unilateral sanctions were not significant in any of the age groups. When we included the six sanctions indicators in the regressions in specification 5 (USA-based, EU-based, and UN-based unilateral and economic sanctions), we continued to find that US sanctions deliver the most significant effects
Not very familiar with how to read the data, but to me, EU sanctions have no really significant impact on mortality in any of these specifications that would allow to construct a hard causality; there is almost no entry for EU sanctions in table 3 where there’s a statistical significance, except for “Child mortality (5–10 years)” in Specifications 3 and 4, where it barely reaches the threshold (p=0.051 and p=0.052); in the latter, the UN sanctions have a MUCH higher correlation.
Not exactly sure how one can come to the conclusion that this is US+EU sanctions when there’s such a difference between those when viewed in isolation… that said, a correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, e.g. let’s say there’s a civil war and the government gets sanctioned, then you do have a correlation between deaths and the sanctions, but it’s the former that caused the latter and not the other way around.
That said, I’m not disagreeing that sanctions can’t have negative effect on a population, in fact it’s the normal people getting hit first because usually the targets of sanctions will make sure it’s their citizens suffering and not themselves
What’s your point? “EU should keep sanctioning people”? Or “Sanctions aren’t mathematically proven to kill people even if there are extremely strong correlations and obvious mechanism through which this happens”?
The actual study and not just the short article is https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext. However, I don’t really find the claim backed that the EU is a major factor in that regard:
Not very familiar with how to read the data, but to me, EU sanctions have no really significant impact on mortality in any of these specifications that would allow to construct a hard causality; there is almost no entry for EU sanctions in table 3 where there’s a statistical significance, except for “Child mortality (5–10 years)” in Specifications 3 and 4, where it barely reaches the threshold (p=0.051 and p=0.052); in the latter, the UN sanctions have a MUCH higher correlation.
Not exactly sure how one can come to the conclusion that this is US+EU sanctions when there’s such a difference between those when viewed in isolation… that said, a correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, e.g. let’s say there’s a civil war and the government gets sanctioned, then you do have a correlation between deaths and the sanctions, but it’s the former that caused the latter and not the other way around.
That said, I’m not disagreeing that sanctions can’t have negative effect on a population, in fact it’s the normal people getting hit first because usually the targets of sanctions will make sure it’s their citizens suffering and not themselves
What’s your point? “EU should keep sanctioning people”? Or “Sanctions aren’t mathematically proven to kill people even if there are extremely strong correlations and obvious mechanism through which this happens”?