{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/f46c16f9-de9e-4db8-9908-c02121850cde/695fa507ba540b7d778ef72d?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"The US attacks Venezuela, When the Rules Become Optional","description":"<h3><strong>Host:</strong> <strong>Roifield Brown</strong></h3><p><strong>Producer:</strong> <strong>Connor Begley</strong></p><p><strong>Guests:</strong> Mike Donahue, Mike Holden, Tony Alltrade</p><p><br></p><h3>Episode summary</h3><p>This week, Mid-Atlantic looks at what happens when the “rules-based international order” stops behaving like a system and starts behaving like a slogan. The conversation centres on the US seizure/extraction of Venezuela’s president and the eerie normalisation of an act that by the usual standards would be labelled rogue behaviour. From there, the panel widens the lens: spheres of influence, NATO’s credibility, Britain’s silence, and the uncomfortable possibility that “rogue state” is becoming a category defined by power, not principle.</p><p><br></p><h3>What we cover</h3><ul><li><strong>The “rules-based order” feels retired</strong>: how language about sovereignty and international law collapses when allies break it.</li><li><strong>Why Britain went quiet</strong>: the panel digs into the significance of Keir Starmer’s (and the UK government’s) muted response—and what that says about the “special relationship.”</li><li><strong>Foreign policy vs domestic distraction</strong>: is this about strategy (oil, BRICS, China/Russia influence), or a political smokescreen (Epstein files, domestic turmoil, midterms)?</li><li><strong>“Trump pushes until stopped”</strong>: the idea that boundary-testing is the method, not a side-effect.</li><li><strong>Greenland as the next anxiety</strong>: not just as a hypothetical, but as a test of whether NATO is a system with teeth or a club with vibes.</li><li><strong>Spheres of influence, back to the 19th century</strong>: are we sliding into a three-bloc world and if so, what replaces the pretence of universal rules?</li><li><strong>NATO: paper, system, or faith?</strong>: argument over whether annexation would shatter the alliance or merely bruise it.</li><li><strong>The “moral high ground” problem</strong>: what the West can and can’t say about Russia/Ukraine or China/Taiwan after a precedent like this.</li><li><strong>Can US institutions stop a rogue executive?</strong>: sharp disagreement on whether the military, courts, Congress, or wider civil society can meaningfully constrain Trump.</li><li><strong>Consequences if the order collapses</strong>: sanctions, trade wars, defence spending spikes, market shock, and realignment away from US leadership.</li><li><strong>A little football palate cleanser</strong>: Arsenal title optimism, Burnley survival nerves, Portsmouth loyalty, and a classic Mid-Atlantic sign-off.</li></ul><h3><br></h3><h3>Key moments &amp; quotes (highlights)</h3><ul><li><strong>Ro:</strong> “If that doesn’t count as rogue behaviour, then the term has become meaningless.”</li><li><strong>Mike Donahue:</strong> “He’ll push and push and push boundaries until someone actually stops him.”</li><li><strong>Mike Holden:</strong> “Yes, any maniac looks strong. But that doesn’t mean they’re trustworthy.”</li><li><strong>Tony:</strong> “We’re almost having to reset… we have no semblance of what is right again.”</li><li><strong>On NATO/Europe’s response:</strong> “Very strongly worded diplomatic messages… very strongly worded.”</li></ul><h3><br></h3><h3>Big questions the episode asks</h3><ul><li>What does a world look like when rules become optional?</li><li>Who gets to break the rules and who gets punished for trying?</li><li>If the old system is dead, what replaces it: blocs, spheres, or chaos?</li><li>How does the West criticise Russia or China after this precedent?</li><li>Is the real battle now internal to the US rather than international?</li></ul><h3><br></h3><h3>People &amp; accounts mentioned</h3><ul><li><strong>Mike Donahue</strong> — (social: discussed on-air)</li><li><strong>Mike Holden</strong> — <strong>@MikeHolden42</strong></li><li><strong>Tony (“Alltrade”)</strong> — <strong>@alltrade_</strong> (Twitter) / <strong>Tony on the… / alt aLT</strong> (as mentioned)</li></ul><h3><br></h3><h3>Closing beat</h3><p>The episode ends where it began: with disbelief, unease, and a running (and increasingly personal) disagreement between Ro and Donahue about whether anyone can stop Trump or whether the rest of the world is simply getting a late invitation to the chaos Americans have already been living through.</p>","author_name":"Roifield Brown"}