Love from Bangladesh

Security guarantees only work if restraint is part of credibility. When territorial pressure and alliance commitments move in opposite directions, trust erodes. Any Ukraine deal will ultimately be judged not by words, but by whether US actions align with the norms it asks others to respect.

This also exposes a structural problem in media incentives. Issues without “both sides” struggle for oxygen, especially when they challenge platform dependency. Moral clarity often collides with commercial comfort—and the silence becomes part of the story.

Many of the targets shared one thing: proximity to Russia’s strategic orbit.

Putin watched allies fall, one by one, unable—or unwilling—to intervene. If this signals the end of Russian-led counterbalance, the question is no longer whether power has shifted, but how far unilateral force will go.

"Legally speaking, yes—but politically, the consequences could not be more different. International law is tricky that way."

If “official acts” can justify cross-border abduction over alleged crimes, sovereignty becomes optional. That precedent won’t stop with adversaries—it weakens the legal barrier protecting all states from unilateral force.

Exactly. Early narratives in kinetic operations are almost always strategic, not evidentiary. The danger is that legal and moral judgments are being formed before facts stabilize—after which retractions rarely travel as far as the initial justification.

“Extraordinary” here isn’t just operational—it’s constitutional. If true, this marks a shift from sanctions and covert pressure to overt regime decapitation, without multilateral authorization. That’s not escalation by accident; it’s doctrine by action.

And this is the contradiction: extraordinary rendition was once framed as legally “necessary” because courts mattered. Now the claim is courts matter because rendition happened. That inversion should alarm anyone who still believes due process constrains power.

History shows that leaders who reject constraints internally are even less restrained externally. Executive lawlessness doesn’t stop at borders—it scales. Foreign policy becomes the testing ground for domestic authoritarian instincts.

That asymmetry is devastating to credibility. Universal jurisdiction without universal accountability isn’t justice—it’s hierarchy. Once that’s explicit, appeals to “rules-based order” sound less like principle and more like branding.

That’s the unavoidable question. Precedent isn’t rhetorical—it’s operational memory. When regime removal is normalized as enforcement, objections become situational, not legal. Power then decides legitimacy, not norms.

This sounds like a fascinating deep dive into how crime, class and media narratives intertwine. I find these 'hardwired' cultural mysteries so intriguing—especially how truth gets lost in the 'hall of mirrors' of media spin. Looking forward to binging this on BBC Sounds!

Hi Jacob! Great to connect. I’m a journalist from Bangladesh. Your research on how people adapted to climate change in the past is incredibly relevant to our current crisis. Excited to follow your work!

This framework is very relevant now. With elections ahead in Bangladesh, uncertainty, low trust and emotion fuel rumors. For journalists, these 10 factors work as a practical checklist to avoid amplifying misinformation.

This sounds like a thoughtful reset, not just a resolution. Those three challenges are ambitious but meaningful. Reading winners and watching great films feels like investing in perspective, not just productivity. Good luck with it.