Instagram story viewer> @intl_pete> Posts

Peter Bbaale

@intl_pete

656

followers

947

following

🇺🇬🇷🇺🇸🇪🇬🇧

POSTS STORIES REELS TAGGED

Download All

Vad innebär egentligen hetsen mot muslimer? Börja med definitionerna, och tillämpa sedan samma måttstock konsekvent. taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

5

2

a month ago

🍕🍝🇮🇹 by @intl_pete

193

44

5 months ago

“Spelet”-legenden själv, Håkan Juholt! 🙌🏾 @juholthakan taken in Kulturhuset Stadsteatern by @intl_pete

57

7

5 months ago

One of the funniest satires I’ve seen of this Trump administration by @intl_pete

7

1

6 months ago

taken in Ko Phangang, Thailand by @intl_pete

8

1

9 months ago

PART II of a two-part series

In Part I, I argued that the rules-based international order mattered not because it was pure, but because it constrained power.

This second carousel asks a harder question:

Why did the most powerful states choose restraint in the first place? And what changes when restraint is no longer assumed?

After 1945, the United States helped shape an order that limited its own freedom of action, not out of altruism, but because stability, scale, and predictability were profitable.

A larger, more cooperative system was worth more than maximum short-term leverage over a smaller one.

When that logic reverses, others adapt: rationally, not emotionally.

This is not a call for hostility.
It is an argument for preparation.

Hope remains reasonable.
Planning is no longer pessimistic.

⸻

References
• The Economist, “The Radical Honesty of Donald Trump” and related Lexington columns
• Post-war US foreign policy debates (Arthur Vandenberg and contemporaries)
• International political economy literature on coercion vs voluntary alignment
• Analogies from ecology used explicitly as illustrative, not deterministic, tools taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

19

0

9 months ago

PART I of a two-part series

For decades, the rules-based international order was imperfect, unevenly enforced, and often hypocritical.

But it still mattered.

Not because powerful states always followed the rules, but because they felt compelled to justify themselves in relation to them.

That pretence constrained behaviour.
It created reputational, diplomatic, and economic costs for open defiance. And it gave weaker states something to appeal to other than raw power.

What we are witnessing now is not simply selective enforcement.

It is something more consequential:
a growing willingness to reject shared constraint altogether.

This first carousel explores why the rules mattered even when they were violated, and why abandoning them is not a neutral correction, but a structural shift.

📌 Part II examines what happens when the most powerful actor stops assuming restraint, and how others rationally respond.

⸻

References
• Margaret Thatcher, interview with The Jewish Chronicle, June 1981
• The Economist (Lexington), “The Radical Honesty of Donald Trump”, Jan 2026
• James O’Brien, LBC broadcasts and interviews on international law and power
• General principles of post-1945 international order and NATO doctrine taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

17

3

9 months ago

Mr & Mrs 🤍 by @intl_pete

249

46

a year ago

Today marks one month of being married to this amazing woman! ❤️ @elinmango taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

93

5

a year ago

Three weeks since this amazing day! The day we got married! 🥹 @elinmango taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

207

12

a year ago

Wedding 2025.09.05 🤵🏽‍♂️❤️👰🏻‍♀️ @elinmango taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

3k

130

a year ago

We did it! 🤵🏾‍♂️❤️👰🏻‍♀️ 2025.09.05 @elinmango taken in Stockholm, Sweden by @intl_pete

200

24

a year ago