BERITA LATEST (HARI INI) PANDEMIK BULI-MEMBULI, LIWAT, PUKUL SAMPAI MATI

 

OutSyed The Box

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

BERITA LATEST (HARI INI) PANDEMIK BULI-MEMBULI, LIWAT, PUKUL SAMPAI MATI : 'Mereka tutup mata anak saya, aniaya lebih sejam' - Ibu dakwa anak dipukul pelajar senior sekolah agama di Rompin

 

ibu bapa lain maklumkan beberapa pelajar pernah diserang pelajar senior
tidak pernah didedahkan pihak sekolah
pihak sekolah memilih untuk menyembunyikan perkara berkenaan

BERITA LATEST HARI INI PANDEMIK BULI-MEMBULI, LIWAT, PUKUL SAMPAI MATI :    'Mereka tutup mata anak saya, aniaya lebih sejam' - Ibu dakwa anak dipukul pelajar senior sekolah agama di Rompin

1. Harian Metro

'Mereka tutup mata anak saya, aniaya lebih sejam' 
pihak sekolah gagal siasat perkara itu walaupun sudah dimaklumkan 
pihak sekolah, pengetua, warden asrama tidak mengambil langkah sewajarnya
anak lelaki berusia 14 tahun diserang pelajar senior 
gunakan batang penyapu di sekolah menengah agama di Rompin, minggu lalu
kejadian berlaku 12 Sept lalu, 5 pelajar senior menutup mata anak saya 
tumbuk perut, tendang belakang, tampar muka, pukul dengan batang penyapu
Mereka menganiayainya selama lebih sejam 
ugut untuk cederakannya dengan pisau lipat, sekeping kaca
anaknya maklumkan kepada pengurusan sekolah, tiada tindakan diambil
pelajar senior merancang 'serangan' lagi 
anaknya hubungi bapanya menggunakan telefon awam 16 Sept 
warden asrama kata tidak perlu datang ke sekolah kerana perkara selesai
saya terkejut melihat badan dan tangan anak saya dipenuhi lebam
Saya buat laporan polis pada 17 Sept dan bawa anak saya ke hospital 
ibu bapa lain maklumkan beberapa pelajar pernah diserang pelajar senior
tidak pernah didedahkan pihak sekolah
pihak sekolah memilih untuk menyembunyikan perkara berkenaan
Polis Rompin kata lima pelajar ditahan
tiga suspek Tingkatan Lima dan dua Tingkatan Empat
siasatan mengikut Seksyen 147 Kanun Keseksaan 
hukuman penjara maksimum dua tahun, denda, atau kedua-duanya sekali
mangsa mengalami kecederaan akibat serangan 
suspek dibebaskan dengan jaminan polis

2.   The Malay Mail

Mum removes son from Rompin school
seniors blindfolded and beat him for over an hour
police confirm another victim
investigation under Section 147 Penal Code 
2 victims filed complaints of assault by senior students 
religious secondary school in Rompin, Pahang on Sept 17, 2026
KUANTAN, Sept 20 
mother removed 14-yr-old son from religious secondary school in Rompin
assaulted by senior students at hostel last week, Harian Metro reported
school authorities failed to take action despite being informed 
I was shocked to see my son’s body and hands covered in bruises
incident happened on September 12th 
blindfolded son, punched stomach, kicked back, slapped face, hit with broomstick
mistreated him more than an hour 
threatened to hurt him with knife and a piece of glass
her son reported to school management but no action was taken
her son later contacted his father from public telephone on Sept 16 
after learning senior students were planning another attack
she contacted hostel warden, told not to come, matter resolved
police report on Sept 17, took my son to hospital for examination
other parents said several students assaulted by seniors previously
but never been disclosed by school
Fearing for his safety now arranging for him to transfer to another school
Rompin police say five suspects, three Form 5, two Form 4 students
offence carries maximum two-year jail term, fine, or both, upon conviction
Both victims sustained injuries caused by attack
All suspects released on police bail

My Comments:

Rupanya satu lagi kes dalam PANDEMIK BULI-MEMBULI, LIWAT, PUKUL SAMPAI MATI dalam sistem pelajaran negara. Sekarang almost setiap hari ada kes yang dilaporkan oleh media.  Kes yang terkini ini di sekolah agama di Rompin.  Sekolah agama lagi. 

Saya cadangkan, sebagai langkah emergency sahaja, memandangkan begitu banyak kes buli, pukul, liwat, pukul sampai mati yang berlaku di sekolah agama, sekolah tahfiz, sekolah berasrama dsbnya - why not kita tutup buat sementara semua sekolah yang terlibat ini. 

Gaji pengetua sekolah, gaji guru dan tenaga pengajar, gaji warden semua dihentikan buat sementara.  Lets say untuk tempoh tiga bulan. Pelajar pula diuruskan pelajaran mereka cara lain - secara temporary masuk ke sekolah lain yang berhampiran.

Dalam tempoh tiga bulan itu sistem pentadbiran sekolah perlu dioverhaul 100%. Warden dan pengetua sekolah yang cuai ditransfer ke tempat lain. Mungkin ke Pulau Sebatik di Sabah.  Guru baru dibawa masuk untuk mengganti guru yang sudah letih atau tidak bermaya lagi. 

Semua pelajar sekolah dan guru (tanpa kecuali) diwajibkan menjalani kaunseling saikoloji untuk membenam dalam fikiran mereka bahawa menyentuh orang lain - secara fisikal seperti memukul, menendang, tampar muka atau menghina siapa pun dengan sebarang nada suara (lembut atau keras) adalah salah dan tidak mempunyai tempat dalam environment persekolahan. 

Dalam overhaul itu pastikan semua sekolah agama ada peraturan disiplin dan tatacara sekolah yang mesti diikuti oleh semua orang termasuk pelajar dan guru sekolah. Dan sebarang salahlaku atau melanggar peraturan sekolah mesti mempunyai proses dan cara yang rasmi untuk menyelesaikannya. Bukan dengan cara warden dan pengetua tutup dua mata dan membenarkan 'penguatkuasa' pelajar senior pukul pelajar lain.

Jonathan Swift, penulis buku famous Gulliver's Travels dan buku-buku lain sebenarnya adalah seorang social critic yang cuba membawa perubahan positif di Britain melalui tulisan novelnya untuk membuka mata masyarakat terhadap kelemahan dan keburukan di Britain pada masa itu. 

Contohnya Swift pernah  mencadangkan, dengan sindiran yang sengaja dibuat secara mengerikan, bahawa keluarga Ireland yang miskin kebuluran (pada masa itu) boleh menyelesaikan masalah ekonomi mereka dengan menjual bayi mereka sebagai makanan kepada golongan kaya di England. Tujuannya adalah untuk mendedahkan apa yang dilihat oleh Swift sebagai kekejaman dan sikap tidak peduli dasar ekonomi serta politik British terhadap Ireland.

Tapi cadangan saya untuk transfer pengetua dan warden yang cuai ke Pulau Sebatik itu bukan bergurau. Saya bukan Jonathan Swift.   Ini gambar Pulau Sebatik:

JETI UTAMA PULAU SEBATIK. CANTIKNYA. I CAN LIVE HERE PERMANENTLY.

Calculating Iran’s Losses in Op. Epic Fury as CRS Nearly Doubles the U.S. Aircraft Count From 42 to 81

Calculating Iran’s Losses in Op. Epic Fury as CRS Nearly Doubles the U.S. Aircraft Count From 42 to 81

By Sakshi Tiwari
-October 9, 2026


A newly updated Congressional Research Service (CRS) report counts 81 US military aircraft as lost or damaged in the ongoing conflict with Iran. EurAsian Times analyzes the losses Tehran sustained during the ongoing conflict.
Buy Maps



The latest figure is nearly double the 42 aircraft the Congressional Research Service tallied in a May 2026 report, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time.



The jump from 42 to 81 most likely reflects updated reporting and newly available public information.

In addition to the Congress research figures, two other reports published by the Congressional Budget Office and the Pentagon’s inspector general had earlier provided deep insights into the war. The latest CRS report reportedly cited that data.

“As of August 1, 2026, the armed conflict with Iran has cost DoD approximately $38 billion. That amount reflects the costs of replacing expended munitions and equipment lost in battle, increased flying hours, other operations, and increased fuel costs,” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated in the report last month.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s IG report estimated the US campaign cost $33.4 billion between February 28 and June 30, with at least $22.3 billion spent on munitions alone.



Citing information published by the CBO, the latest CRS states that the overall cost of the lost aircraft is between $1.9 billion and $3.3 billion, depending on the Pentagon’s replacement costs. However, CNN News was informed by some unidentified sources that the cost of the war is much higher–at least $45 billion–excluding damage to US infrastructure and bases spread across the Gulf, repeatedly struck by Iranian forces.


The revised losses in the Congress report include manned aircraft, helicopters, and drones, though it clarifies that the total is not a count of destroyed aircraft, adding that some damaged aircraft may have returned to active service after repairs.

It lists 12 F-15E jets as destroyed/damaged, up from four F-15E Strike Eagle Fighter jets listed in the May 2026 report. The US lost three F-15E fighters in a friendly-fire incident related to the Kuwait Air Force aircraft, whereas the fourth was downed by Iran using shoulder-mounted air defense systems, as previously noted by the EurAsian Times.

Wreckage of the USAF’s F-15E published by Iranian media after downing the jet in April 2026 (Via X)


Both CBO and IG reports also earlier listed just four F-15E losses. Therefore, the eight F-15Es mentioned in the new report are likely the jets that were damaged in an Iranian strike on the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan in September 2026. Citing an unidentified US official, Reuters earlier reported that Iran had struck an A-10 Warthog, leaving it with a missing wing, while eight F-15s sustained light damage and were returned to service.



The latest list also includes the F-35A, the US Air Force’s most prized and expensive stealth fighter. The CBO report had earlier noted that replacing/repairing the aircraft would cost $120 million, without saying whether it would be written off or repaired.

Although some OSINT observers at the time believed this acknowledged the F-35 loss, others warned that the CBO was only recording the repair cost while leaving room for a potential replacement.


Furthermore, the latest list also reiterates the loss of the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), which was struck and damaged while on the ground at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, during an Iranian missile and drone attack.

However, instead of merely reporting the loss, it expressed concern about losing this highly specialized aircraft and the far-reaching effects it could have on the USAF.



“Congress may assess whether losses in certain high-demand platforms that are aging and limited in number, such as the E-3 Sentry, create capability gaps or increase risk in other theaters,” it stated.

A USAF E-3 Sentry damaged in Iran’s strikes

Notably, the US Air Force has only 16 of these critical AWACS remaining in its inventory, and losing each could disproportionately affect American combat posture in the Western Pacific, where the threat of war with China is never off the table.




Another newly listed loss on the updated CRS is the US Navy’s MH-60S Sea Hawk helicopter, which did not appear in the May 2026 list. On July 1, an MH-60S Sea Hawk from a George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier made an emergency landing in the Arabian Sea, although the Navy ruled out hostile action at the time.

Most of the rise since May is attributed to drones. The report now counts 45 MQ-9 Reapers lost, up from 24 in its May report. This is also a considerable increase from the 30 Reaper losses cited in the IG report. Furthermore, a US Army AH-64 Apache that was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz in June 2026 has also found its name on the list.

Notably, the newly published report raises several issues for Congress to address, including whether the Pentagon provides enough detail about the losses for lawmakers to assess the consequences and potential solutions.


CRS notes that the Department of Defense’s reporting on the losses has been limited or vague, especially since even the September 2026 Lead Inspector General report relied in part on earlier CRS open-source tallies rather than providing a fully independent, comprehensive public accounting.

What Did Iran Lose In The War?

Iranian authorities have offered only limited, selective figures on their own military and civilian casualties and have not published a comprehensive accounting of equipment destroyed during Operation Epic Fury launched by the US in coordination with Israel.

Iran has nothing equivalent to the CRS list. Open-source counts already disagree: one tracker puts Iranian aircraft losses above 90 airframes, mostly transports and tankers, while a narrower documented list counts 43.



Open-source trackers have recorded dozens of Iranian aircraft—combat jets, transports, tankers, trainers, and helicopters—destroyed primarily on the ground at air bases early in the campaign, although a few were downed in air.

In the initial days of the war, two Iranian fighters, a Northrop F-5 and a F-4 Phantom II, were destroyed in an Israeli strike at Tabriz Shahid Madani International Airport. Around the same time, the US destroyed two Iranian Sukhoi Su-22 aircraft at Shiraz Shahid Dastgheib Airport, along with two Lockheed C-130 Hercules and an Il-76 transport aircraft.

CENTCOM released footage of the two Su-22s. Satellite imagery was later cited for the two C-130s and the Il-76 at the same airfield. Further Phantom losses have been reported at the 3rd Tactical Air Base in Hamadan, but not documented to the same standard.

A Qatari Air Force Boeing F-15QA shot down two Iranian low-flying Sukhoi Su-24 tactical bombers on March 2, 2026, after they failed to react to radio warnings.



In the second week of March 2026, Israel said it had destroyed multiple IRIAF F-14 Tomcats in a massive air strike on Isfahan Airport, and 16 aircraft used by the IRGC Quds Force at Mehrabad International Airport were also struck. At the time, experts posited that these strikes may have wiped out the entire Tomcat fleet, particularly since some of these jets had already been destroyed in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran in June 2025.

Historian Tom Cooper estimated that only about 10 Tomcats were flyable when the war began, compared with roughly 35 still listed on paper.

Satellite imagery confirmed at least two, and probably three, destroyed at Isfahan; some higher counts include airframes later described as wooden decoys. Iranian state media released footage on June 10 of an F-14 returning from a mission, so the “fleet finished” claim did not hold.



At Mehrabad, imagery after the Israeli strikes showed damage to at least 17 aircraft, including a Boeing 747 and a Harbin Y-12. Separate open-source lists also record Boeing 707 and 747 tankers destroyed at airfields between March and April.

An Israeli Air Force F-35I “Adir” stealth fighter jet shot down an Iranian YAK-130 aircraft over Tehran on March 4, as the EurAsian Times reported. On March 10, videos documenting the demolition of a Lockheed C-130 Hercules, a Lockheed P-3 Orion, and an Il-76 at Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani Airport in Kerman, Iran, were released by CENTCOM.

Later that month, reports also surfaced of Iranian J-7 fighter jets and Bell 214 helicopters. In addition to these, several Iranian drones–deployed on a large scale–were shot down by US forces, although these were mainly one-way attack platforms.


Those drone losses are the hardest to count. Many were expendable one-way airframes, and neither side has published a reconciled total. Iran also claimed shootdowns of Israeli drones, including Heron and Hermes airframes, in early March; those claims are likewise unreconciled.

Iran has not released an official inventory of destroyed ships, but the sinking of IRIS Dena in the Indian Ocean became one of the starkest and most unforgettable symbols of the US war against Iran, especially since it was the first such sinking since World War Two.

Dena was a Moudge-class frigate, sunk on March 4 about 19 nautical miles off Galle, Sri Lanka, while returning from India’s International Fleet Review. The US said the Los Angeles-class submarine USS Charlotte fired two Mark 48 torpedoes and one hit. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed a US submarine carried out the strike.

Sri Lanka recovered 32 survivors; Iran later put the dead at 104. Some reports said the ship carried no operational armament because of the exercise, and that its Bell 212 was not aboard.

The accurate historical marker is narrower than “first sinking since World War Two”: first ship sunk by a US submarine since 1945, and first submarine sinking in combat since ARA General Belgrano in 1982. India and Sri Lanka both joined the search.

Furthermore, the US forces destroyed 17 Iranian warships, including a submarine, in the early days of the conflict, as the EurAsian Times reported at the time. These numbers likely climbed in the weeks leading up to the April 7 ceasefire and may have risen further after hostilities broke out in July 2026.

In fact, The Aviationist recently published photos of an F-35C that returned from the theatre bearing markings of three submarines, a surface combatant, a Shahed-type drone, an artillery piece, and several ground-based launchers.

Those markings record claimed engagements. They are not a confirmed naval order of battle.

Over the months, US forces have repeatedly endorsed destroying or damaging Iranian Navy and coastal targets, with Donald Trump alleging that the whole force had been wiped out.

Open-source reporting has suggested that a large portion of Iranian air defenses that are part of a meticulously built layered network, including the S-300, Bavar-373, Khorad-15, to name a few, were also destroyed in US and Israeli strikes. Additionally, both the US and Israel claimed to have destroyed several ballistic missile launchers in the initial days.

Israel said one early wave put more than 25 fighters against over 35 missile storage and launch sites around Tabriz and Kermanshah. Without a pre-war inventory or a public battle-damage assessment, none of these claims can be turned into a share of the force destroyed. Mobile launchers are the largest gap: a struck site is not proof the missile was in it.

That said, these figures are not fully confirmed, as Tehran has not officially published its losses.

Nonetheless, despite suffering major losses throughout the war, Iran has survived, dealing a blow to joint US-Israeli aspirations of completely destroying its ballistic missile or even the Nuclear program.

What If The Oil Crisis Gets Much, Much Worse?

QTR’s Fringe Finance


What If The Oil Crisis Gets Much, Much Worse?

I’m talking about a genuine global energy emergency, where oil reaches $150 or even $200 a barrel

Quoth the Raven
23 hours ago



What if the global oil crisis gets much, much worse?

I’m not talking about another $10 move in crude. I’m talking about a genuine global energy emergency, where oil reaches $150 or even $200 a barrel, physical shortages begin shutting down meaningful portions of the global economy, and central banks find themselves confronting an inflationary recession.

I don’t think it is going to happen, but that I think investors would be making a serious mistake to dismiss the possibility entirely. The likely scenario remains some combination of restored shipping, emergency government intervention, reduced demand, and additional supply eventually stabilizing the situation.

But it must be noted…we’re in historically extraordinary territory, and I think it’s worth understanding just how fragile the situation could become if the next major development is another disruption rather than a resolution.

The easiest way to understand the problem is to think about how much oil the world uses and how little room there is for that supply to be interrupted.

Global consumption runs at roughly 100 million barrels per day. That oil powers cars, trucks, airplanes, ships, agricultural equipment, factories, and enormous portions of the world’s transportation and industrial infrastructure. It also provides the raw materials for plastics, chemicals, packaging, and countless manufactured products.

Under normal circumstances, this gigantic system operates almost invisibly. Oil is pumped out of the ground, loaded onto tankers or moved through pipelines, delivered to refineries, and transformed into the fuels and materials that keep the global economy functioning.

If oil cannot be transported from Saudi Arabia to a refinery in Asia, or if a refinery cannot obtain the particular crude it needs, that supply effectively disappears from the market until the problem is resolved.

And that’s exactly the kind of disruption the world has been dealing with. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption normally passes, has become the epicenter of an extraordinary supply crisis. Disruptions to tanker traffic and regional infrastructure have forced producers to shut in output, refiners to scramble for alternative supplies, and governments to draw down inventories to make up the difference.

The International Energy Agency reported that global oil production fell to approximately 100.1 million barrels per day in August, down 1.6 million barrels per day from July. More than 10 million barrels per day of Gulf production had been shut in during August, while observed global inventories declined by approximately 507 million barrels between February and August.

To put that in perspective, that’s more than five days of total global oil consumption effectively disappearing from observed stockpiles over a matter of months. That doesn’t mean the world had only five days of oil left. It means the system was consuming an enormous amount of its accumulated cushion to keep supply flowing.

Think of it like a household that suddenly loses a significant portion of its income. The household can maintain its lifestyle by spending savings for a while, but every month it does so, its financial flexibility deteriorates. Eventually, if income doesn’t recover, spending has to fall.

The global oil market works in much the same way. When production and deliveries cannot keep up with consumption, inventories make up the difference. When those inventories become harder to draw down, prices rise until consumption falls or supply returns.

But the key is…in the oil market, forcing consumption lower can mean forcing actual economic activity to stop.

Governments have already responded with emergency measures of historic proportions. In March, IEA member countries committed to releasing 400 million barrels of emergency petroleum stocks, the largest coordinated release in the organization’s history. By early October, hundreds of millions of barrels had already been released, and the IEA was calling for the remaining pledged supply to be delivered faster, particularly diesel.

It’s worth stopping here to appreciate what that actually means.

Governments have spent decades maintaining emergency oil reserves for circumstances like wars, embargoes, and catastrophic supply disruptions. These reserves aren’t intended to manage ordinary price fluctuations. They’re designed to prevent a temporary interruption in physical supply from bringing major parts of the economy to a halt. And now we’re using them on an unprecedented scale.

But even 400 million barrels, which sounds almost unimaginably large, is equivalent to just four days of total global oil consumption. Of course, the reserves don’t need to replace all consumption, only the missing supply. At a hypothetical shortfall of 10 million barrels per day, 400 million barrels would cover 40 days of that gap. At 20 million barrels per day, it would cover just 20 days.

That’s why these releases are so important, but also why they aren’t a permanent solution. They buy time for shipping routes to reopen, production to recover, and consumption to adjust. They cannot indefinitely replace millions of barrels of lost daily supply.

And emergency reserves aren’t the only measures being deployed. Governments have relaxed certain fuel regulations, redirected available shipments, and taken steps to protect domestic supplies. China has reportedly restricted petroleum-product exports to preserve fuel at home, while some countries have faced localized fuel restrictions and interruptions to industrial operations.

The IEA’s October 7 statement said approximately 325 million barrels had already been released under the March program, with roughly another 100 million barrels of pledged supplies remaining to be delivered. Member countries still held approximately 1.1 billion barrels of publicly controlled emergency stocks, so it’s important not to suggest that the world is literally running out of emergency oil.

But the fact that these measures are being used at all tells you how unusual the situation has become.

And the consequences are already showing up in the real economy. Petrochemical producers in parts of Asia have curtailed output because of shortages of naphtha and other petroleum-derived inputs. Chinese refiners have reduced throughput amid difficulties obtaining certain crude supplies. Airlines have reduced some services as jet fuel costs have surged, and isolated airports have experienced refueling restrictions. Factories in energy-dependent countries such as Bangladesh have faced interruptions linked to broader fuel and natural gas shortages.

These are not all the same kind of shortage, and not all are directly attributable to crude oil. But they’re examples of energy stress beginning to interfere with the production and movement of actual goods and services.

That’s the distinction I think investors need to understand. A company paying more for diesel has a profitability problem. A company that cannot obtain diesel has an operating problem. A chemical manufacturer paying more for feedstock can try to raise prices. A chemical manufacturer that cannot source feedstock may have no choice but to shut down.

The first situation produces inflation and margin compression. The second can destroy economic output entirely.

And now imagine what happens if another major shock hits before the system has recovered.

Suppose a significant Saudi export facility is damaged, another refinery complex goes offline, or tanker traffic through Hormuz deteriorates further. Suppose another 5 million barrels per day becomes unavailable for three months. That’s 450 million barrels of lost supply before accounting for alternative production or reduced consumption. At 10 million barrels per day, the figure rises to 900 million barrels.

Those numbers are enormous relative to the emergency stock releases already underway. And unlike a temporary price spike, physical damage to oil infrastructure can take months or even years to repair.

The danger isn’t that the world suddenly wakes up one morning with no oil. It’s that the market is forced to balance itself through progressively more painful adjustments: reduced flights, less freight movement, lower factory output, curtailed industrial activity, and eventually government intervention to ensure that essential services receive enough fuel.

At that point, a supply disruption stops being merely an energy-market story and becomes a problem for the entire global economy.

Now consider what $150 oil would mean for the economy. For starters, moving from $100 to $150 per barrel represents a 50% increase in crude prices. At roughly 100 million barrels of daily global consumption, that works out to an additional $5 billion per day in the notional cost of oil, or approximately $1.8 trillion annually if sustained for a full year.

That isn’t the same thing as saying the world loses $1.8 trillion of economic output. Oil producers receive much of that money, consumption adjusts, and actual prices differ across contracts and grades. But it gives you some sense of the staggering amount of purchasing power that would be redirected toward energy.

For households, the effect would show up at the gas pump, in utility and transportation costs, and eventually in the price of just about everything that needs to be manufactured or delivered. For businesses, it would show up in higher operating expenses, shrinking margins, and consumers who suddenly have less money to spend on anything besides necessities.

And diesel could make the situation considerably worse. According to the IEA, diesel and gasoil account for nearly 30% of global oil demand, and U.S. diesel prices on a barrel-equivalent basis exceeded $200 in early September, almost double their prewar level. The agency also reported that Gulf diesel exports in August were barely a quarter of their February level. That’s a particularly nasty problem because diesel is essential to trucking, agriculture, construction, shipping, and industrial activity.

In other words, oil doesn’t have to reach $200 for certain parts of the economy to already be experiencing the equivalent of $200 energy costs.

Imagine what that does to a trucking company operating on thin margins, or a farmer who needs diesel to harvest crops, or a manufacturer whose raw materials are becoming more expensive at the same time its customers are cutting back on spending.

Eventually, those higher costs get passed along to consumers, businesses absorb them through lower profits, or economic activity simply stops making financial sense. And that’s how you wind up with an economy in which inflation is rising while growth is slowing.

The Federal Reserve would find itself in an almost impossible position. Under ordinary circumstances, a recession gives the Fed room to cut interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending. But if oil is at $150 and transportation costs are pushing inflation higher, cutting rates aggressively risks worsening inflation expectations and potentially weakening the dollar. Keeping rates elevated, meanwhile, risks accelerating the slowdown and putting even more pressure on indebted households and businesses.

I’ve written extensively about why I think the bond market is already one of the most vulnerable parts of the global financial system. A sustained oil shock could make that problem much worse. If investors demand higher yields to compensate for inflation, governments would face rising financing costs at the same time economic growth and tax revenue are weakening. Corporations refinancing debt would face the same problem, potentially putting additional pressure on private credit, commercial real estate, and highly leveraged businesses.

There is, of course, another possibility. If the recession becomes severe enough, investors could rush into Treasuries and drive yields lower despite elevated energy prices. That’s why I wouldn’t pretend to know exactly how bonds would respond. But the combination of an inflation shock, weakening growth, and enormous existing debt burdens would create an exceptionally difficult environment for policymakers.

And at $200 oil, particularly if accompanied by physical shortages, the situation could become substantially more dangerous.

'The Nord Stream Pipelines Will Be Relaunched,' Says Right-Wing Polish MEP Braun During Meeting With AfD In Germany

'The Nord Stream Pipelines Will Be Relaunched,' Says Right-Wing Polish MEP Braun During Meeting With AfD In Germany

by Tyler Durden
Friday, Oct 09, 2026 - 06:30 PM


Authored by Remix News Staff via Remix,


Grzegorz Braun, leader of the Confederation of the Polish Crown, spoke in favor of restarting the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines during a meeting Wednesday with politicians from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in Lubmin. He said Poland should be a shareholder in the German-Russian project.

Grzegorz Braun (first from the left) spoke together with AfD politicians in Lubmin, where the Nord Stream infrastructure is located. (Source: X /Confederation of the Polish Crown)

"Nord Stream 1, and probably Nord Stream 2 as well, will be relaunched. Russian gas will flow to the West," Braun said. He said Europe needs Russian raw materials and that their absence could have serious consequences for the economy.

Braun argued that Poland should not be excluded from future energy projects concerning Russian gas supplies. "Poland should participate, not boycott. Poland should be the initiator," he said. He also proposed that Warsaw become a shareholder in Nord Stream.

Podczas roboczej wizyty w #Lubmin w Niemczech poseł do Parlamentu Europejskiego @GrzegorzBraun_, poseł na Sejm RP @Roman_Korona i dr @Slawomir_Ozdyk (Konfederacja @KoronyPolskiej) spotkali się z posłem do Bundestagu @SteffenKotre (AfD) oraz posłami do Landtagu Meklemburgii-Pomorza Przedniego z ramienia @AfD - Stephanem Reukenem i @Kevin_Kurtze.— Konfederacja Korony Polskiej (@KoronyPolskiej) October 7, 2026

He also said that if Russian gas returns to Europe, Poland could lose economically if the supplies bypass its territory. In his view, Warsaw should seek participation in such energy projects rather than remain outside them.

Braun also spoke of the need to "normalize" and "de-escalate" relations and economic cooperation among Poland, Germany and Russia. He advocated a return to wider use of coal and the ability to buy oil and gas from suppliers offering favorable terms.

The speech took place in Lubmin, the site of the German terminal and infrastructure linked to the Nord Stream pipelines.

Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 were damaged in September 2022 by explosions on the Baltic Sea floor. Nord Stream 1 had been the main route for Russian gas to Germany. Nord Stream 2, though completed, was never launched because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly urged the German government to start supplies through the sole Nord Stream 2 line that survived the blasts. He has said that if the line operates, 27.5 billion cubic meters of gas "will immediately reach Europe."

"Why don't they do it? I just can't understand it. They can receive gas through Ukrainian territory, through TurkStream, but they cannot through the pipeline running along the bottom of the Baltic Sea," Putin said.

"In my opinion, it's crazy, just nonsense. Why? But if they don't want to, fine," Putin said in 2024 at the Vladivostok Economic Forum.

According to U.S. media reports, a group of Ukrainian officers conceived the operation to blow up Nord Stream in May 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky initially approved the plan before he allegedly unsuccessfully tried to cancel it at the CIA's request. Polish connections also appear in press accounts of the Baltic Sea sabotage.

U.S. President Donald Trump said last May that "many people know" who blew up Nord Stream. He added that he was the first to thwart the project.

Trump imposed sanctions on Nord Stream 2 in his first term, significantly slowing construction. President Joe Biden repealed them in 2021 and reimposed them after Russia invaded Ukraine. Germany withheld permission to start the pipeline because of the war.

 An old one but  worth a re-look:

Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, says UN commission of inquiry

This article is more than 1 year old

Report cites scale of killings and aid blockages, and calls on member countries to punish those responsible

Jason Burke and Jon Henley

Wed 17 Sep 2025 01.49 AEST

Prefer the Guardian on Google

A UN commission has found that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, citing tens of thousands of civilian deaths and massive destruction, and has called on member countries to punish those responsible for it.

The United Nations independent international commission of inquiry (COI), which does not speak on behalf of the UN, found that “genocide is occurring in Gaza and is continuing to occur”, said its head, Navi Pillay.

“When clear signs and evidence of genocide emerge, the absence of action to stop it amounts to complicity,” she added. “All states are under a legal obligation to use all means that are reasonably available to them to stop the genocide in Gaza.”

The COI, set up by the UN in 2021 and staffed by three independent experts, cited the killing of civilians and children in a “scorched-earth military strategy”, starvation and deaths caused by restrictions on food and medicines, mistreatment of detainees, forced displacement and the physical devastation of much of the territory to support its finding.

'Our Genocide': How do Israelis feel about the war in Gaza? – video

The COI also accused Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister who has been accused of war crimes by the international criminal court, and other senior Israeli leaders of incitement of genocide, and said there was clear evidence of their genocidal intent, a key legal requirement.

“The commission concludes that statements made by Israeli authorities are direct evidence of genocidal intent … The commission also concludes … that genocidal intent was the only reasonably inference that can be drawn from the totality of the evidence,” Pillay, a former UN human rights chief, told reporters.

Israel’s foreign ministry said it categorically rejected the report and called for the COI to be abolished. Israel’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Daniel Meron, called the report a scandalous and fake “libellous rant” that had been authored by “Hamas proxies”. Israel has declined to cooperate with the COI, accusing it of having a political agenda.

The 72-page report was published as Israel launched a ground offensive in Gaza City after weeks of intense bombardment in and around the territory’s largest urban centre, where about 1 million people have been living, many displaced from other areas of the territory.

The 23-month-long war was triggered in October 2023 when Hamas launched a deadly attack into Israel in which militants killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostage.

So far, the ensuing Israeli offensive has killed nearly 65,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, and injured more than 160,000. Last month, a respected global hunger monitoring group declared a famine in parts of Gaza.

People struggle to get donated food at a community kitchen in Khan Younis on 1 September. Photograph: Abdel Kareem Hana/AP

The independent COI’s analysis is the strongest finding by a UN body to date but its conclusions do not represent the UN’s official position. The world body itself has not yet used the term genocide, but is under growing pressure to do so.

The mathematics of starvation: how Israel caused a famine in Gaza

Read more

UN insiders said on Tuesday that the report would influence key actors within the organisation and member governments but there was little chance that it would be “adopted by the UN in any collective way”.

On Tuesday, Volker Türk, the UN’s high commissioner on human rights, said evidence of a “genocide” unfolding in Gaza was mounting.

“We see the piling up of war crime after war crime after war crime, of crime against humanity, and potentially even more,” Türk said. “It’s for the court to decide whether it’s genocide or not, and we see the evidence mounting.”

Last month, hundreds of Türk’s own staff signed an internal letter telling him to declare Israel’s offensive in Gaza a genocide and to call on UN member states to suspend arms sales to Israel.

Citing as evidence interviews with victims, witnesses and doctors, reporting by media and NGOs as well as satellite imagery analysis compiled since the war began, the COI concluded that Israeli authorities and forces had since October 2023 committed “four of the five genocidal acts” listed in the 1948 genocide convention.

The convention, adopted in the wake of the murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, defines genocide as crimes committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such”.

The report said Israeli leaders had continued with a strategy that inflicted massive harm on civilians despite being aware of the consequences of its choice.

“Israel has used heavy unguided munitions with a wide margin of error in densely populated residential areas … The number of bombs used by Israel since 7 October 2023 is extraordinary even in comparison to other world conflicts,” the report said.

The commission also pointed to deaths and suffering that resulted from attacks on Gaza’s health system and accused Israel of covering up wrongdoing.

People inspect the scale of destruction after al-Ghafri Tower in Gaza City was destroyed by an Israeli attack on Monday. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

The report said explicit statements by Israeli civilian and military authorities, along with the pattern of the conduct of the Israeli forces, “indicated that the genocidal acts were committed with intent to destroy … Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as a group”.

It cited as evidence a letter Netanyahu wrote to Israeli soldiers in November 2023 in which he compared the Gaza operation to what the commission described as a “holy war of total annihilation” in the Hebrew Bible.

Pillay, a former South African judge who has served as a judge at the international criminal court and headed the international tribunal for Rwanda, said the international community “cannot stay silent on the genocidal campaign launched by Israel against the Palestinian people in Gaza”.

Israel has consistently rejected all accusations of genocide, citing its right to self-defence. Last January, the international court of justice ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza. Four months later, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for suspected war crimes and crimes against humanity.