Power

On 18 February 2026, reports emerged that Britain was withholding American permission to use Diego Garcia in any hypothetical strike against Iran. The following day, Trump posted “DO NOT GIVE AWAY DIEGO GARCIA” on Truth Social, linking the base directly to potential operations against Tehran in terms that left no room for diplomatic interpretation. The sequence lasted forty-eight hours and revealed what months of careful legal construction had obscured: that the architecture of conditional access Britain had built around a strategically significant military installation was worth precisely what the decisive power chose to make it worth. Whether the intervention also carried tactical signalling toward Tehran is a legitimate question, and intra-alliance friction of this kind sometimes functions as maximalist positioning before settlement. What matters analytically, however, is not the post itself but what the post revealed when operational pressure arrived. It was also, for anyone who had read Washington’s December 2025 National Security Strategy carefully, entirely predictable.

Power Does Not Ask

There are two ways to understand how military power operates in the international system, and the Chagos episode forces a choice between them. The first holds that great powers are meaningfully constrained by the frameworks they inhabit, alliance structures, legal agreements, and diplomatic settlements, and that these frameworks produce stable, predictable behavior even when the underlying interests they were designed to manage come under pressure. The second holds that frameworks are expressions of power relationships at a given moment rather than independent constraints upon them, so that when power shifts or decides to assert itself, the frameworks adjust to reflect the new reality rather than containing it. The first is the language of liberal internationalism. The second is the language of realism, and what February produced was an unambiguous realist moment.

The December 2025 National Security Strategy had already committed this diagnosis to paper. The document did not describe Europe as weak through circumstance. It described Europe as having chosen weakness, identifying a “loss of national identities and self-confidence” as the continent’s defining condition and stating openly that it is “far from obvious whether certain European countries will have economies and militaries strong enough to remain reliable allies.” The strategy framed European concerns about Russia as evidence of that same condition, noting that this lack of self-confidence was most evident in Europe’s relationship with Russia, despite the fact that European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure save nuclear weapons. Washington’s reading of its European partners, formalized two months before the Diego Garcia friction became public, was of states that had systematically preferred institutional solutions over sovereign ones, legal arrangements over unconditional control, and managed conditionality over the exercise of will. Britain’s handling of Chagos was, in that context, not an anomaly. It was a confirmation.

What is analytically significant about Trump’s intervention is not simply that he rejected the deal but that he did not engage it at all, did not address the ICJ ruling that gave it legal foundation, did not contest the lease terms that were its operational expression, and did not enter the diplomatic logic that had produced it over months of negotiation. A decision of this kind does not derive its authority from the framework it overrides, because it precedes that framework, and the framework itself only ever existed on the sufferance of the power now choosing to move against it. When Trump asserted that leases are “no good when it comes to countries,” he was not making a legal argument that could be answered within the same register. He was stating a principle about the nature of sovereign will: that when it moves, it moves prior to and above whatever conditional arrangements were constructed in the period of its dormancy.

This is realism in its purest operational form, in which states pursue interests, great powers pursue interests with the capacity to enforce them, and legal architecture functions as an instrument of power when it serves those interests and an obstacle to be displaced when it does not. The Chagos deal did not alter the underlying power relationship between Washington and London, but it did create a layer of conditionality over an asset Washington considers operationally essential, and when operational pressure arrived, that conditionality became intolerable, not because Mauritius is hostile, not because Britain is an adversary, but because no great power conducting military projection at a global scale can accept that a weak state sits structurally inside the chain of its operational decisions, regardless of how that state arrived there or how benign its intentions are understood to be.

Beneath the realist logic sits a transactional one, and the two reinforce each other in ways that matter for how Britain should read what happened. Trump does not evaluate alliance relationships by their historical depth or their institutional architecture. He evaluates them by what they yield in the current moment, and every asset is a leverage point to be maximized. Diego Garcia represents unconditional American operational value. The Chagos deal reduced that value by inserting a condition. From a transactional perspective, that insertion was not a diplomatic nuance to be managed but a concession to be reversed, because Trump’s governing principle across every alliance relationship is maximum American gain, and conditionality is by definition a reduction of gain. The decisionism explains how he responded. The transactionalism explains why.

The Geography of Decision

Diego Garcia is not incidental to American power projection in the region, though its significance is that of an enabler rather than a prerequisite. The base sits at the center of the Indian Ocean, within operational reach of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Malacca, and the East African littoral, and it has supported American military operations across that entire arc for half a century through bomber rotations, logistics chains, and a sustained forward presence that no other installation in the basin fully replicates at the same scale and permanence. It does not make American power projection possible in any absolute sense, but it makes it faster, cheaper, and more sustained, which in the context of time-sensitive operational planning against a target like Iran is not a marginal difference but a meaningful one.

The Iran dimension exposes the conditionality problem with particular clarity because the operational context in which Diego Garcia’s value is most acute is precisely the context in which conditional access is most dangerous. American military assets have accumulated across the Middle East, talks are active, and a base capable of projecting strategic airpower directly into the Persian Gulf theater is not a background consideration but a variable whose availability, or unavailability, shapes what options exist and on what timeline. Britain’s reported reluctance to grant operational clearance, under a deal still unratified and still contested in domestic courts, still legally dependent on Mauritius’s continued cooperation, revealed that the conditionality embedded in the arrangement had already entered the operational calculus before any of the stabilizing assumptions behind the deal had time to establish themselves. Strategic friction did not arrive at the end of a long maturation period. It arrived in weeks, because operational pressure does not wait for diplomatic frameworks to consolidate.

That compression of the timeline is itself the most realistic lesson. Power does not defer to the developmental logic of legal arrangements, and when the operational moment arrives, whatever sits between a great power’s will and its objective is reclassified from a framework to be respected into a problem to be solved.

The Structural Position of the Weak

The analytical core of the Chagos case is not about Mauritius’s intentions, which by all available evidence are not hostile, but about the structural position that the deal assigned to it within the architecture of American operational planning, because in the logic of great power competition, it is position rather than intention that determines strategic relevance. By inserting itself, or being inserted, into the chain of conditions governing a great power’s operational freedom, a weak state acquires a form of leverage it could never achieve through military means, and the Chagos deal gave Mauritius exactly that position, not through hostility but through legal standing, not through power but through presence within a conditional architecture that a great power now had reason to find constraining.

For Washington operating within a decisionist strategic logic, that presence is categorically unacceptable regardless of Mauritius’s intentions. The relevant question is not whether Mauritius would obstruct American operations but whether, under the terms of the arrangement, it structurally could, and the answer is yes in a way that no amount of diplomatic goodwill can fully neutralize. Sovereignty transferred to Mauritius is not sovereignty parked with a neutral party but sovereignty that now sits within reach of Chinese economic leverage, meaning the lease does not merely introduce conditionality but introduces conditionality whose future content Washington cannot determine or guarantee. A great power conducting global military projection cannot organize its operational planning around the sustained goodwill of a small state whose strategic orientation it cannot guarantee. That such goodwill is required at all is the problem the deal created.

Weak states do not constrain great powers through legal arrangements in any durable sense, because the constraint only holds when the great power chooses to honor it, and great powers choose to honor constraints only when the cost of non-compliance exceeds the cost of compliance, a calculation that shifts decisively once operational necessity enters the equation and the framework reveals itself to be dependent on tolerance rather than grounded in power.

Conclusion

Britain converted unconditional sovereign control over a strategically significant military installation into a conditional leasehold arrangement whose operationalization depended on a small state’s legal cooperation and presented that conversion as a resolution of vulnerability rather than the creation of a new one. Britain was not being naive. It was an attempt to preserve the base’s long-term legal viability against mounting international pressure, a calculation that the alliance relationship would absorb any friction that followed. What Britain did not account for was that its ally evaluates arrangements not by their legal durability but by whether they constrain American will, and a solution sophisticated enough to satisfy international law was simultaneously insufficiently decisive to satisfy Washington.

From the perspective of the December 2025 National Security Strategy, that conversion was not a surprise. It was the predictable output of a European strategic culture that Washington had already formally diagnosed: one that reaches instinctively for institutional solutions when strong states would resolve through will, that mistakes legal legitimacy for strategic security, and that has internalized the habits of the post-Cold War order to the point where it can no longer easily distinguish between a framework and the power that makes frameworks real.

Trump’s response was the most realistic verdict on that presentation, not an argument against the deal’s legal coherence, which was never in question, but a decision that the framework was insufficient for the operational reality it was meant to serve, delivered in terms that made the underlying logic unmistakable. The framework did not collapse under the pressure. It was revealed, under pressure, to have rested entirely on the assumption that the decisive power would continue to choose not to decide otherwise, an assumption that realism has always identified as the central fragility of arrangements built on consent rather than grounded in power.

The strong do not negotiate with the architecture of constraint, and for Europe, February was less a shock than a reminder that the rules it has built its strategic identity around have always depended on the continued willingness of a decisive power to operate within them.

Slovakia had issued a two-day ultimatum to Ukraine to reopen the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline so that it could receive Russian oil deliveries.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has said his country will halt emergency electricity supplies to Ukraine until Kyiv reopens a key pipeline transporting Russian oil to Slovakia, making good on an ultimatum he issued to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Fico’s announcement on Monday came two days after he warned Zelenskyy on social media that he would ask state-owned company SEPS to halt emergency supplies of electricity if flows of Russian crude oil via the Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline crossing Ukraine did not resume.

“As of today, if the Ukrainian side turns to Slovakia with a request for assistance in stabilising the Ukrainian energy grid, such assistance will not be provided,” Fico said in a video on his Facebook page.

Ukrainian grid operator Ukrenergo said in a statement that it had not been officially informed yet, but that it would “not affect the situation in the unified power system of Ukraine”.

“The last time Ukraine requested emergency assistance from Slovakia was over a month ago and in a very limited volume,” it said.

Fico said the stoppage would be lifted “as soon as the transit of oil to Slovakia is restored”.

“Otherwise, we will take further reciprocal steps,” he said, adding his country would also reconsider “its previously constructive positions on Ukraine’s EU membership”.

He said the stalled oil supply was a “purely political decision aimed at blackmailing Slovakia over its international positions on the war in Ukraine”.

Slovakia and neighbouring Hungary, which have both remained dependent on Russian oil since the Kremlin launched its invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago, have become increasingly vocal in demanding that Kyiv resume deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline, which was shut down after what Ukraine said was a Russian drone strike hit infrastructure in late January.

Ukraine says it is fixing the damage on the pipeline, which still carries Russian oil over Ukrainian territory to Europe, as fast as it can.

Slovakia and Hungary say Ukraine is to blame for the prolonged outage and have declared emergencies over the cut in oil deliveries.

The EU imposed a ban on most oil imports from Russia in 2022, but the Druzhba pipeline was exempted to give landlocked Central European countries time to find alternative oil supplies.

Meanwhile, the European Union failed to agree on new sanctions on Russia for the fourth anniversary of Europe’s biggest war since World War II, after Hungary vetoed the move.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban – the friendliest EU leader to the Kremlin – is stalling the sanctions and a 90-billion-euro ($106bn) EU loan to Ukraine until Kyiv reopens the oil pipeline.

Fico also said he has refused to “involve the Slovak Republic” in the latest EU loan due to Zelenskyy’s “unacceptable behaviour”, alluding to Ukraine’s earlier halting of Russian gas supplies after a five-year-old transit agreement expired on January 1, 2025, which Fico claimed is costing Slovakia “damages of 500 million [euros; $590m] per year”.

Hungary and Slovakia have accounted for 68 percent of Ukraine’s imported power this month, according to Kyiv-based consultancy ExPro. It was not immediately clear if emergency electricity supplies were included in that figure.

Populist Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday formally kicked off the campaign to place a billionaires tax on the November ballot, framing the proposal as something larger than a debate about economic and tax policy as he appeared at a storied Los Angeles venue.

“The billionaire class no longer sees itself as part of American society. They see themselves as something separate and apart, like the oligarchs,” he told about 2,000 people at the Wiltern. The independent senator from Vermont compared them to kings, queens and czars of yore who believed they had a divine right to rule.

These billionaires “have created huge businesses with revolutionary technologies like AI and robotics that are literally transforming the face of the Earth,” he said, “and they are saying to you and to everybody in America, who the hell do you think you are telling us what we — the ruling elite, the millionaires, the billionaires, the richest people on Earth — who do you think you are telling us what we can do or not?”

California voters can show the billionaires “that we are still living in a democratic society where the people have some power,” Sanders said.

The senator is promoting a labor union’s proposal to impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California billionaires and trusts to backfill federal healthcare funding cuts by the Trump administration. Supporters of the contentious effort began gathering voter signatures to place the measure on the November ballot earlier this year. Sanders previously endorsed the proposal on social media and in public statements, and said he would seek to create a national version of the wealth tax.

But Wednesday’s event, a rally that lasted more than two hours and featured a lengthy performance by Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, was framed as the formal launch of the campaign.

“Some people are free to choose between five-star restaurants, while others choose which dumpster will provide their next meal,” Morello said. “Some are free to choose between penthouse suites, while others are free to choose in which gutter to lay their heads.”

The guitarist’s comments came amid a set that included Rage’s protest song “Killing in the Name” and Bruce Springsteen’s social justice ballad “The Ghost of Tom Joad.”

“The people who’ve changed the world in progressive, radical or even revolutionary ways,” Morello said, “did not have any more money, power, courage, intelligence or creativity than anyone here tonight.”

Milling about outside the Wiltern, a historic Art Deco venue, were workers being paid $10 per signature they gathered to help qualify the proposal for the November ballot. Inside, attendees heard from labor leaders, healthcare workers and others whose lives are being affected by federal funding cuts to healthcare.

Lisandro Preza said he was speaking not only only as a leader of Unite Here Local 11, which represents more than 32,000 hospitality workers, but also as someone who has AIDS and recently lost his medical coverage.

“For me, this fight is very personal. Without my health coverage, the thought of going to the emergency room is terrifying,” he said. “That injection I rely on costs nearly $10,000 a month. That shot keeps my disease under control. Without it, my health, my life, are at risk, and I’m not alone. Millions of Americans are facing the same after massive federal healthcare cuts are putting our hospitals on the brink of collapse.”

Sanders, who punctuated his remarks with historic statistics about wealth in the United States and anecdotes about billionaires’ purchases of multiple yachts and planes, tied the impending healthcare cuts to broader problems of growing income and wealth inequality; the consolidation of corporate ownership, including over media outlets; the decline in workers’ wages despite increased productivity; and the threats to the job market of artificial intelligence and automation. He said all these issues were grounded in the greed of the nation’s wealthiest residents.

“For these people, enough is never enough,” he said. “They are dedicated to accumulating more and more wealth and power … no matter how many low-income and working-class people will die because they no longer have health insurance.”

“Shame! Shame!” the audience screamed.

In addition to the wealth tax event, Sanders also plans to use his time in California to meet with tech leaders and speak on Friday at Stanford University about the effects of artificial intelligence and automation on American workers alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont).

Millions of California voters deeply support the Vermont senator, who won the state’s 2020 Democratic presidential primary over Joe Biden by eight points, and narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton.

Sanders were the first presidential candidate Elle Parker, 30, ever cast a ballot for in a presidential election.

“He’s inspired me,” said the podcaster, who lives in East Hollywood. “I just love the way he uses his words to inspire us all.”

Supporters proposed the wealth tax to make up for the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that Trump signed last year. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter, and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

But the tax proposal is controversial, creating a notable schism among the state’s Democrats because of concerns that it will prompt an exodus of the state’s wealthy, who are the major source of revenue that buttresses California’s volatile budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the Democrats who oppose it, as is San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who is among the dozen candidates running to replace the termed-out governor.

Mahan argued that the proposal had already hurt the state’s finances by driving economic investment and tax revenue out of California to tax-friendly environs.

“We need ideas that are sound, not just political proposals that sound good,” he said. “The answer is to close the federal tax loopholes the ultra-wealthy use to escape paying their fair share and invest those funds in paying down our debt, rebuilding our infrastructure, and protecting our most vulnerable families from skyrocketing healthcare premiums. The only winners in this proposal are the workers and taxpayers of Florida and Texas, who will take our jobs and benefit from the capital and tax revenue California is losing.”

A group affiliated with the governor plans to run digital ads opposing the proposal featuring Newsom along with other politicians on both sides of the aisle, as first reported by the New York Times.

The proposal has received more expected and unified backlash from the state’s conservatives and business leaders, who have launched ballot measures that could nullify part if not all of the proposed wealth tax. This is dependent on which, if any, of the measures qualify for the ballot — the number of votes each receives in November compared to the labor effort.

Silicon Valley billionaires, notably PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel and venture capitalist David Sacks — both major Trump supporters — announced they had already decamped California because of the effort.

Rob Lapsley, president of California Business Round Table, added that if the wealth tax is approved, it would destroy the state’s innovation economy, destabilize tax revenue and ultimately result in all Californians paying higher taxes.

“Let’s be clear — this $100-billion tax increase isn’t just a swipe at California’s most successful entrepreneurs; it’s a tax no one can afford because it weakens the entire economic ecosystem that supports jobs, investment, wages, and public services for everyday Californians,” he said. “When high earners leave, the cost doesn’t vanish — it lands on everyone through fewer jobs, less investment, and a weaker tax base — a recipe for new and higher taxes for everyone.”

AN ENTIRE country is placing a blanket ban on the use of power banks on flights.

Japan‘s transport ministry has told airlines that the use of the popular travel item onboard flights will be banned from April.

It comes as a number of incidents have occurred where mobile batteries and power banks have caught fire on flights.

Under the new ban, passengers will not be allowed to use power banks to charge their phone onboard a flight from Japan.

They will also not be able to charge power banks using the onboard power outlets.

However, they will still be able to take power banks on in hand luggage.

Read more on travel inspo

TAKING OFF

I’ve visited 50 countries & this much-loathed budget airline is the world’s best

GO ON

All the little-known websites for cheap or FREE tickets to gigs, theatre & festivals

Back in July, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism banned passengers from storing any power banks in the overhead lockers on domestic and international flights.

And batteries of this kind are already not allowed in checked baggage.

Despite the new rules, passengers will still be able to carry up to two power banks with them onto a flight – it is just that they cannot be used at all throughout the flight and must be out of the overhead locker.

It comes as a number of other airlines have banned power banks over the past couple of years due to a number of incidents.

The handy and popular travel item is thought to catch fire when there is damage, a manufacturing defect or overcharging has caused it to overheat.

When a power bank does overheat, it can be made worse on a plane due to the high-altitude and low-pressure conditions.

Last January, a flight operated by Air Busan, experienced a fire on board which they believe was as a result of a defective power bank.

Even though passengers weren’t harmed, the plane was badly damaged.

Following the incident, Air Busan was the first airline to ban the use of power banks onboard.

And since, a number of other airlines have followed in its footsteps.

For example, both Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines have banned the use of power banks on board.

And back in November, Qantas and Virgin Australia announced that they would ban onboard use of power banks after one caught fire in an overhead locker onboard a Virgin Australia flight.

The changes for Virgin Australia flights came into force on December 1.

Qantas, QantasLink and Jetstar then followed on December 15.

In January, Lufthansa then became the latest airline to introduce new rules on power banks.

It came into force on January 15 and means that passengers on Lufthansa flights are no longer allowed to use their power banks onboard either.

UK airlines such as British Airways and Ryanair are yet to introduce any similar rules.

In other aviation news, a major airline has axed more than 130 flights from the UK.

Plus, a UK airport is launching its biggest ever flight schedule with 19 new routes in a major £60million expansion.

Los Angeles city officials may be empowered to remove homeless encampments from hillside areas at severe risk of fire, even without the property owner’s permission, under a proposal that the City Council moved forward on Tuesday.

The proposal would allow the city to remove hazardous materials, including homeless encampments, from private property in hillside areas in “Very High Fire Severity Zones,” including in the Santa Monica and Verdugo Mountains.

By an 11-3 vote, the council directed the city attorney to draft changes to the municipal code, which the council will then vote on at a later date.

“Prevention [of fires] is the most cost-effective tool we have,” said Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who sponsored the proposal. “When we are in imminent threat of wildfires, especially as it relates to or is exacerbated by these types of encampments, we have a duty to act.”

Rubbish fires, many related to homeless encampments, have skyrocketed over the last several years, according to Los Angeles Fire Department data. Rodriguez said there have been five wildfires in her northeast San Fernando Valley district since she took office in 2017, though none was caused by an encampment.

Between 2018 and 2024, about 33% of all fires in the city, and more than 40% of rubbish fires, involved homeless Angelenos, according to the LAFD.

Rodriguez said the city is often left flat-footed when encampments pop up on hillsides and property owners don’t help address the issue.

“If a private property owner is not responsive, it puts the rest of the hillside community under threat,” Rodriguez said in an interview.

Rodriguez’s motion said it’s often difficult for city departments, including police and fire, to get permission from property owners to enter.

“It can take weeks to determine property ownership and to obtain the necessary signoffs from property owners to access the property, causing unnecessary delays and increasing the risk for a serious fire and threats to public safety,” the motion reads.

Some council members argued that while they agreed with the intent of the proposal, some details needed to be addressed.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez — who voted against the proposal — said he was concerned that homeless people would end up getting shuffled around the city.

“What I don’t want to see is this being used as a tool to push homeless folks from one side of the street to the other side of the street,” he said before casting his vote.

Soto-Martínez said he wouldn’t vote for the proposal until the city developed a definition of what a fire hazard is.

Councilmember Ysabel Jurado also voted against the proposal, saying she wanted the council to do more research before changing the municipal code.

Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez was the third “no” vote.

Connor Cipolla, an Eaton wildfire survivor, last year praised Southern California Edison’s plan of burying more than 60 miles of electric lines in Altadena as it rebuilds to reduce the risk of fire.

Then he learned he would have to pay $20,000 to $40,000 to connect his home, which was damaged by smoke and ash, to Edison’s new underground line. A nearby neighbor received an estimate for $30,000, he said.

“Residents are so angry,” Cipolla said. “We were completely blindsided.”

Other residents have tracked the wooden stakes Edison workers put up, showing where crews will dig. They’ve found dozens of places where deep trenches are planned under oak and pine trees that survived the fire. In addition to the added costs they face, they fear many trees will die as crews cut their roots.

“The damage is being done now and it’s irreversible,” homeowner Robert Steller said, pointing Maiden Lane to where an Edison crew was working.

For a week, Steller, who lost his home in the fire, parked his Toyota 4Runner over a recently dug trench. He said he was trying to block Edison’s crew from burying a large transformer between two towering deodar cedar trees. The work would “be downright fatal” to the decades-old trees, he said.

Altadena resident Robert Steller stands in front of his Toyota 4Runner that he parked strategically to prevent a Southern California Edison crew from digging too close to two towering cedar trees.

(Ronaldo Bolaños / Los Angeles Times)

The buried lines are an upgrade that will make Altadena’s electrical grid safer and more reliable, Edison says, and it also will lower the risk that the company would have to black out Altadena neighborhoods during dangerous Santa Ana winds to prevent fires.

Brandon Tolentino, an Edison vice president, said the company was trying to find government or charity funding to help homeowners pay to connect to the buried lines. In the meantime, he said, Edison decided to allow owners of homes that survived the fire to keep their overhead connections until financial help was available.

Tolentino added that the company planned meetings to listen to residents’ concerns, including about the trees. He said crews were trained to stop work when they find tree roots and switch from using a backhoe to digging by hand to protect them.

“We’re minimizing the impact on the trees as we [put lines] underground or do any work in Altadena,” he said.

Although placing cables underground is a fire prevention measure, consumer advocates point out it’s not the most cost-effective step Edison can take to reduce the risk.

Undergrounding electric wires can cost more than $6 million per mile, according to the state Public Utilities Commission, far more than building overhead wires.

Because utility shareholders put up part of the money needed to pay for burying the lines, the expensive work means they will earn more profit. Last year, the commission agreed Edison investors could earn an annual return of 10.03% on that money.

Edison said in April it would spend as much as $925 million to underground and rebuild its grid in Altadena and Malibu, where the Palisades fire caused devastation. That amount of construction spending will earn Edison and its shareholders more than $70 million in profit before taxes — an amount billed to electric customers — in the first year, according to calculations by Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric.

That annual return will continue over the decades while slowly decreasing each year as the assets are depreciated, Ellis said.

“They’re making a nice profit on this,” he said.

Tolentino said the company wasn’t doing the work to profit.

“The primary reason for undergrounding is the wildfire mitigation,” he said. “Our focus is supporting the community as they rebuild.”

It’s unclear if the Eaton fire would have been less disastrous if Altadena’s neighborhood power lines had been buried. The blaze ignited under Edison’s towering transmission lines that run down the mountainside in Eaton Canyon. Those lines carry bulk power through Edison’s territory. The power lines being put underground are the smaller distribution lines, which carry power to homes.

A power line outside the home of Altadena resident Connor Cipolla.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

The investigation into the fire’s cause has not yet been released. Edison says a leading theory is that one of the Eaton Canyon transmission lines, which hadn’t carried power for 50 years, might have briefly reenergized, sparking the blaze. The fire killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, businesses and other structures.

Edison said it has no plans to bury those transmission lines.

The high cost of undergrounding has become a contentious issue in Sacramento because, under state rules, most or all of it is billed to all customers of the utility.

Before the Eaton fire, Edison won praise from consumer advocates by installing insulated overhead wires that sharply cut the risk of the lines sparking a fire for a fraction of the cost. Since 2019, the company has installed more than 6,800 miles of the insulated wires.

“A dollar spent reconductoring with covered conductor provides … over four times as much value in wildfire risk mitigation as a dollar spent on underground conversion,” Edison said in testimony before the utilities commission in 2018.

By comparison, Pacific Gas & Electric has relied more on undergrounding its lines to reduce the risk of fire, pushing up customer utility bills. Now Edison has shifted to follow PG&E’s example.

Mark Toney, executive director of the the Utility Reform Network, a consumer group in San Francisco, said his staff estimates Edison spends $4 million per mile to underground wires compared with $800,000 per mile for installing insulated lines.

By burying more lines, customer bills and Edison’s profits could soar, Toney said.

“Five times the cost is equal to five times the profit,” he said.

Last spring, Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told Gov. Gavin Newsom about the company’s undergrounding plans in a letter. Pizarro wrote that rules at the utility commission would require Altadena and Malibu homeowners to pay to underground the electric wire from their property line to the panel on their house. He estimated it would cost $8,000 to $10,000 for each home.

Residents who need to dig long trenches may pay far more than that, said Cipolla, who is a member of the Altadena Town Council.

An oak tree stands tall in an area impacted by the Eaton fires. Homeowners worry such trees could be at risk in the undergrounding work.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

Last week, Cipolla showed a reporter the electrical panel on the back of his house, which is many yards away from where he needs to connect to Edison’s line. The company also initially wanted him to dig up the driveway he poured seven years ago, he said. Edison later agreed to a location that avoids the driveway.

Tolentino said Edison’s crews were working with homeowners concerned about the company’s planned locations for the buried lines.

“We understand it is a big cost and we’re looking at different sources to help them,” he said.

At the same time, some residents are fuming that, despite the undergrounding work, most of the town’s neighborhoods still will have overhead telecommunications lines. In other areas of the state, the telecommunications companies have worked with the electric utilities to bury all the lines, eliminating the visual clutter.

So far, the telecom companies have agreed to underground only a fraction of their lines in Altadena, Tolentino said.

Cipolla said Edison executives told him they eventually plan to chop off the top of new utility poles the company installed after the fire, leaving the lower portion that holds the telecom lines.

“There is no beautification aspect to it whatsoever,” Cipolla said.

As for the trees, Steller and other residents are asking Edison to adjust its construction map to avoid digging near those that remain after the fire. Altadena lost more than half of its tree cover in the blaze and as crews cleared lots of debris.

1

2

3

1. A pedestrian walks past Christmas Tree lane in Altadena. Christmas Tree Lane was officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1990. 2. A “We Love Altadena” sign hangs from a shrub on Christmas Tree Lane. 3. Parts of a chopped down tree rest on a street curb in Altadena.

Wynne Wilson, a fire survivor and co-founder of Altadena Green, pointed out that the lot across the street from the giant cedar trees on Maiden Lane has no vegetation, making it a better place for Edison’s transformer.

“This is needless,” Wilson said. “People are dealing with so much. Is Edison thinking we won’t fight over this?”

Carolyn Hove, raising her voice to be heard over the crew operating a jackhammer in front of her home, asked: “How much more are we supposed to go through?”

Hove said she doesn’t blame the crews of subcontractors the utility hired, but Edison’s management.

“It’s bad enough our community was decimated by a fire Edison started,” she said. “We’re still very traumatized, and then to have this happen.”

At a House Judiciary hearing on Wednesday, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi was holding a document labeled “Jayapal Pramila Search History” that included a list of files from the unredacted Epstein archive accessible to lawmakers such as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

That means over the course of a year Bondi’s Department of Justice has made time to speak with Ghislaine Maxwell — the New York socialite who helped Jeffrey Epstein run his billion-dollar child-sex-trafficking operation — and it made time to surveil a Democratic lawmaker who conducts oversight as a member of the Judiciary Committee. But it has yet to meet with the victims of Epstein’s crimes who want to talk.

When she took office, Bondi promised us transparency. She didn’t promise we would like what we would see from her.

The general public’s awareness of Epstein’s heinous crimes came with political baggage. However at this point, the question we all should wonder is: How does redacting the names of the men who helped fund Epstein’s operation benefit either political party? It may be good for the rich and powerful men trying to avoid accountability, but it’s not exactly a campaign platform.

Yet here we are as a country, chained to the same vocabulary used during an election, so a conversation that should be about right and wrong is accompanied by poll numbers and analysis about the midterm elections. As if the Justice Department’s refusal to interview rape survivors is an inside-the-Beltway topic and not reflective of a larger moral crisis. We have seen Congress kept out of session to avoid voting on the release of the Epstein files; we have heard equivocation about whether Epstein was a pedophile. We know Epstein’s island was a place where evil resided.

The investigation, or lack of investigation, into Epstein’s fellow abusers should not be seen by anyone as a political quandary in which the object of the game is to keep your party in power. The fact that there is a Republican-vs.-Democrat divide on accountability for sex abuse reveals a national moral crisis. When the abuse of children is viewed through a partisan lens, how else can one describe this period in America?

Fifty years ago, when President Carter was tasked with healing the nation after the Watergate scandal, he told Americans in his inaugural address that he was leaning on his faith, and one prophet in particular.

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?,” Carter said, quoting Micah 6:8. “This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our government, and a new spirit among us all. A president may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it.”

The Hebrew prophet Micah was from a rural area, not born into the wealth of the royal court. He was not being compensated by those who were. Instead, Micah reflected the voice of the people who were forced to live in poor conditions because of corruption. He described the actions of the morally bankrupt judges, political leaders and other elites in graphic, violent terms, condemning those “who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones.”

This, he said, is what it is like being ruled by those who are not guided by what is good and what is evil, but rather what is most beneficial for themselves in the moment. When Micah spoke, it wasn’t about the latest poll numbers. His warnings about government corruption are not unique to any particular faith, nor are they married to any political party. They embody centuries of human history, a history that tells what happens to a society when power goes unchecked.

And be not mistaken, it was unchecked power — not any party affiliation — that provided Epstein and Maxwell with patronage. It was moral failure, not conservatives or liberals, that provided cover for their child-sex-trafficking ring.

So if for partisan reasons the abusers of children are not held accountable for their crimes, the language of politics fails us. The word for that is simply: evil.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Faced with numerous complaints about broken streetlights that have plunged neighborhoods into darkness, two Los Angeles City Council members unveiled a plan Friday to spend $65 million on installing solar-powered lights.

With 1 in 10 streetlights out of service because of disrepair or copper wire theft, Councilmembers Katy Yaroslavsky and Eunisses Hernandez launched an effort to convert at least 12% of the city’s lights to solar power — or about 500 in each council district.

Broken streetlights emerged as an hot-button issue in this year’s election, with council members scrambling to find ways to restore them. Councilmember Nithya Raman, now running against Mayor Karen Bass, cited the broken lights as an example of how city agencies “can’t seem to manage the basics.”

By switching to solar, the streetlights will be less vulnerable to theft, said Yaroslavsky, who represents part of the Westside.

“We can’t keep rebuilding the same vulnerable systems while copper theft continues to knock out lights across Los Angeles,” she said.

Three other council members — Traci Park, Monica Rodriguez and Hugo Soto-Martínez — signed on to the proposal. All five are running for reelection.

Miguel Sangalang, director of the Bureau of Street Lighting, said there are 33,000 open service requests to fix streetlights across L.A., although some may be duplicates. The average time to fix a streetlight is 12 months, he said.

Repair times have increased because of a rise in vandalism, the department’s stagnant budget and a staff of only 185 people to service the city’s 225,000 streetlights, he said.

About 60,000 street lights are eligible to be converted to solar, according to Yaroslavsky.

Council members also are looking to increase the amount the city charges property owners for streetlight maintenance. Yaroslavsky said the assessment has been unchanged since 1996, forcing city leaders to rely on other sources of money to cover the cost.

Last month, Soto-Martínez announced he put $1 million into a streetlight repair team in his district, which stretches from Echo Park to Hollywood and north to Atwater Village. Those workers will focus on repairing broken lights, hardening lights to prevent copper wire theft and clearing the backlog of deferred cases.

On Monday, city crews also began converting 91 streetlights to solar power in Lincoln Heights and Cypress Park. Hernandez tapped $500,000 from her office budget to pay for the work. The shift to solar power should save money, she said, by breaking the cycle of constantly fixing and replacing lights.

“This is going to bring more public safety and more lights to neighborhoods that so desperately need it and that are waiting a long time,” she said.

In recent years, neighborhoods ranging from Hancock Park and Lincoln Heights to Mar Vista and Pico Union have been plagued by copper wire theft that darkens the streets. On the 6th Street Bridge, thieves stole seven miles’ worth of wire.

Yaroslavsky and Park spoke about the problem Friday at a press conference in the driveway of a Mar Vista home. Andrew Marton, the homeowner, pointed to streetlights around the block that have been targeted by thieves.

Many surrounding streets have been dark since shortly after Christmas, Marton said. He has changed his daily routines, trying not to walk his dog late at night and worrying for the safety of his family.

He said he reported the problem to the city and was told it would take 270 days to fix. He then reached out to Park, who contacted the police department, he said.

A couple of neighboring streets had their lights restored, he said, but his street remains dark at night.

Park said she and Yaroslavsky identified $500,000 in discretionary funds to pay for a dedicated repair team to fix streetlights, either by adding solar or by reinforcing the existing copper wire, in their respective Westside districts.

Voting is fundamental to democracy, but here in the U.S. people don’t vote very much. In December, Miami held a runoff election for mayor, and all of 37,000 voters turned out. This was 2,000 fewer people than voted in comparable off-cycle elections in Apizaco, a small city in the mountains of central Mexico. It was no blip: The median turnout in U.S. city elections is 26% of the voting age population. In Mexico, by contrast, turnout rarely dips below 50%, and unglamorous small-town elections attract higher numbers, often more than 70% of the citizenry.

Nevertheless, the United States disdains Mexico as a pale shadow of its own democracy. Mexican elections are written off as corrupt, violent and unrepresentative. This was part-true for much of the last century, when versions of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional ruled without interruption for 71 years. Mexicans were “oriented” to vote by party managers, fined if they didn’t, violently dissuaded from voting for dissidents, disenfranchised with stuffed ballot boxes. Impressive turnouts were coerced. Even today, decades after the arrival of a competitive democracy, the violence persists. Thirty-four candidates were murdered in the 2024 elections.

Yet Mexicans also vote in impressive numbers because they have always cared profoundly about representative politics, and particularly at a local level. Many of those large turnouts in authoritarian Mexico were crowds of everyday people struggling to elect legitimate authorities in the teeth of a rigged system. Those struggles meant that sometimes they won.

Historical outcomes are revealing. More than 200 years of elections in Mexico have given results significantly more diverse and representative than those of the United States. In 2024 Mexicans elected the first female president in North American history, climate scientist Claudia Sheinbaum. In 1829 Mexicans elected the first Black president in North American history, mule driver Vicente Guerrero. In 1856 they elected lawyer Benito Juárez as the only Indigenous president in North American history.

The United States was born committed to rule by freely elected representatives. “We the people” is a good start to a piece of political writing and a good start to a country. When the French sociologist Aléxis de Tocqueville visited New England in the 1820s he was struck by how the citizens of small towns argued out their differences and came up with solutions together. The federal republic was a scaling up of those habits. The sum of those people’s beliefs, institutions and bloody-mindedness, Tocqueville wrote, was democracy in America.

The peoples of the United Mexican States, founded in 1824 after gaining independence from Spain, shared those ambitions. Mexico was likewise a federal republic, its rulers elected, its powers divided among executive, legislature and judiciary. As in the U.S., the female half of the population was excluded. But Mexico’s founders were ahead of ours in one sine qua non of genuine democracy: racial equality. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton claimed that “to all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection.” That was a self-evident untruth, because Black and Indigenous peoples were not included.

In Mexico, people of color had some standing from the founding onward. Mexican history has its own wrenching tragedies of race: the slavery of West Africans, the ethnocides of the North, the systematic impoverishment of peoples like the Maya of Chiapas, a eugenic hunger for white migration. But from the colonial outset Black people were acknowledged to be fully human, their enslavers’ abuses punished, their lynching unknown. Many Indigenous peoples preserved their language, lands and governments over centuries. Asians joined them; the first Japanese ambassador arrived in 1614. Mexico was the world’s first great melting pot.

So the founders of the United Mexican States made no formal distinction among the multitudes they contained. Their leaders in the War of Independence abolished slavery. Their post-independence congress mandated “the equality of civil rights to all free inhabitants of the empire, whatever their origin.” The 1824 Constitution extended the vote to every adult male. All would be free, all equal under law and all voters with a stake in the outcome.

In 1917 Mexicans passed the most progressive constitution in the world following their own revolution. It mandated an eight-hour working day, a minimum wage, equal salaries for men and women, and paid maternity leave. While women didn’t get the vote until the 1950s, they exercised notable power behind the scenes; even the most conservative parties had female organizers and supporters. Progressive social policies inspired leaders across the hemisphere, including Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Three core beliefs inspire Mexicans to vote. They believe that face-to-face freedom, embedded in the power and autonomy of the municipio libre, the free county, is sacrosanct. And they believe that to preserve communal freedom, whether from federal abuse or oligarchs, requires two things, sufragio efectivo y no reelección; in historian John Womack’s translation, “a real vote and no boss rule.”

Historically enough Mexicans — of all political stripes, from conservatives to anarchists — cared about those three beliefs to fight in elections tooth and nail.

Alongside the belief that voting is a duty comes clear-eyed rejection of boss rule. While Mexican Mayor Daleys are historically ubiquitous — they sparked the Mexican Revolution — there are none of the national dynasties that beset U.S. politics. The great dictator Porfirio Díaz left his ambitious nephew struggling to make army captain for eighteen years. Dynastic power befits monarchies, not democracies, and Mexicans know it.

Neither do Mexican politicians enjoy the unfettered power of their American counterparts to buy elections. Parties are publicly funded, under a system designed to promote fairness. Each party gets a certain amount from the state: 30% of that amount is the same for all, the remaining 70% proportional to their success in the previous elections. Private donations are transparent, regulated and capped at a very low level, on paper at least. The system unduly favors incumbents, and illegal, off-books funding is rife. Yet the need for sizable contributions to be covert keeps election results out of the hands of the likes of Elon Musk. A national watchdog and a diverse and competent press ensure it.

Sheinbaum spent $18 million winning her presidential election. In losing New York City’s mayoral election, Andrew Cuomo spent three times as much. A single oligarch, Michael Bloomberg, chipped in $13 million. Mexican elections are sometimes bought and sold, but never with the obscene unconcern prevalent in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Republics that endure rely on egalitarian beliefs, hard-nosed pragmatism, unwritten rules of decency and written rules of institutions — and unrelenting struggle against all who break those rules. Democracy relies on people of all races being recognized as fully human and guaranteed access to the ballot. It then relies on those people turning up to vote whenever given the chance. Mexicans have repeatedly demonstrated how deeply they know that across their history, against sometimes heavy odds. Their government documents come stamped with the revolutionary slogan sufragio efectivo y no reelección, a real vote and no boss rule, as a reminder. We could use one ourselves.

Paul Gillingham, a professor of history at Northwestern University, is the author of “Mexico: A 500-Year History.”

Feb. 9 (Asia Today) — A power struggle over nomination authority within South Korea’s conservative People Power Party intensified Monday as Seoul party chair Bae Hyun-jin faced possible disciplinary action ahead of the June 3 local elections.

Tensions escalated after the party’s central ethics committee initiated disciplinary proceedings against Bae, while the Seoul city party’s ethics body launched a separate case involving a conservative YouTuber. The parallel moves have fueled an open clash between the party leadership faction and lawmakers aligned with former leader Han Dong-hoon.

Senior vice chairpersons of the Seoul party rejected the central committee’s action, warning against undermining a city chair elected by delegates across Seoul. They denied allegations that Bae led a signature campaign opposing Han’s expulsion from the party.

Those accusations were raised by Lee Sang-gyu, who filed the ethics complaint against Bae. He dismissed the denials as false, accusing critics of trying to shield what he described as undemocratic procedures and abuse of authority.

Local media reported that Bae confronted party leader Jang Dong-hyuk during a National Assembly session, pressing him on whether the central ethics committee’s intervention reflected his intent and asking whether he supported suspending her duties as Seoul party chair.

The dispute has raised speculation that severe disciplinary action against Bae could reshape the party’s nomination landscape ahead of the local elections, turning the ethics process into a broader struggle for control. Some party officials, however, suggested the leadership may seek to de-escalate.

Jang Ye-chan, a deputy director at the party-affiliated Yeouido Research Institute, said prolonged disciplinary proceedings would only increase the leadership’s burden. He predicted the leadership would avoid sanctioning Bae and instead pivot toward a message of unity and reform.

A Seoul party official offered a contrasting view, saying disciplinary action was likely. The official alleged Bae pressured party members by leveraging nomination authority ahead of the local elections and said internal discord had grown within the city party organization.

Separately, the People Power Party confirmed the expulsion of former supreme council member Kim Jong-hyuk, a figure associated with the pro-Han faction. The central ethics committee had issued a recommendation last month urging him to leave the party, triggering automatic expulsion under party rules. Kim said he would pursue legal action against the party leadership and the ethics committee.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260210010003400

No single party is expected to secure a clear majority in Sunday’s vote, raising the spectre of political instability.

Polls have opened in Thailand in a closely watched general election, with progressive reformers, military-backed conservatives and populist forces vying for control.

Polling stations opened at 8am local time (01:00 GMT) on Sunday and were set to close at 5pm (10:00 GMT).

More than 2.2 million voters had already cast ballots during an early voting period that began on February 1, according to the Election Commission.

The battle for support from Thailand’s 53 million registered voters comes against a backdrop of slow economic growth and heightened nationalist sentiment.

While more than 50 parties are contesting the polls, only three – the People’s Party, Bhumjaithai, and Pheu Thai – have the nationwide organisation and popularity to gain a winning mandate.

With 500 parliamentary seats at stake and surveys consistently showing no party likely to win an outright majority, coalition negotiations appear inevitable. A simple majority of elected lawmakers will select the next prime minister.

The progressive People’s Party, led by Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, is favoured to win the most seats. But the party’s reformist platform, which includes promises to curb the influence of the military and the courts, as well as breaking up economic polices, remains unpalatable to its rivals, who may freeze it out by joining forces to form a government.

The party is the successor to the Move Forward Party, which won the most seats in the House of Representatives in 2023, but was blocked from power by a military appointed Senate and later dissolved by the Constitutional Court over its call to reform Thailand’s strict royal insult laws.

The Bhumjaithai, headed by caretaker Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, is seen as the main defender and preferred choice of the royalist-military establishment.

Anutin has only been the prime minister since last September, after serving in the Cabinet of former Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, who was forced out of office for an ethics violation regarding the mishandling of relations with Cambodia. Anutin dissolved parliament in December to call a new election after he was threatened with a no-confidence vote.

He has centred his campaign on economic stimulus and national security, tapping into nationalist fervour stoked by deadly border clashes with neighbouring Cambodia.

The third major contender, Pheu Thai, represents the latest incarnation of political movements backed by jailed former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and trades on the populist policies of the Thai Rak Thai party, which held power from 2001 until 2006, when it was ousted by a military coup.

The party has campaigned on economic revival and populist pledges like cash handouts, nominating Thaksin’s nephew, Yodchanan Wongsawat, as its lead candidate for prime minister.

Sunday’s voting also includes a referendum asking voters whether Thailand should replace its 2017 military-drafted constitution.

Pro-democracy groups view a new charter as a critical step towards reducing the influence of unelected institutions, such as the military and judiciary, while conservatives warn that it could lead to instability.

Move comes after council tried to oust PM Fils-Aime and the US recently deployed warship to waters near Haiti’s capital.

Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council has handed power to US-backed Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aime after almost two years of tumultuous governance marked by rampant gang violence that has left thousands dead.

The transfer of power between the nine-member transitional council and 54-year-old businessman Fils-Aime took place on Saturday under tight security, given Haiti’s unstable political climate.

“Mr Prime Minister, in this historic moment, I know that you are gauging the depth of the responsibility you are taking on for the country,” council President Laurent Saint-Cyr told Fils-Aime, who is now the country’s only politician with executive power.

In late January, several members of the council said they were seeking to remove Fils-Aime, leading the United States to announce visa revocations for four unidentified council members and a cabinet minister.

Days before the council was dissolved, the US deployed a warship and two US coastguard boats to waters near Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, where gangs control 90 percent of the territory.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed “the importance” of Fils-Aime’s continued tenure “to combat terrorist gangs and stabilise the island”.

The council’s plan to oust Fils-Aime for reasons not made public appeared to fall to the wayside as it stepped down in an official ceremony on Saturday.

Fils-Aime now faces the daunting task of organising the first general elections in a decade.

Election this year unlikely

The Transitional Presidential Council was established in 2024 as the country’s top executive body, a response to a political crisis stretching back to the 2021 assassination of President Jovenel Moise.

It quickly devolved into infighting, questions over its membership, and allegations of corruption falling overwhelmingly short of its mission to quell gang violence and improve life for Haitians.

Just six months after being formed, the body removed Prime Minister Garry Conille, selecting Fils-Aime as his replacement.

Despite being tasked with developing a framework for federal elections, the council ended up postponing a planned series of votes that would have selected a new president by February.

Tentative dates were announced for August and December, but many believe it is unlikely an election and a run-off will be held this year.

Last year, gangs killed nearly 6,000 people in Haiti, according to the United Nations. About 1.4 million people, or 10 percent of the population, have been displaced by the violence.

The UN approved an international security force to help police restore security, but more than two years later, fewer than 1,000 of the intended troops – mostly Kenyan police – have been deployed. The UN says it aims to have 5,500 troops in the country by the middle of the year, or by November at the latest.

As Thailand prepares to vote on Sunday in a nationwide election, the country’s months-long border dispute with Cambodia continues to cast a shadow over election proceedings.

Brief but deadly armed clashes in May last year on a disputed section of the Thai-Cambodia border escalated into the deadliest fighting in a decade between the two countries, killing dozens of people and displacing hundreds of thousands.

Fallout from the conflict toppled the government of Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra – daughter of the billionaire populist leader Thaksin Shinawatra – before bringing Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul to power in September.

Now, while the fighting may have ceased, the conflict remains an emotive topic for Thais and a means for Anutin to rally support for his conservative Bhumjaithai Party as a no-nonsense prime minister, unafraid to flex his country’s military muscle when required, analysts say.

“Anutin’s party is positioning itself as the party that’s really willing to take the initiative on the border conflict,” said Napon Jatusripitak, an expert in Thai politics at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.

“It’s a party that has taken the strongest stance on the issue and the most hawkish,” Napon said of the recent military operations.

Anutin had good reason to focus on the conflict with Cambodia in his election campaign. The fighting created a surge in nationalist sentiment in Thailand during two rounds of armed conflict in July and December, while the clashes also inflicted reputational damage on Anutin’s rivals in Thai politics.

Chief among those who suffered on the political battlefield was the populist Pheu Thai Party, the power base of Thailand’s former prime minister Thaksin and his family.

Pheu Thai sustained a major hit to its popularity in June when a phone call between its leader, then-Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn, and the strongman of Cambodian politics, Hun Sen, was made public.

In the June 15 call, Paetongtarn referred to Hun Sen, an erstwhile friend of her father, as “uncle” and promised to “take care” of the issue after the first early clashes between Thai and Cambodian troops, according to Reuters news agency.

For factions in Thailand’s politics and Thai people, Paetongtarn’s deference to Hun Sen was beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour for a prime minister, especially as she appeared to also criticise Thailand’s military – a major centre of power in a nation of more than 70 million people.

Hun Sen later admitted to leaking the call and claimed it was in the interest of “transparency,” but it led to the collapse of Paetongtarn’s government. She was then sacked by the constitutional court at the end of August last year, paving the way for Anutin to be voted in as Thailand’s leader by parliament the following month.

The border conflict with Cambodia has given a major boost to Thailand’s armed forces at a time of “growing popular discontent with the military’s involvement in politics, and with the conservative elite”, said Neil Loughlin, an expert in comparative politics at City St George’s, University of London.

Anutin’s government focused its political messaging when fighting on the border re-erupted in early December. Days later, he dissolved parliament in preparation for the election.

“Bhumjaithai has leaned into patriotic, nationalist messaging,” said Japhet Quitzon, an associate fellow with the Southeast Asia programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC.

“Anutin himself has promised to protect the country at campaign rallies, signalling strength in the face of ongoing tensions with Cambodia. He has vowed to retaliate should conflict re-emerge and will continue protecting Thai territorial integrity,” Quitzon said.

‘War against the scam army’

During the fighting, Thailand took control of several disputed areas on the border and shelled Cambodian casino complexes near the boundary, which it claimed were being used by Cambodia’s military.

Bangkok later alleged some of the casino complexes, which have ties to Cambodian elites, were being used as centres for online fraud – known as cyber scams – a major problem in the region, and that Thai forces were also carrying out a “war against the scam army” based in Cambodia.

Estimates by the World Health Organization say the conflict killed 18 civilians in Cambodia and 16 in Thailand, though media outlets put the overall death toll closer to 149, before both sides signed their most recent ceasefire in late December.

While the fighting has paused for now, its impact continues to reverberate across Thai politics, said the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute’s Napon.

Pheu Thai is still reeling from the leaked phone call between Paetongtarn and Hun Sen, while another Thai opposition group, the People’s Party, has been forced to temper some of its longstanding positions demanding reform in the military, Napon said.

“[The People’s Party] vowed to abolish the military’s conscription and to cut the military’s budget, but what the border conflict with Cambodia did was to elevate the military’s popularity to heights not seen in longer than a decade since the 2014 coup,” Napon told Al Jazeera.

“Its main selling point used to be reform of the military, but after the conflict it seems to be a liability,” Napon continued.

The party has now shifted its criticism from the military as an institution to specific generals, and turned its focus back to reviving the economy, which is expected to grow just 1.8 percent this year, according to the state-owned Krungthai Bank.

In the past two weeks, that messaging seems to be hitting home, Napon said, with the People’s Party once again leading at the polls despite a different platform from 2023.

“It will be very different from the previous election,” Napon said.

“Right now, there’s no military in the picture, so it’s really a battle between old and new,” he added.

For two decades, global energy demand was static and efficiency gains, economic shifts, and renewable growth created an illusion of control.

The narrative was one of managed transition — a straight line from fossil fuels to a cleaner, perhaps simpler, energy system.

Energy companies believe that narrative is over.

Addition, not substitution

It’s unusual to see that many security personnel lining the road to Qatar’s convention centre. Enter LNG 2026, and the vast conference centre in Doha is hosting the people who shape the global energy system. Seated on the same stage were Saad Sherida al-Kaabi of QatarEnergy, Wael Sawan of Shell, Darren Woods of ExxonMobil, Patrick Pouyanne of TotalEnergies, and Ryan Lance of ConocoPhillips — leaders of companies that collectively sit at the centre of global energy supply.

Their estimation: The era of demand is here, and the age of gas is accelerating, not fading.

Everything from artificial intelligence, data centres, electrification and population growth are all pulling the energy system to a new scale. The executives say that demand is rising faster than grids, infrastructure, and policy frameworks can adapt.

From oil to energy

Perhaps that is why the industry is changing how it describes itself. These companies no longer frame their future narrowly like “international oil companies” or oil producers. They now talk about being “international energy companies” – a deliberate shift reflecting a broader ambition: to manage molecules, systems, and supply chains in a world with increasing energy demands.

Executives outlined projections that underline how deeply the market is changing. Global LNG demand, currently about 400 million tonnes a year, is expected to reach 600 million tonnes by 2030 and approach 800 million tonnes by 2050, according to the energy executives, and LNG is growing at more than 3 percent annually, making it the fastest-growing fuel among non-renewables, according to their data.

Building for a bigger world

The confidence in Doha was backed by construction on a vast scale. QatarEnergy, under Saad al-Kaabi, is expanding LNG production and assembling a fleet expected to reach about 200 LNG carriers, one of the largest shipping expansions in energy history.

In the United States, ExxonMobil and QatarEnergy are partnering on a new 18 million MMBtu LNG facility, part of a wider North American build-out. Canadian LNG is entering the market, while new supply is emerging from Africa and South America.

These are substantial investments.

As al-Kaabi put it during the discussion: “The world cannot live without energy. People need to be prosperous, and nearly a billion people still do not have basic electricity. We cannot deprive them of growth.”

It is a framing shared across the panel. This is no longer a conversation about replacement, as one executive summed it up, “we are in a world of energy addition, not energy substitution.”

Europe and energy security

The Russia–Ukraine war remains a defining reference point. Europe’s sudden loss of Russian pipeline gas forced a dramatic pivot to LNG. Imports jumped from roughly 50 million tonnes a year to approximately 120 million tonnes, transforming Europe into a major LNG market almost overnight.

What began as crisis management has reshaped global gas flows. LNG delivered flexibility, security, and scale, and for investors, that restored confidence that LNG infrastructure could be strategic.

As new supply comes online, executives expect prices to ease. When that happens, Asian demand, currently constrained by cost, is expected to rebound sharply. Several Asian economies are also shifting from exporters to net importers as domestic reserves decline.

Oil’s quiet re-entry

Two years ago, oil was widely predicted to disappear from the energy mix by 2030. That narrative, too, has faded.

Oil demand has proven resilient, and even gas-focused producers are expanding oil portfolios. Qatar is actively seeking new oil opportunities and remains one of the world’s largest holders of exploration blocks.

The shift is pragmatic. The industry is no longer debating whether oil and gas will be needed, but how they can be supplied at the lowest possible cost and emissions intensity. Several executives noted that many former oil sceptics have quietly reversed course.

AI and the end of low demand

The most urgent driver of change is not geopolitics — it is artificial intelligence.

For nearly 20 years, global energy demand was relatively stable. That period has ended. AI-driven data centres are consuming electricity at a scale planners failed to anticipate. Individual facilities can require thousands of megawatts of constant power, running 24 hours a day, with no tolerance for interruption.

Executives described this moment as a decisive break with the past. After decades of flat demand, the system has entered what they call hyper-scaling mode.

This demand, they say, is inflexible. Data centres cannot wait for weather conditions. They require power that is reliable, dispatchable, and immediate.

When renewables need backup

No one on stage dismissed renewables. Shell’s Wael Sawan and TotalEnergies’ Patrick Pouyanne both stressed their central role in the future mix. But they were clear about limitations.

The executives viewed wind and solar as intermittent and argued that grids built for predictable generation are under growing stress. Recent blackouts and near-misses in highly renewable systems have exposed the consequences of imbalance.

“When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining,” one executive noted, “gas fills the gap.”

Gas turbines remain essential for grid stability. Nuclear takes decades to scale. Batteries are improving but remain limited. Hydrogen is promising, but not yet deployable at the pace required.

Gas, the industry argues, is the only option that can be built fast enough to meet the contemporary surge in demand.

AI: The friction points

But behind the power-hungry AI-driven confidence are real snag lines. Building energy infrastructure has become slower and more complex.

The executives pointed to permitting delays that stretch projects more than a decade. Water and grid connections are major bottlenecks. Skilled labour is in short supply. Community resistance is growing, driven by cost concerns and environmental pressure.

Executives were openly critical of policy frameworks they see as detached from operational reality. Overlapping and conflicting regulations, they argued, raise costs and delay supply.

“The market dictates what can be delivered,” one leader said, warning that governments risk choking the arteries of energy flow.

Sustainability, emissions and the social contract

The industry acknowledges that its future depends on emissions performance. Methane leakage, efficiency, manufacturing footprints, and transport emissions remain under scrutiny. Gas offers immediate reductions where it replaces coal – about 40 percent in power generation and 20 percent in marine fuels. Carbon capture and sequestration is increasingly integrated into new projects.

ExxonMobil’s Darren Woods emphasised the company’s push to be seen as a technology player — working on hydrogen, carbon capture, and new uses for hydrocarbons beyond combustion. They describe this approach as responsible energy addition.

Yet the tension remains. The current demand surge has pushed environmental scrutiny to the background, but executives know that window is temporary. The sustainability of gas in this new role is under intense scrutiny.

While it burns cleaner than coal, its emissions of CO2 and methane, along with the transport footprint of LNG, remain central to the climate debate. Industry leaders acknowledge that gas must evolve to maintain its social licence. The CEO of QatarEnergy emphasised delivering energy “in the most environmentally responsible manner”.

There is awareness that the current surge in demand has sidelined environmental concerns, but these questions will resurface forcefully once the immediate capacity crisis abates. The gas industry risks a fate similar to coal if it fails to accelerate its decarbonisation efforts through carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS), and the integration of low-carbon gases, such as hydrogen.

Inclusive not mutually exclusive

The dynamic with renewables and emerging technologies adds another layer of complexity. Executives recognise that, for many regions, building new infrastructure, renewables are the cheapest and easiest option.

The role of gas, therefore, is evolving from a baseload provider to a “complementary load-following role,” essential for balancing grids increasingly saturated with variable wind and solar power.

The advancement of battery storage technology also looms as a potential competitor for this grid-balancing role. The future energy mix is envisioned as abundant, accessible, reliable, and clean, but the path is uncertain.

Investments in hydrogen and ammonia are continuing, though with fluctuating levels of hype, indicating a sector in search of the next breakthrough.

The human connection

Strip away politics and technology, and the core driver is human. Roughly five billion people still consume far less energy than developed economies. To paraphrase QatarEnergy’s al-Kaabi: Prosperity requires power.

Removing energy poverty means adding supply – reliable, affordable supply – at unprecedented scale. That is the context in which the energy company executives are positioning gas: not as a bridge, but as a stabiliser. Energy producers are betting that global demand – supercharged by AI and economic ambition – will outpace the ability of renewables alone to carry the load.

They are building for a world that they say cannot afford shortages, blackouts, or theoretical purity. Gas, they believe, is not a bridge, but the foundation to weather the storm of demand.

And its future will be defined by a simple metric: Can the system deliver abundant, accessible, reliable, and progressively cleaner energy?

Welcome to Black History Month, 2026 style.

President Trump posted a video Thursday to his social media site that contains animated images depicting former President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

The White House took down the post Friday, and after first calling it nothing more than a meme, they dubbed it a mistake by a staffer. Sure.

But while the justifiable outrage over this overt racism spins itself into a brief media circus (because we all know something else will come along is about three minutes), let’s look a bit deeper into why this video is more than an affront to everything America stands for, or should stand for, anyway.

It’s no accident that the images of the Obamas are embedded deep inside a video about voter fraud conspiracies from the 2020 election (which are untrue, if I need to say it again). This video is an escalation in the assault that is likely to come on voting rights and voting access in the midterms.

“Absolutely, there’s a connection to the vote,” Melina Abdullah told me Friday. She’s a professor at Cal State Los Angeles and co-founder of Black Lives Matter-LA.

“This is about more than just about the Obamas,” added Brian Levin, a professor Emeritus at California State University, San Bernardino, and founder of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism. “It’s about people that are (perceived as) undermining our elections and our democracy.”

I caught Levin the day after he turned in a chapter about authoritarianism for a new book, which happens to look at how discrimination and the imposition of social hierarchies ties in with power.

Let me summarize. Vulnerable groups are smashed down as dangerous and not fit to be full citizens, so a smaller group of elites can justify power by any means to protect society from these lowly and nasty influences.

Let me make that messaging even simpler: Black and brown people are bad and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democracy because they don’t deserve the right.

How does that play out at the ballot box?

All that talk about voter identification and election integrity is really about stopping people from voting — people who legally have the right to vote. Those who are least likely to be able to obtain proof of citizenship — which might require a passport, or birth certificate along with the money and know-how to get such documents — are often Black or brown people. They are often also poor, or poorer, and therefore have less time and money to put into obtaining documents, and also live in urban areas where they share polling places.

Is it such a stretch to imagine some kind of federal oversight at those types of polling places, turning away — or simply intimidating away — legal voters who have long made up a strong block of the Democratic base?

Let’s hope that never happens. But the current undermining of the legitimacy of Black and brown voters is, said both Levin and Abdullah, systemic and concerning.

Trump’s latest video is “part of a floodgate of bigotry and conspiracy that relates to elections and immigrants and Black people and it’s important to condemn the manner in which these puzzle pieces are put together to label African Americans and immigrants as a threat to democracy with respect to the vote,” Levin said.

The premise of the video in question is that Democrats have engaged in a complicated and decades-long scheme to steal elections. It’s presented as a documentary, and the images of the Obamas have been weirdly inserted as almost a subliminal flash near the end.

If you’ve missed the white supremacist postings that have now become commonplace on official government communications such as those from the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security, let me assure you that Levin is right and this primate video is indeed part of a “firehose” of white nationalist rhetoric coming not just from Trump but from the federal government as a whole.

The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, for example, has turned its focus toward punishing diversity, equity and inclusion. Just this week, another federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, began a probe against Nike for allegedly discriminating against white people in hiring.

“It has been not even a dog whistling, but a Xeroxing of the exact kind of terms that that I’ve been looking at on white supremacists and neo Nazi websites for decades,” Levin said.

It’s not my place or intent to warn Black people about racism, because that would be ludicrous and insulting, but I’ll warn the rest of us because in the end, authoritarianism targets everyone. This video is a clear statement that Trump’s vision of America is one in which every non-white group, every vulnerable group really, is a second class citizen.

“He’s enabling an entire group of people who want to take this country back to a time when rampant violent white supremacy was enabled in the law,” Abdullah said. “What they mean is recapturing an old school, oppressive racism that is pre-1965 pre-Voting Rights Act.”

That message, Levin said, has “a resonance with a decent part of his base,” and when fed ceaselessly into the system, can have violent outcomes.

Levin uses the example of when Trump tweeted during the protests over the killing of George Floyd, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” a phrase with a violent and racist history.

Levin said Black people have always been the primary targets of hate crimes in the United States, but after that tweet, it was some of the “worst days” for violence aimed by race.

“When a high transmitter, like a president, circulates imagery with regard to prejudice, it creates these stereotypes and conspiracy theories, which then are the groundwork for further conspiracy theories and aggression,” he added.

Abdullah said she worries that even if the voter crackdown isn’t officially sanctioned, those empowered conspiracy theorists will take action anyway.

“So the people who are so-called ‘monitoring,’ self-appointed monitors … this is who’s going to be pulling people out of voter lines, and so this is what he’s whipping up intentionally,” she said.

Keep your eye on the ball, folks, because the far-right Republicans running the show are laser-focused on it. The midterm elections have to go their way for them to remain in power.

The easiest way to ensure that outcome is to only allow voters who see things their way.

The official Super Bowl halftime show on Sunday will feature Bad Bunny, the Grammy winner for album of the year, at the height of his powers and influence. Those upset by his onstage comments about the dignity of Latinos and immigrants, however, can turn to a competing bill featuring Kid Rock and Gabby Barrett.

Rock, the perennial MAGA raconteur and country-rock singer, will perform for the far-right activist group Turning Point USA’s counterprogramming event streaming across the conservative mediasphere. Turning Point USA is the activist group founded by the late Charlie Kirk, who was killed last year at a speaking event in Utah.

“We plan to play great songs for folks who love America,” Rock said in a statement announcing the bill. “We’re approaching this show like David and Goliath. Competing with the pro football machine and a global pop superstar is almost impossible … or is it?”

“He’s said he’s having a dance party, wearing a dress and singing in Spanish? Cool. We plan to play great songs for folks who love America,” Rock said, in an overt jab at the actual Super Bowl halftime show headliner.

Veteran country acts Lee Brice and Brantley Gilbert and Barrett, an “American Idol” alum with a 2019 Hot 100 hit in “I Hope,” will also perform.

While Rock’s right-wing politics have largely eclipsed his musical relevance in 2026, he’s recently tried to position himself as a power broker for MAGA-friendly concerts with just enough plausible appeal for more neutral country and rock fans. His planned 2026 touring festival, Rock the Country, is set to feature Blake Shelton, recent Grammy winner Jelly Roll, Creed and Miranda Lambert, but lost Ludacris and Morgan Wade following blowback from fans.

When Bad Bunny was booked for the Super Bowl in October, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said, “I didn’t even know who Bad Bunny was. But it sounds like a terrible decision, in my view, from what I’m hearing. It sounds like he’s not someone who appeals to a broader audience.”

“There are so many eyes on the Super Bowl — a lot of young, impressionable children. And, in my view, you would have Lee Greenwood, or role models, doing that. Not somebody like this, ” he added.

President Trump said a bill featuring the Grammy-winning Puerto Rican superstar — and the famously anti-Trump punk band Green Day — was part of the reason he would not attend the game this year. “I’m anti-them. I think it’s a terrible choice,” he said. “All it does is sow hatred. Terrible.”

United Nations chief Antonio Guterres appears to point at Trump as critics say his ‘Board of Peace’ aims to replace UN.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that international “cooperation is eroding” in the world, during a media briefing where he took aim at one – maybe two – powerful countries undermining efforts to solve global problems collectively.

In his annual address as secretary-general, where he outlined priorities for the UN, Guterres said on Thursday that the world body stood ready to help members do more to address their most pressing issues, including the climate catastrophe, inequality, conflict and the rising influence of technology companies.

But he warned that “global problems will not be solved by one power calling the shots,” in apparent reference to United States President Donald Trump’s administration and his moves to abandon much of the UN system, while also impelling countries to join his newly-created “Board of Peace”.

Guterres went on to say that “two powers” would also not solve key problems by “carving the world into rival spheres of influence”, in what appeared to be a reference to China and its growing role in global affairs.

Guterres, who will step down from his position at the end of the year, underscored the UN’s ongoing commitment to international law amid concerns that treaties, which countries have abided by for decades, are coming undone.

Amid Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and the brazen abduction of Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro by US forces, the UN chief warned that international law is being “trampled” and “multilateral institutions are under assault on many fronts.”

But, he added, the UN was still “pushing for peace – just and sustainable peace rooted in international law”.

Beginning in his first term as US President, Trump sought to end his country’s formal participation in many aspects of the UN system, while also eager to wield influence over key decision-making bodies, including through the use of the US veto in the UN’s powerful Security Council.

Trump’s current administration has also imposed sanctions on UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine Francesca Albanese and threatened to sanction negotiators involved in UN talks on shipping pollution at the International Maritime Organization.

The US leader’s actions have drawn criticism.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva earlier this month accused Trump of wanting to create “a new UN”.

Lula made his comment just days after Trump launched his “Board of Peace” initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

While more than two dozen countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have signed up as founding members of the peace board, several major nations, including France, have turned down invitations to join, and Canada has been excluded.

France said the Trump-led peace board “goes beyond the framework of Gaza and raises serious questions, in particular with respect to the principles and structure of the United Nations, which cannot be called into question”.

In Dhaka’s political chatter, one word often keeps resurfacing when people debate who really holds the reins of the country: “Kochukhet”.

The neighbourhood that houses key military installations has, in recent public discussions, become shorthand for the cantonment’s influence over civilian matters, including politics.

Bangladesh is weeks away from a national election on February 12, the first since the 2024 uprising that ended then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s long rule and ushered in an interim administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

The army is not vying for electoral power. But it has become central to the voting climate as the most visible guarantor of public order, with the police still weakened in morale and capacity after the upheaval of 2024, and with the country still reckoning with a “security apparatus” that watchdogs and official inquiries say was used to shape political outcomes under Hasina.

For nearly a year and a half now, soldiers have policed the streets of Bangladesh, operating under an order that grants them magisterial powers in support of law and order. On election duty, the deployment will scale up further: Officials have said as many as 100,000 troops are expected nationwide, and proposed changes to election rules would formally list the armed forces among the poll’s “law-enforcing agencies”.

Bangladesh, a nation of more than 170 million wedged between India and Myanmar, has repeatedly seen political transitions hijacked by coups, counter-coups and military rule, a past that still shapes how Bangladeshis read the present.  Analysts say that the army today is not positioned for an overt takeover, but it remains a decisive power centre: an institution embedded across the state, able to narrow civilian choices through its security role, intelligence networks and footprint inside government.

The military’s role now

Thomas Kean, the International Crisis Group’s senior consultant on Bangladesh and Myanmar, said the army has been “backstopping the interim government” not only politically but also “through day-to-day security amid police weakness”.

He said the institution is eager to see a transition to an elected government so the country returns to a firmer constitutional footing and so troops can “return to their barracks”.

“There are different factions and views within the army, but overall I would say that the army wants to see the election take place as smoothly as possible,” Kean told Al Jazeera.

Kean argued that if the army chief, General Waker-uz-Zaman, and the military “had wanted to take power, they could have done so when the political order collapsed on August 5”, the day Hasina fled to India amid a popular student-led revolt. But the military chose not to, he said, in part because it had learned from the fallout of past experiments with its direct political control.

Asif Shahan, a political analyst and professor at Dhaka University, said the military was aware that a takeover would have also jeopardised key interests, including Bangladesh’s United Nations peacekeeping deployments, which carry both financial benefits and reputational weight for the armed forces. Bangladesh has for decades been one of the biggest suppliers to UN peacekeeping missions, and receives between $100m and $500m a year in payouts and equipment reimbursements for these services.

But Shahan argues that the military remains “an important political actor”. Today, he said, its influence is “less about overt intervention than the institutional weight it carries through the security and intelligence apparatus”.

He also pointed to what he called the army’s “corporate” footprint. That footprint spans involvement in major state infrastructure projects, the military’s own business conglomerate, and the presence of serving and retired officers across commercial and state bodies.

Shahan said the last Hasina government “gave them a share of the pie”, leaving “a kind of culture of corruption … ingrained”. He suggested that this could translate into informal pressure on whoever governs next to do the same, and anxieties inside the force over whether “the facilities and privileges” it has accumulated will shrink.

On the election itself, Shahan too said that the possibility of the army trying to gain overt control was “very low” unless there is such a major law and order breakdown that there is public demand for the army to step in as the “only source of stability”,

Others who track the military closely agreed. Rajib Hossain, a former army officer and author of the best-selling book Commando, said he “strongly believes” the army will avoid partisan involvement for its own sake. “The army will play a neutral role during this election,” he said. “What we’ve observed on the ground over the past year and a half, there is no record of the army acting in a partisan way.”

But, he added, pressure on the institution has been intense since 2024. “Internally, there’s an understanding that if the army fails to act neutrally, it could lose even the public credibility it still has,” he said.

Mustafa Kamal Rusho, a retired brigadier general at the Osmani Centre for Peace and Security Studies, also told Al Jazeera that the military does not have “any clear intent” to influence politics, though “it still remains a critical power base”.

That leverage was clearest during the 2024 uprising, Rusho said, when Bangladesh’s political crisis reached a point that many Bangladeshis and international watchdogs viewed the military’s posture as decisive. “If the military did not take the stand that it took, then there would have been more bloodshed,” he said.

With protests escalating, the military refused to fully enforce Hasina’s curfew orders and decided troops would not fire on civilians. It enabled Hasina to flee to India on an air force plane, and the army chief then announced an interim government would be formed.

In an Al Jazeera documentary on the uprising last year, Waker-uz-Zaman, who is related to Hasina and was appointed less than two months before her collapse, also stressed that his forces would not turn their guns on civilians. “We don’t shoot at civilians. It’s not in our culture … So we did not intervene,” he said.

In the same interview, he added: “We believe that the military should not engage in politics … It’s not our cup of tea.”

When the military ruled

That hasn’t always been the military’s position.

After the 1975 assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s founding leader and then-president, by a group of military officers, the country entered a period marked by coups, counter-coups and military rule upheavals that reshaped the state and produced political forces that still dominate elections.

One of them was the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by army general-turned-ruler Ziaur Rahman, who emerged as the country’s most powerful figure in the late 1970s before moving into civilian politics. Rahman was assassinated in 1981 in a failed coup attempt by another group of military officers. The BNP remains a key contender in the February 12 vote, now led by Rahman’s son, Tarique Rahman, who has returned to front-line politics after a long exile.

In 1982, then army chief Hussain Muhammad Ershad seized power and ruled for much of the 1980s. Writer and political historian Mohiuddin Ahmed has described Ershad’s takeover as coming only months after he publicly argued that “the army should be brought in to help run the country”.

Eventually, a pro-democracy movement led by Zia’s wife, Khaleda Zia, and Hasina, also Mujibur Rahman’s daughter, forced him from office. The BNP won a landmark election, and in 1991, Khaleda became the country’s first female prime minister.

Since then, Rusho said, the military’s influence “became more indirect”, though Bangladesh still saw an abortive May 1996 showdown when the then army chief, Lieutenant General Abu Saleh Mohammad Nasim, defied presidential orders, and troops loyal to him moved towards Dhaka. Nasim was arrested and removed from office.

A decade later, in 2007, the military in effect “fully backed” a caretaker government that was formed to replace Khaleda’s second administration, which had ruled between 2001 and 2006. That caretaker government was installed in January 2007 after a breakdown in the election process and escalating political violence. The International Crisis Group described the caretaker administration as “headed by technocrats but controlled by the military”, while then-army chief Moeen U Ahmed argued the political climate “was deteriorating very rapidly” and that the military’s intervention had “quickly ended” street violence.

It was only after 2009, when Hasina came back to power – her Awami League had first ruled between 1996 and 2001 – that the military became “subordinate to the civilian regime”, Rusho said.

Blurred lines

But even though the military today insists that it does not want power, it has often drifted into the political terrain.

A major moment arrived just weeks after Hasina’s ouster, in September 2024, when General Zaman told the Reuters news agency he would back Yunus’s interim government “come what may”, while also floating a timeline for elections within 18 months. The interview, which critics described as something unprecedented for a serving army chief, placed the military close to the country’s central political debate.

Hossain, the former army officer and author, criticised the public nature of the intervention. “If he [Zaman] had discussed this after sitting with all the stakeholders … the interim [administration], political parties, protest leaders … and then gone to the media, that would be acceptable,” he said. “But here, he declared it unilaterally and blindsided the government from his position of power. He had no authority to do that.”

“You may say this is an extraordinary, transitional time and the military has a role to play,” Hossain added. “But then, why do we have an administration at all?”

Shahan, the Dhaka University professor, said Zaman “came very close” to crossing the line and explained it as a product of military institutional culture after August 5. “Military organisations … like to follow standing operating procedures, order, stability,” he said. But August 5, he added, was “a political rupture” that forced the army and the nation into uncertainty: about the interim government’s longevity, legitimacy and how it would deal with the military.

Those anxieties, Shahan said, likely pushed Zaman to speak. In principle, he said, it is reasonable for the army chief to say elections are needed for stability. But “when he set a specific timeline – within 18 months – that is beyond his role”, Shahan said. “It then appears as if he is dictating.”

Shahan added that the problem becomes sharper when that kind of specificity appears to respond to a party demand; he was referring to a time when only the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was repeatedly pushing for a vote timetable.

Eight months later, in May 2025, Zaman again weighed in, telling a high-level military gathering, according to local media reports, that his position had not changed and that the next national vote should be held by December 2025. After that, Faiz Ahmad Taiyeb, a special adviser to Yunus, wrote on Facebook that “the army can’t meddle in politics” and argued that the military chief had failed to maintain “jurisdictional correctness” by prescribing an election deadline.

Around the same period, rumours emerged suggesting that Yunus had considered resigning amid political discord.

The shadow Hasina left

Another reason that analysts say the military’s role is being debated so intensely now is because of Bangladesh’s recent wounds.

During Hasina’s 15-year rule, human rights organisations argued Bangladesh’s security apparatus was often used for political control. Human Rights Watch has described enforced disappearances as a “hallmark” of Hasina’s rule since 2009.

When the United States sanctioned the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in 2021 over allegations of extrajudicial killings, the US Department of the Treasury said, “These incidents target opposition party members, journalists, and human rights activists.” Critics argue that security institutions became central to governance, and questions about how that machinery was used are now part of the post-Hasina political settlement.

Hossain, the former officer, said the Hasina-era legacy still echoes inside the top brass. “If you look at the leadership, the general, five lieutenant generals, and some major generals and brigadier generals, a lot of them were part of Hasina’s apparatus,” he said, “aside from a handful of professional officers”.

A report by Bangladesh’s Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances says disappearances were used as a “tool for political repression” and that the practice “reached alarming levels during key political flashpoints”, including in the run-up to elections in 2014, 2018 and 2024. The commission said it verified 1,569 cases of enforced disappearance.

In cases where political affiliation could be confirmed, the Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing accounted for about 75 percent of victims, while the BNP and its affiliated groups accounted for about 22 percent. Among those “still missing or dead”, the BNP and its allies accounted for about 68 percent, while the Jamaat and its affiliates accounted for about 22 percent, the report said.

The commission also noted that the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), the military-run intelligence agency, had been “accused of manipulating domestic politics and interfering in the 2014 parliamentary elections”, and argued that perceived alignment with the Awami League compromised its neutrality.

Several senior military officers, including 15 in service, are now facing trial in a civilian tribunal on charges of enforced disappearances, murders and custodial tortures.

The proceedings have become a delicate issue in civil-military relations, as cases against serving officers in civilian courts are rare in Bangladesh’s history.

Former army chief Iqbal Karim Bhuiyan wrote on Facebook that local media had reported disagreements over the “trial process” for officers accused of crimes against humanity and that those disagreements had created what he described as a “chasm” between the interim government and the army’s top leadership.

Hossain, the former officer, however, said he disagreed. “These trials are not defaming the army,” Hossain said. “Rather, they are a kind of redemption for the institution to recover from the stigma created by the crimes of some self-serving officers.”

He argued that accountability could motivate younger officers and reduce the risk of the military being politically exploited again. Rusho, the retired brigadier general, also argued that politicisation under Hasina was driven less by formal doctrine than by executive control over careers.

“Promotions, important postings, placements … they were influenced considerably by the executive branch,” he said. “When you influence postings, some people’s loyalty often gets diverted to political masters, [and] it affects … professionalism and capability.”

Kean of the International Crisis Group said the real test for Bangladesh now would be whether it can stop the security state from being reabsorbed into partisan politics.

“The military is going to remain a powerful institution in Bangladesh, with a level of influence in domestic politics,” he said. “One hopes that the lesson of the past 18 months is that the military is better to support civilian administrations rather than be in power directly – that it can be a stabilising force, and one that is ultimately committed to democracy and civilian leadership.”

But, he added, the onus to do that isn’t only on the generals. Civilian politicians, too, needed to resist the temptation to misuse the military. That alone, he suggested, would help Bangladesh keep the army in the barracks and politicians accountable to the people, not to men in khakis.